text:
The Unrecognized Terrorism of Police Shootings
Taken altogether, these are killings that have the impact of terrorism—this is violence against civilians that sends a message to others.
Updated Jun. 16, 2017 6:00PM ET / Published May. 07, 2017 12:15AM ET
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast
The pain is immense. And yet it's been there in our hearts for so long we've grown numb to it. But it's that chronic pain in your spirit that'll really get to you.
But how can you not be in pain when you've watched so many unarmed Black people killed at the hands of their own government? There are so many that it's impossible to keep up. This week, Jordan Edwards joined The List, and the pain is exponentially greater because he's one of hundreds in our collective mind. The List I'm speaking of is both personal and universal—there are names that are on everyone's list, like Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and Oscar Grant, as well as names that are on my list that may not be on yours.
I can't forget about Aiyana Stanley-Jones, the seven-year-old girl killed as she slept in her home by police raiding the wrong house. Her story haunts me. I'm sure there are names on your list that aren't on mine, maybe one that happened in your area that didn't go national. But the fact that there is The List, a macabre roll call of unforgettable, avoidable deaths—that is unconscionable.
And deeply painful. Because taken altogether, these are killings that have the impact of terrorism—this is violence against civilians that sends a message to others. The message is the Black body means little in this society.
The List is so long that the stories come at you in droves, causing cognitive overload that makes it harder to process it all. This week we got one new story and two updates on older ones.
Jordan Edwards—a cherubic 15-year-old boy with a 3.5 GPA and a spot on the varsity football team—was neither suspected of a crime nor armed when Officer Roy Oliver shot into a moving car—against police procedure—and killed Edwards. Edwards was a good kid, but it didn't matter. The penalty of Blackness outshone his character.
Meanwhile, the conclusion of the Alton Sterling story arrived almost a year after his death—the Department of Justice won't bring charges against the officers who killed Sterling. The effect of so many officers being exonerated for killing so many Black people sends the message that the system accepts this. Blacks are expendable.
It's telling that the Department of Justice announced this decision the same week that they chose to prosecute Code Pink activist Desiree Fairooz for laughing at Attorney General Jeff Sessions during his confirmation hearing.
Fairooz laughed when Senator Richard Shelby claimed that Sessions' history of "treating all Americans equally under the law is clear and well-documented." (That is funny.) Federal prosecutors are moving forward with charges against Fairooz because, they say, her laugh was "extraordinarily disruptive" to congressional proceedings. Seems like the Sessions DOJ is prizing the dignity of elite white men over the lives of Black men.
I can't help but feel abandoned by my government. Is it only in extreme situations—like when an officer shoots a Black man in the back while he's fleeing and it's caught on video—that officers will be held accountable? That's what former Officer Michael Slager did to the late Walter Scott. Slater plead guilty this week to using excessive force.
There is not an epidemic of policing violence against Black people—this is normal. This all goes back generations. The List lives in the minds of our parents and grandparents. The big difference is the modern list is televised and viral.
We all watched the last agonizing moments of the life of Eric Garner and Laquan MacDonald and Walter Scott and and Tamir Rice and Philando Castile and more. We have all these horrific little Vines playing in our heads. Short snuff films where Black men are killed. We're carrying the weight of them. It's heavy and it's painful and we don't even know the impact of millions of people walking around with so many visions of Black death in their minds.
What is that doing to our psyches? We are in pain. A deep, spiritual pain. And to heal it, to bring about real justice is not about body cameras, consent decrees or community policing. We need those things but we need much more. We need a radical restructuring of how the Black body is perceived in America. Without that, The List will continue to grow.


What are the benefits of owning a SVN® franchise?
When considering the option of franchising, the first question that often comes to mind is, "What's in it for me?" Put simply, franchising provides independent commercial real estate brokerage owners the opportunity to own and run your own business. Franchising with SVN® will provide you with enterprise marketing services, expert training, recruiting assistance, and the opportunity to compete at a national level. The result? Tremendous growth opportunities for your business.
Download the SVN Value Proposition to learn about the SVN® Difference and the tools, materials and systems we offer that are necessary for you to create and manage a successful commercial real estate brokerage.


By Zack Kirby, Chattanooga, Tenn. — Sophomore GerVaughn McGhee, simply known as "Gee," started all 32 games last year at shooting guard for the Mocs basketball team with a résumé that includes a 2013 Southern Conference All-Freshman team award.
Sophomore Gee McGhee, Baton Rouge, La., has been a vital asset for the Mocs this season.
that list, which left fans in McKenzie roaring after he hit a 70-foot shot before halftime against Elon Jan. 23.
But along with shooting basketballs, he must also shoot for the grades, because his daily life involves balancing schoolwork with training, travel, interviews and games.
The 6-foot-5 guard is a native of Baton Rouge, La. Once he stepped on campus last year, being eight hours from home and a new team were not the only things that he had to get used to.
When first-year UTC head basketball coach Will Wade arrived, McGhee was one of the first players he reached out to.
Though his off days are limited, McGhee enjoys adding to his collection of basketball shoes, and spending time with his friends back home.


Малоизвестный сетевой писатель. Пишу около 5 лет. Имеется пара-тройка публикаций. Вот и все, пожалуй.
A runaway dreamer tries to evade justice in the country when dreaming is prohibited, but dreamhunters catch up with him.
For my whole life I had to hide in the dark so the shade of similarity could obscure my unlikeliness. In sleepless world, the dreams are as horrific as a butcher shop in a vegetarian country, but sometimes even a capital letter, concealed amongst all these others, fancies himself an invisible one just because it is printed in black.


text:
Roffey crowned Premier Division champions by winning top-of-the-table clash at Eastbourne
Roffey Cricket Club celebrate winning their last Premier Division title back in 2016
Ollie Berry
Roffey are champions once again - they have clinched the Sussex League Premier Division title.
The Boars saw off their closest rivals Eastbourne at the Saffrons today to take an unassailable lead in the division with one game still to play.
It is the fourth time in five years that Roffey have been crowned champions, having missed out to East Grinstead last season.
The aim this year was to reclaim the crown and they have done that today with a 116-run victory.
Going into the match they needed victory with an 18-point swing to ensure that Eastbourne, who have been hot on their heels all season could not catch them on the final weekend.
Roffey posted 321-5 after winning the toss and Jibran Khan scored 116 and Paul Harrison and captain Matt Davies scored half centuries. They then bowled their hosts out for 205 with Rohit Jagota claiming 4-30 in the attack.
The win gave Roffey a maximum 30 points with Eastbourne picking up just eight, leaving them 35 points behind with one game left to play.
Celebrations will indeed be muted as the champions are traveling down to Plymouth this evening ahead of their ECB National Vitality Club T20 clash tomorrow.
They will have another significant drive in the morning to take on Penzance in the quarter-final of the competition.
Davies side have already reached the final of the Sussex T20 Cup and last four of the ECB National Club Championship.
Fears of six hour gridlock at Tesco Broadbridge Heath

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


We will provide you with opportunities to 'unsubscribe' and to correct or update your personal information and described these opportunities below, but you are responsible for ensuring the information you provide to us and that we maintain is complete, accurate and up to date. We cannot and will not be liable to you or any other party if, for any reason, you do not provide us with complete, accurate and current information or you fail to update such information in a timely manner.
When making a reservation or using forms on the website it is necessary to have information in order to identify you, contact you and to process your purchase and requests. This usually includes your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, credit card number and expiration date, and language preference. It may also include, if you choose to share that information with us, your preferences regarding services we may offer, such as type of room, type of bed, and the like. From time to time, we also offer special discounts offers (for example, to seniors or for children) and we may require birth dates or other qualifying information to assess your eligibility and process your reservation or participation correctly. If you elect to participate or take advantage of a promotion, package or other service that involves third parties, your personal information will be shared with that third party to the extent necessary to participate, enrol or otherwise provide you with the service and process your purchase or request.
To establish, maintain and honour our relationship with you and to provide you with our services and those of our third party suppliers and promotional partners.
To understand and better attempt to fulfil your needs and preferences in providing services from us.
Personal information may be shared with a person who, in the reasonable judgment of the hotel, is acting on your behalf of or as your agent - for example, a travel agent, secretary or corporate travel department, making a reservation for you.
You may also withdraw your consent with respect to the use of your personal information for marketing purposes at any time, subject to legal or contractual restrictions and reasonable notice, when you access or visit our website or by separately e-mailing us utilizing the contact information provided on this site using "Unsubscribe" as the subject line, and providing us sufficient personal identifiers so we can act effectively on your request.


text:
Space Force Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. "Jay" Raymond (left) takes part in a virtual fireside chat with Hayden Planetarium director and renowned physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (right) during the Air Force Association's virtual Aerospace Warfare Symposium on Feb. 25, 2021. AFA video screenshot.
Watch, Read: Raymond and deGrasse Tyson Talk Space
At the Air Force Association's virtual Aerospace Warfare Symposium on Feb. 25, Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. "Jay" Raymond laid out in plain language the serious threats facing U.S. and allied space capabilities. In a spirited discussion with renowned author and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the space Chief and the Scientist shared their common view of the value, opportunities, and vulnerabilities of space in the modern context.
Watch the segment or read the transcript below.
Chief of Space Operations Gen. John W. "Jay" Raymond: "Hey, Dr. Tyson, Jay Raymond. How are you, sir?"
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Yeah, excellent. Sir, it's great, it's great, it's great to see you."
Raymond: "It's great to see you as well, and I just want to, first of all, say thanks to the Air Force Association for providing us this venue, and more importantly I'd like to say thanks to you for agreeing to participate with me. I've had an opportunity to chat with you in person in your office, you are masterful at bringing very complex topics down so the average person like me can understand it and I couldn't ask for better teammates here, so thanks for…"
Tyson: "Yeah, yeah, you're an average person. Yeah, sure (laughing). Yeah, so I was, what I wanted to do was, if I could just sort of open up with some perspectives that I carry as a scientist, but also in a way, as sort of an emissary of the public, right? Because we just sort of watching, and rose up out of the, you know, from the firmament came the Space Force, at least that's how people think of it, and I wanted to make sure that people understood. I think most in this audience know what I'm about to say, but if this gets posted online, it'd be nice to just sort of put it out there that many people's first thought was that if the government creates a Space Force, then that's a first step in the militarization of space. And all I can think of is the movies where there are sort of laser weapons and this sort of thing. And I've tried to remind people, or alert them, perhaps for the first time, that ever since Sputnik, space has been recognized as a strategic asset, or rather a strategic location. And so for the past 60 years, space has been the place for reconnaissance satellites, and, and navigation and, and so, so it's not a new thing. It's actually an old thing that is finally getting recognized in the way it needs to be, in terms of, within the, sort of the umbrella of national security. And I also try to remind people that, you know, often when people think of warfare and they think of space, they think of weapons and soldiers and armies and fighting, and, and they're defending us, and I think to myself, well, it's more than that. Of course, all right, wherever you have assets that you value, you will want to protect those assets, and who are you going to call, right? And if they're national assets, you're going to call a national, a national group to defend that, and that would be the Department of Defense. So, what do we have in space? We have satellites, of course, that monitor weather, climate, of course those are different: Your weather is what happens today and your climate are the trends over time. We have satellites that currently monitor, agriculture, checking rain. The, the humidification of regions and how that's changing. We've got communication satellites, and of course, we have navigation satellites, among others. And when I think of communication satellites, you know, it's not just, am I getting my live news broadcast from Europe? No. There's like, Uber uses satellites, OK? So the value of our space assets is not just the cost of the design and launch of that one satellite, it's the commerce it enables, which is rising through trillions of dollars of our commerce, and our economic stability. So, I can say to myself, OK, I don't want anything bad to happen to that. And no matter where I am on the, sort of the peace-war spectrum, I don't want anything bad to happen to that. And so, so at some point, we've got to turn to you, sir. And I'm going to ask you, do you foresee threats to our space assets? And because the total value is, is what I described, the total, meaning that it has to us in our way of life. So, do you foresee threats, and if you do, on what timescale, and are you equipping yourself to handle that? So I want to put that in your lap."
Raymond: "First of all, I couldn't agree more with, with your opening remarks. The United States has long known, long recognized that access to and freedom to maneuver in space is a vital national interest, as you said. It underpins our national security, it underpins our intelligence efforts, it underpins our treaty verification, it underpins our economy. And as you mentioned, there's a growing, significantly growing economy in space between here and the lunar surface, estimates of over a trillion, trillion dollars over the next handful of years. It under, it underpins every instrument of national power, and we've long recognized that. The challenge is that the access to space and freedom to maneuver in space can no longer be treated as a given. It, it, we have to be able to protect, because there are threats that exist today. And if you look at it, China, which is the pacing threat, and Russia, and others, but primarily China and Russia, are doing two things that are concerning. First of all, they're developing their own space capabilities to have the same advantage that we currently enjoy by integrating those capabilities into our, our way of war and our way of life. The other thing that's very concerning is that they're developing a spectrum of threats to negate our access to space, and they keep our nation, our allied partners, and, from being able to achieve those benefits. Let me put a little sharper point on that. Today—so this isn't a future thing, this is today—there are robust sets of jammers that can jam both communication satellites and our GPS satellites, our navigation and timing satellites, if you will. Both China and Russia have directed energy weapons today. They have multiple systems that can, think lasers, that can blind or damage our satellite systems. Both China and Russia have missiles that they can launch from the ground and kinetically, kinetically destroy satellites in low Earth orbit in a matter of minutes. We saw that in 2007, very visibly, when China shot down one of their own satellites. Russia has a system called Nudol. It's a similar system. It is designed to destroy satellites in low Earth orbit, as you said, where we have some pretty important capabilities. And both are developing capabilities on orbit that are concerning. I talked very publicly this year for the first time, about a Russian anti-satellite system. I referred to it as kind of like a nesting doll, where there's a doll inside of a doll, inside of a doll. We've all seen those. Well, Russia launched a satellite right up next to one of our satellites, opened up, if you will, and released another satellite. We saw this before, this behavior before, a few years back. And that second satellite has the capability of releasing a projectile, and we know it is designed to kinetically, to kinetically destroy U.S. satellites in low Earth orbit. China, today, on orbit, has a satellite that has a robotic arm. That robotic arm can be used in the future to grapple, grab a satellite, if you will. And then there's also cyber threats that we're concerned about. So that threat spectrum exists today. It is very broad. It is robust that both China and Russia are continuing to develop those threats, and it's something that we have to protect against today, and that's why the establishment of the United States Space Force is so important. We are purpose-built to stay ahead of that growing threat."
Tyson: "Yeah. How do you handle inquiries that sort of feel like the, the dandruff problem, and that's the only way I can think about it in simple terms, where as you go up to someone after you learn they're using a dandruff shampoo, and you say, you say to them, 'Why are you using it? Why are you using a dandruff shampoo?' You don't have to answer it. They don't have dandruff because they're wearing, they're using the dandruff shampoo. So I've got people saying, you know the world is basically at peace among superpowers, so, so why… will people take for granted that things are at peace, not knowing and not realizing that you're there on the frontlines, maintaining that peace and our access to space. So how do you, how do you, how do you address that? Because they might say, 'The budget is huge, it doesn't have to be that big. We don't need it.' And, well, yeah, yeah, and do you need your dandruff shampoo, either, you know, I'll take it away and watch how fast the dandruff comes back. So, yeah, how do you, how do you jump into that conversation?"
Raymond: "Yeah, well first of all, I'm lucky that I don't have a dandruff problem, so I've got that going for me. (Tyson laughing). So thanks for bringing that up there, Dr. Tyson. Let me just say, it's kind of like deterrence. Our, our primary mission is to deter conflict from beginning or extending into space. We don't want to get into this fight, and if we can deter conflict from beginning or extending into space, we think we can deter conflict from spilling over into other domains. And so we want to do that from a position of strength. We cannot afford, you talked about the cost of space. If you look at the overall Department of Defense budget, the cost of space—although every taxpayer dollar is precious and every taxpayer dollar has to be spent wisely—the cost of space is a very, very small portion of the Defense Department budget. And oh, by the way, space is a huge force multiplier. Space enables us to do things with, that the other services can do with smaller force structures because they have integrated space to their advantage. We cannot afford, as a nation, to lose space. That's why the space force is so important. We're not going to lose space. We're the best in the world of space, and we are running fast, the Guardians are running fast, to be able to stay ahead of that threat to determine from a position of strength and make sure that we don't have dandruff."
Tyson: "So, you comment that we are leaders, OK, that makes a good soundbite. But just moments ago you said that you're noticing these capabilities, in particular, Russia and China and perhaps latter-day participants in space will, will also be so capable, and now we are responding to threats. So if we're responding to threats, that means the threat pre-dated our capability. And I bring this up only because when we reflect on our history, exploring space, let's go back to our golden age of space exploration, the Apollo era. We, as Americans, we reflect on that as, well, we're explorers, we're leaders, we're Americans. 'Mericans. And, but if you really unpack what unfolded over that time, the Russians, the Soviet Union, beat us at practically every metric that mattered at the time. You know, the first satellite, the first non-human, animal, the first human, the first space station, the first person of color—a Cuban person, of course in the, in the, in the communist bloc. The first docking for, you know, there's so many things that they beat us at. And my read of that era is we were good at responding, because we were coordinated, we were not so tribalized, for example, as we are today. We said, oh my gosh, this is important. Let's do this. And then we responded to each one of those threats, ultimately leapfrogging where the Russians left off. And we landed on the moon, and then we said, 'OK, we win,' but in fact, that's not how that arc went. So, what assurances do we have that we're going to stay out front, rather than sort of dragging behind, saying, 'Oh we've got to do that, or let's do that because they're doing it."
Raymond: "Yeah, so there's, there's no assurances. That's why, that's why this is, this business is so important. It is too critical to our nation to not be the leaders. And so, I would agree with you. I'd push back a little bit. We have been the leaders in space. We are the leaders in space. The end of the Soviet Union, we clearly have had, we've got the best capabilities, we've integrated those capabilities to great effect. GPS is the gold standard, for example, across the world. I mean, we have the best capabilities, and there's no doubt about that. That threat has recently reemerged, if you will, over the last, you know, we saw in 2007 the visible detonation of a satellite, by the, by the Chinese, or destruction of a satellite from a missile launched on the ground. So now, although we have the world's best capabilities, we now have a new mission area. And that's that you can't just launch a satellite, build a satellite, an exquisite satellite, launch it and assume that it's going to be there forever. You have to be able to protect and defend it. That's the new mission area. That's why the United States made the decision to both stand up both the U.S. Space Command, the operational arm, the warfighting arm, and the Space Force, which is the, the organize, train, and equip arm. Where I think we lead, I think commercial industry, and you talked about this in your opening comments that, you know, the, the economic advantage that is provided from space. Our, our commercial industry is the best in the world. You look at what's going on across commercial space, the U.S. is leading in that, in that business in almost every in almost every metric. If you look at our partnerships, the value of partnerships today is way greater than it was in the past. You didn't need partnerships in the past, and our partnerships that we have with our closest allies are second to none in delivering advantage. And then I would suggest to you that, our people. We have incredible people in the Space Force, we have handpicked, handpicked every single person that came into this force. And if you look at what we've brought into the force, what we brought in are space operators, engineers, acquisition, intelligence, cyber and software coders. That's it. It's, every single person that was handpicked to come in this service has a role in deterring conflict from beginning or extending into space, and to win if, God forbid, if deterrence were to fail. Those people are spectacular. And in the Space Force, we took an opportunity to develop, because we're starting with clean sheet of paper, we took an opportunity to develop a human capital strategy built for the 21st century, where we can bring in the talent of America, diverse talent, we can develop those folks, retain those folks, and, again, do that purpose-built for the domain in which they operate."
Tyson: "Yeah. You make a really excellent point there that I want to sort of further develop here. So what you're saying, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what you're saying is that, as we move forward, our security will be measured not solely by how many missiles are packed in the silo, but how many scientists and engineers and coders you packed in, in the programming room. And so this is a change of the face of modern warfare, if you will. And if that's the case, because I happen to know that scientists are cheaper than missiles. So if that's the case, how do we continue to move forward with by far the hugest military budget in the world, that of the United States? How much of that is sort of legacy of how wars used to be fought, you know, let's bring in the battleships, and bring in the marching armies, and if that's not who's threatening us today, what, what is going to happen to that budget as we go forward, or what's your vision of that 10 years out, 100 years out?"
Raymond: "So first of all, if you look at the National Security Strategy and the national defense strategy, it outlines a very complex strategic environment, an environment that has global challenges, multidomain challenges. And, and, and challenges that move very, very fast, at great speeds and across great distances. When we decided to establish the Space Force, it was not just space for space sake. This was about our national security. It's a national security imperative, and this is about making sure, as I've mentioned before, that we can stay ahead of that threat. I mentioned briefly earlier that, again, every taxpayer dollar is precious. Let me, let me give you a story to bring this to life a little bit. Back in World War II, the Air Force had 1,000 bombers to go with nine weapons, nine bombs on each bombers, so 9,000 bombs going after one ball bearing factory. And on a good day, about 100 of those bombs would strike close, somewhere close to the target. Look at where we are today. You can take off a bomber, with multiple weapons, and hit multiple targets all very, very precisely, and the way you do that is you integrate multidomain capabilities into that bomber—space and cyber. Again, that's that, that advantage that that integration provides. So, if we lost space, do we have 1,000 bombers in our Air Force today? We don't. So that's why I said we can't afford to lose space, and we're not going to lose space. It's too important to us. And most importantly, again, if we can assure our access to space, a vital national interest, then we are, feel that we can deter conflict from spilling over into the other domains, which we desperately don't want."
Tyson: "Thanks for that ball bearing example. That's, I think, one to be repeated when that topic comes up. When I think of space, also, there's a lot of sentiment in the public. These are people who don't really do their homework, but just react to a news headline. The idea that, 'Oh my gosh, now the military is going to weaponize space,' and I tell people, there was a U.S. Space Command that was living within the Air Force. And so this, at least for the moment, was a horizontal shift, almost budget neutral. And just confirm if this is correct, a budget neutral shift, so that the Space Force can be thought of with its own priorities as we move forward. And it seems to me that greatly resembles what happened just after the Second World War, where the Air Force itself was a sort of a wholly contained sub branch of the Army, the U.S. Army Air Force, and then the Air Force sort of slid over to the side. And it was kind of obvious, you know, command and control was different, the training of the soldiers was different. And so no one questions that move today, looking back on it. And so I bring that to the face of people who were saying, 'Why do we need an Air Force?" But would you agree with what I just said there."
Raymond: "So first of all, I would say right off the bat, space is a warfighting domain just like air, land, and sea. And so an, example years ago, you know, we, we are a maritime country. And commerce and trade flow sailed over the oceans, if you will, and we had a Navy to be able to protect that ability to do that. The Army operates, best Army in the world, operates on the ground, on the land domain. We have an Air Force that operates in the air domain. And, as it has clearly been recognized that space is a warfighting domain, we now have a service that is focused on protecting and defending that domain, and all the benefits that we talked about upfront about that. We did have a service, we did. The Air Force was responsible for the vast majority of the space mission, although the Army has space capabilities and as the Navy, and there's Marine capabilities as well, but the Air Force was largely, had the largest portion of that. And what the United States decided to do was to act on an opportunity, to not wait until we were playing catch-up, like your question from before. This was, 'Let's take the opportunity while we're still ahead, while we're still the best in the world at space, and focus this new service, to be able to move at speed. To stay ahead of that growing threat, and not respond to it. So what we've seen by elevating space to an independent service, that was largely resource neutral, there is no additional manpower associated here, this was all came out of hide, and the dollars spent to establish the Space Force were just a few 10s of millions of dollars. This isn't, we're not talking huge, huge budgets here this was largely taking dollars that existed and shifting it into, into this independent service. What it has allowed us to do, though, as you elevate that, it elevates the chief of the service as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it elevates our, our voice in requirements. It elevates our ability to compete for dollars to get resources for those capabilities that are so vital to our nation. It elevates our ability to develop our own people, and to attract and retain, assess, recruit, and retain those people. So on all metrics, we have seen just in this first year, significant increase and significant goodness by having this, this new service."
Tyson: "I have more of a subtle question that just occurred to me in this moment. So, if you, you mentioned earlier how important our commercial space has been to what we are as a nation, and, and we lead the world. SpaceX most visible among them in leading this effort. And let me go back to the Second World War, where, OK, the Army needed Jeeps. OK, so they knock on Chrysler's door and they say, 'Can you turn this assembly line on,' I'm simplifying here, of course, 'and roll Jeeps off.' OK, yes. And so that, there goes the contract, out come the Jeeps, and, and the military did not have to make their own automobile factory to do that. OK, so there are efficiencies that came about because of it. As we go forward, I will presume that that's the kind of relationship the military would want to have with our, with our, the business base of our space assets here in the United States. But to the extent that businesses have become multinational, then it's no longer sort of our own, our own assets is it? It's sort of, it has consequences globally. So I'm just wondering, what does that look like going forward, if you want to reach for a company that that happens to also do business in China or, and or in Russia, and now they're going to do some work for the military?"
Raymond: "So it's a great, great question, and one that we've put a lot of thought on, and one that I think offers us a lot of opportunity. The first year of, of the argument, we've been, the Space Force was established 14 months ago, so we're 14 months old, and when the initial planning was taking place, what we thought we were going to do was spend about 18 months planning for this Space Force, and then we're going to stand it up. So if that was the case, I'd be sitting here today with you and I would say, you know in about three or four months, we're going to, we're going to actually start doing something. Well, we actually started 14 months ago we built an entire service in that period of time. And we, we've moved at speed. This second year is all about integration, and integrating this force. It's driving the car that we built. And as we drive that car, the key pieces of driving that car is integration, and integration with commercial industry, integration with the interagency, and integration with our allied partners. And we think there's huge opportunities in all cases. If you look at historically what has been commercially viable in space, it was commercial launch and large communication satellites. The barriers to entry to space and an increase in technology that allows smaller satellites to be more operationally relevant has now said that almost every mission that we do in space has a commercially viable path. And so, we want to build a very fused connection with commercial industry. We're a small service, and we think we can do that, and with the, this is a terrible word to use in the commercial space business, but the explosion of commercial space things that are occurring, as you highlighted, provides us a great opportunity. The other big piece of this is that we have an opportunity with our allied partners. And so, in this first year of standing up an independent Space Force, we've also set up some partnership offices. And we have inked [a memorandum of understanding], for example, with Japan, to put a hosted payload on Japanese satellites, to provide capability at a reduced cost and increase the speed of when we can launch it. We did the same thing with Norway. We put, we're going to put two communication payloads on two Norwegian satellites. It saved us over $900 million, just shy of a billion dollars, and will get us onto orbit sooner. And so as we design this force, and that's one of the critical things that an independent service does. It, it designs its force structure. As we design that force, we want to design it in a way that capitalizes on this new business model that has emerged, that that produces satellites off of a production line, rather than the one-off, handmade wooden shoe that takes years and years and years to build. And we want to build this coalition-friendly from the beginning, to allow our international partners to invest, and we think that partnership is key to deterrence and key to our strength."
Tyson: "Is there any thought given, I'm sure there is, but what kind of thought is given, to the 1967 Space Treaty. I read that treaty carefully. It's very sort of Kumbaya, you know, it's space will be a peaceful place. And when I first read it, I was, yeah, yeah, that's how it should be, that's the future. And then as I got older and a little more cynical, I thought to myself, you know, people can't get along on Earth's surface. What possible confidence do you have that just by going into space, everyone is going to be friends? And so I, I was saddened that I came to that realization, but that's, you know, given the tribalism we've seen, especially in recent years, I don't really believe that space can be thought of as a peaceful domain until that's demonstrated to happen here on Earth's surface. My point then to you is, I do remember there was one cause, or one phrase, that allowed the peaceful use of outer space to include the capacity to defend your assets. So, is anything the Space Force doing today in violation of the Space Treaty, or is there a new space treaty that's going to be necessary for the 21st century? How much, what kind of thinking is, is, along those lines? I think of it almost like the Geneva Convention, as an attempt to guide the, the principles and engagements of war."
Raymond: "So today, Dr. Tyson, space is the wild, wild West. There really is no rules. The Outer Space Treaty that you mentioned basically says you can't put a nuclear weapon in space, or weapons of mass destruction in the domain, and you can't build military bases on planets, and that's about it. Beyond, besides that it's the wild, wild West. I get asked a lot, I frequently get asked, you know, what, as you are establishing this service, what capabilities do you want your successors to have? And my first answer to that, besides capabilities, is I would like my successors to have some rules of the road, on how you operate in space. It is not safe and professional for Russia to put a, a threatening satellite in close proximity to a U.S. satellite. That's not responsible, safe, professional behavior. And so, we're working with our partners to develop these norms of behavior. We've been exercising this, we've been wargaming it. We've made some really good strides, and we operate to demonstrate that good behavior. We operate in a way that demonstrates that we're not violating any treaty. In fact, we're the most transparent and voluntary service in the world in space, we share data broadly, we warn China that they're about to hit a piece of debris that they created when they blew up their satellite in 2007. We want to keep that domain safe for all. And so I really believe there's an opportunity here to, to develop some norms of behavior. Now I'm not naive to think, as you've stated in the question, that those norms of behavior are going to, you know, solve all the, all the ills that might occur in that domain. But I do think it will help us identify those that are running the red lights as we drive this car. And I'm hopeful to, I'm hopeful to be able to, working with our allies and partners to develop some norms of behavior that we operate with today, and will continue to operate with tomorrow."
Tyson: "Sir, you need the trust but verify, you need red light cameras up there, and if anyone runs the red light, you've got them, and you know exactly where they're coming from and where they're going. I want to highlight something just, again, I think anyone listening live to this wouldn't need this exposition, but I think some others might. You mentioned directed energy weapons versus kinetic weapons, and directed energy, I can actually characterize all of the history of warfare in one sentence. OK, it's: I have energy over here, and I want to put it over there. That is the decision any warfighter makes, for every, practically every decision, for every action they take. From, from a bow and arrow, I have energy here in, you know, cocked into the string, it goes to the arrow, the arrow takes the energy to a target. Same for a bullet. Same for a missile, same for any of this. So, in a directed energy weapon, you'd have a laser or some other electromagnetic pulse, it sends energy from one point to another, and a kinetic kill, a kinetic impact is, the object, your weapon is moving so fast it does not need an explosive in order to do damage to its target, because the kinetic energy is sufficiently high to do whatever it needs to do on impact. So just as a, that's my preamble to my question to you. It seems to me that a directed energy weapon keeps the satellite intact, you just sort of disabling a circuit board or something, or jamming it, whereas a kinetic weapon makes a big mess in space, and I'm thinking to myself, it makes a big mess, that would take us out, but it would also take out any adversary, because you're not controlling where all these little bits and pieces are going. And so, all I can think of is in the First World War, when someone says, I have an idea, let's use chemical gas weapons. Yeah, what an idea. So then they spray it onto the field, and then the wind direction changes and it comes right back at you, and then it becomes, OK, let's rethink that one. So, so, I don't know, I guess this isn't the question, I'm just sort of putting it in your lap: Why does anyone want to completely destroy a satellite if it if it contaminates the sandbox for everybody?"
Raymond: "It's irresponsible behavior. We don't want that to happen, and that shouldn't happen. If you look at the 3,000 pieces of debris that was caused back in 2007, we're still tracking that. It's in low Earth orbit. It's in, it's in the orbit that the International Space Station is in. And so we work very hard each and every day, we act as the space traffic control for the world. We track 27,000 objects in space today. There's probably about a half a million that we can't track because they're too small. Of that 27,000 objects, about, just shy of 4,000 now are active satellites. And if you think about it, when I last talked to you on "Star Talk" just a couple years ago, the number of satellites were 1,500. And if you look at where this is going with, with proliferation of low Earth orbit satellites, you know, you've got the company you mentioned, SpaceX, with the, with their proliferated LEO constellation has over 1,000 satellites on orbit now, and that's, that's just been launched this year. So if you look at the numbers that are happening, that are being launched, it's getting more congested, and the trends are going up significantly, because there's other companies, as you mentioned as well. So we are all about keeping that domain safe, we do not want, again, to get into a conflict that begins or extends in the space and, and we would encourage responsible and safe behavior in the domain, just like we do in the air domain and on the sea."
Tyson: "Yeah, I've got to emphasize something you just said, all right, you just said, that, you gave a number of stuff you're tracking in space, and some small fraction of that number were active satellites, which means most things you're tracking is junk, junk in space. And I joked that, you know, the reason why we haven't been visited by aliens is because they saw the junk that's in orbit around the Earth, they said we're not going to land there, they're going somewhere else. So, let me just ask then, if I were to, sort of, put on your portfolio, things that it'd be nice if the Space Force made a priority, it might be to sort of clean up space. I know you don't want to be thought of as sort of the sanitation workers of space, but if the space domain is something we all care about, then, inventing some innovative way to get the debris out of space could be something very useful for the future. And I want to add to that. What about asteroid defense? So I hear you've been protecting the whole world, not just the United States, and that'd be the noblest thing you could possibly do, in my biased humble opinion."
Raymond: "I would agree. We want to keep the domain safe and limit debris. And I think if you and I could figure out a way to clean up all that debris that's moving so fast and over those vast distances, let me know, and I'll invest with you, because we'll be well off."
Tyson: "I'll get to work on it now."
Raymond: "What we are doing, and one way to solve the debris problem is not to create to bring in the first place. So, you know, warning people about potential conjunctions, having better engineering standards, so satellites don't break apart at the end of life, having better launch standards so when you launch rockets into space, you don't also litter the domain with debris, and so we're working a lot with that. We also signed [a memorandum of understanding] on the asteroid work, we've signed an MOU with NASA to share information more broadly. That largely falls in their, in their mission set, but I do think there's partnership opportunities and we're working on that. I know we're getting really close on time, and if you would allow me to turn the table, I want to ask you a question if you could."
Tyson: "Oh, I'm sorry, I hogged all the time. It's not every day I'm, in, you know, hanging out with you, so, OK, bring it on."
Raymond: "So here's the question for you: When I was up in New York with you in your studio for "Star Talk," you are masterful at bringing the very complex down to easily understandable ideas. One of the challenges that we face in space is that, we have a saying, that a satellite doesn't have a mother. You can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't feel it, you know, it's hard to have that connection, but that connection is really real. How would, how would you suggest that we communicate this thing that's not tangible better to the American people so they understand just how reliant they are, and just how vulnerable those capabilities are, if we don't protect and defend?"
Tyson: "OK, here's what you do: You get "Saturday Night Live" to do a skit where they systematically remove things from a person's livelihood and life, and home life, that was enabled or empowered, or, or conceived, for our having access to space. And basically by the end, they're left in a cave, you know, sending smoke signals or something. I mean, I think it wouldn't, you don't have to be too clever in the marketing of this fact. I hate the word marketing because it implies you're, you might say something that's not true, but everything that you say would be true about what it is you can no longer do, in modern time, that we all take for granted. And so it's a matter of moving what we take for granted into something that's front and center in our lives. And by the way, the fact that we take it for granted, that's overall a positive fact, because it meant we've absorbed it into our existence, and it becomes transparent to how we live our lives. I don't have a problem with that, but if you simultaneously stand in denial of its value to you, that's, that's where the problem is. So yeah, it's your, is it an ad campaign? I don't know, I'm out there trying to do it. So maybe we need more."
Raymond: "OK, sir, I'll tell you what. I'll join you on the stage at "Saturday Night Live." You work the invite, and I'll be there with you. Sir, I can't thank you enough, it's always it's always a pleasure to chat with you, I really…"
Tyson: "Can I get to one last, I know we're running short on time, I just, who introduced us? Orville Wright introduced us? What, what? Someone named Orville Wright? OK, and so I was looking at my notes and I actually own an original letter from Orville Wright, and I'm assuming the gentleman who introduced us is not 150 years old. So if you give me a moment here to share my screen, I want to show you a letter written by Orville Wright, and here it goes. I think I'm doing this right. I'll read it to you. December 19, 1918. Orville Wright, Dayton, Ohio. And this is a letter to the president of the Aero Club, Aero Club of America, and here it goes. 'My dear Mr. Hawley, Thank you for your very nice telegram remembering the 15th anniversary of our first flight at Kitty Hawk. Although Wilbur, as well as myself, would have preferred to see the airplane developed more along peaceful lines, yet I believe that its use in this great war will give encouragement for its use in other ways.' And so let me end screen share there. So I put that up to make the following point, that I don't, I know of no force operating on the ambitions of a next generation, than people looking up into the night sky, and thinking, what is there, how can I participate in its discovery? The entire STEM spectrum, science, technology, engineering, and math is all represented there, and these are the fields that when they're stoked in an economy, will generate the entire next generation of economic value to a nation that embraces it. So for me, the Space Force can lead the way in people's ambitions to want to, to want to, to want to create a future that we all dreamt of, and somehow, has not yet arrived."
Raymond: "Yes sir. That's a great, great way to wrap it up, sir. Thank you very much. It's been an honor to serve, share this virtual fireside chat with you."
Tyson: "Thank you."
vAWS 2021
Fighting Comes Into Focus for the Space Force in 2022
Leaders of the Space Force foresee the service continuing to become more "lethal" in its third year, inventing new tactical scenarios while maturing its organizational charts and carving out roles for companies, universities, and other of the world's militaries.
SOUTHCOM Plans a Space Component to Help Fight Crime, Grow Ties in the Americas
U.S. Southern Command is planning to expand its military space engagement in the Americas to help partner nations in ways China and Russia don't, combating crime from drug trafficking to deforestation and illegal fishing while also improving space domain awareness for the region.
Space Force Launches Website Aimed at Potential Recruits, Public Education
On its second birthday, Dec. 20, the Space Force unveiled its new website aimed at recruiting the next generation of Guardians and educating the public on the new service's mission. Visitors to the website can survey details on the requirements and application process for enlisted service members, officers, and civilians.…


text:
import { shallow, mount } from "enzyme";
import HoverTrigger from "./HoverTrigger";

describe("HoverTrigger", () => {
  let minimalProps;
  let commonProps;
  beforeEach(() => {
    minimalProps = {};
    commonProps = {
      ...minimalProps,
      onEnter: sinon.spy(),
      onLeave: sinon.spy(),
    };
  });

  it("should render with minimal props without exploding", () => {
    const wrapper = shallow(<HoverTrigger {...minimalProps} />);
    expect(wrapper).to.have.length(1);
  });

  it("should add mouseleave listener and call onLeave from props when item loses hover", () => {
    const instance = mount(<HoverTrigger {...commonProps} />).instance();
    const event = new Event("mouseleave");
    sinon.spy(instance, "watchMouseLeave");
    instance.componentDidMount();
    expect(instance.watchMouseLeave).to.be.called;
    expect(commonProps.onLeave).to.not.be.called;
    instance.hoverItem.dispatchEvent(event);
    expect(commonProps.onLeave).to.be.called;
  });

  it("should call onEnter from props when item hovered", () => {
    const wrapper = mount(<HoverTrigger {...commonProps} />);
    expect(commonProps.onEnter).to.be.not.called;
    wrapper.simulate("mouseenter");
    expect(commonProps.onEnter).to.be.called;
  });
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Hundreds of holiday cream puffs delivered to Waukesha County first responders
NOW: Hundreds of holiday cream puffs delivered to Waukesha County first responders
Holiday cream puff drive-thru opens at Wisconsin State Fair Park
MILWAUKEE (CBS 58) -- First responders always appreciate a "thank you" for the work they do. But a "thank you" with cream puffs -- now we're talking!
On Friday, Dec. 10, the Wisconsin State Fair Park Foundation surprised first responders in Waukesha with about 300 holiday cream puffs. That included the fire department, police department, and the Waukesha County Sheriff's Department.
It was a nice gesture for a community that's been through so much these past few weeks.
"Certainly Waukesha County has been through so much and we just wanted to do whatever we could just to put a little smile on the faces of first responders in Waukesha County," said Anna Zeck, with the Wisconsin State Fair Park Foundation.
The special holiday cream puffs include candy cane and cocoa flavors, and you can get your hands on them too. Stop by the Holiday Cream Puff Drive-Thru happening this weekend at State Fair Park.


text:
Leah Asks, "I Know My Customer - Now, How Do I Get To The Million?"
Leah knows exactly who she wants to serve and she wants to build towards an 8-figure exit without taking away from her mission.
That mission is to serve moms like her, who she was 5 years ago, with products that make life easier and a brand that empowers parents to be their best selves.
Following this conversation with...
Patrick Asks, "I've Got So Many Ideas - Which One Should I Choose?"
Like many entrepreneurs Patrick has interests in many different areas.
He wants to make more content, have a massive physical products brand, take on coaching clients, and a bunch of other stuff!
In this call from The One Percent community, he talks with Ryan and Justus to find focus and figure out what is going to be...
Jacob Asks, "I'm At $50k/mo - How Do I Get To $500k?"
Jacob has a good problem - he's making so many sales that he keeps running out of inventory!
So Ryan decided to invest in Jacob's brand through The Capitalism Fund.
In this episode you'll hear a kick-off call where they discuss the inner workings of the brand and where Jacob is stuck in order to scale the business.


COMFORT MARKET: With béchamel sauce, Gouda cheese, and bacon, Comfort Market's mac and cheese is easily in our top three.
ROOSTER CREEK TAVERN: While Rooster Creek Tavern's mac 'n' cheese pizza is a creative twist on a traditional dish, it fell short with the heavy use of truffle oil.
BLACK SHEEP BAR AND GRILL: Sometimes your first love is the one. This proved to be the case for us and Black Sheep Bar and Grill's pub mac 'n' cheese.
INDIGO MOON: While the presentation was nice, Indigo Moon's mac and cheese with Manchego and white cheddar wasn't our favorite.
LINN'S RESTAURANT: While bacon and bell peppers were a pretty touch, the four cheese macaroni at Linn's Restaurant didn't stay hot or cohesive for too long.
PAPPY MCGREGOR'S PUB AND GRILL: Treat yo' self with the decadent lobster mac 'n' cheese from Pappy McGregor's Pub and Grill.
EUREKA! : Go for the mac 'n' cheese balls during Eureka!'s late night happy hour after a night of drinking downtown.


text:
Q: HoloEverywhere method does not override or implement a method from a supertype I am trying to use HoloEverywhere 1.3.2 with Maven build system in IntelliJ. Below is the code from my AndroidManifest.xml
<manifest xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
          package="com.xyz.holocheck"
          android:versionCode="1"
          android:versionName="1.0">
    <uses-sdk android:minSdkVersion="8"
              android:targetSdkVersion="16"/>
    <application android:label="@string/app_name"
                 android:icon="@drawable/ic_launcher"
                 android:theme="@style/Holo.Theme.Sherlock">
        <activity android:name="HoloActivity"
                  android:label="@string/app_name">
            <intent-filter>
                <action android:name="android.intent.action.MAIN"/>
                <category android:name="android.intent.category.LAUNCHER"/>
            </intent-filter>
        </activity>
    </application>
</manifest>

and the code for HoloActivity is as below
public class HoloActivity extends SActivity {
    /**
     * Called when the activity is first created.
     */
    @Override
    public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.main);
    }
}

when I compile the code I getting the below errors
C:\Users\abc\IdeaProjects\HoloCheck\target\unpack\apklibs\com.github.christopheversieux_holoeverywhere-library_apklib_1.3.1-SNAPSHOT\src\com\WazaBe\HoloEverywhere\sherlock\SActivity.java:[322,1] method does not override or implement a method from a supertype
[ERROR] C:\Users\abc\IdeaProjects\HoloCheck\target\unpack\apklibs\com.github.christopheversieux_holoeverywhere-library_apklib_1.3.1-SNAPSHOT\src\com\WazaBe\HoloEverywhere\sherlock\SExpandableListActivity.java:[323,1] method does not override or implement a method from a supertype
[ERROR] C:\Users\abc\IdeaProjects\HoloCheck\target\unpack\apklibs\com.github.christopheversieux_holoeverywhere-library_apklib_1.3.1-SNAPSHOT\src\com\WazaBe\HoloEverywhere\sherlock\SListActivity.java:[322,1] method does not override or implement a method from a supertype
[ERROR] C:\Users\abc\IdeaProjects\HoloCheck\target\unpack\apklibs\com.github.christopheversieux_holoeverywhere-library_apklib_1.3.1-SNAPSHOT\src\com\WazaBe\HoloEverywhere\sherlock\SPreferenceActivity.java:[323,1] method does not override or implement a method from a supertype

I am also using ActionbarSherlock and have added it as dependency in pom.xml.
My Question
Why I am getting error while compiling the code?

A: It means there is no onCreate() method in SActivity class. Please check it.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Advocacy>
Leveraging Public Sector Procurement Policies to Expand Opportunities for Women in Engineering
Post category:Advocacy
In late 2021, OSPE was awarded funding from Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE) to explore the potential to use public procurement policy to advance diversity goals in the procurement of engineering services, and to support increased career opportunities for women in consulting engineering and in the engineering profession in general.
Two reports have recently been published:
Using Procurement Policy to Advance Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: Literature Review and Environmental Scan
Jurisdictional Scan of Social Procurement Provisions in Public Procurement Policies
The purpose of the literature review is to summarize the current state of thinking about the use of procurement policy to support equity, diversity, and inclusion goals. The particular focus of the review is on the potential for using public procurement of engineering services to support increased opportunities for women in engineering careers.
The review suggests four areas where additional insight will be valuable:
A better understanding of what leading engineering firms are already doing in the areas of equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Additional insight into the types of third-party certifications that public sector organizations value in their procurement processes.
Insight from experienced procurement experts on how equity, diversity, and inclusion criteria can be incorporated into the different types of procurement processes that are used to hire professional services providers and engineering service providers.
Advice from Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) experts on how equity, diversity, and inclusion goals can be integrated into QBS.
The purpose of the jurisdictional scan is to compile information on social procurement provisions by public sector organizations. The scan covers 40 jurisdictions in Canada, the Untied States, Australia, and the U.K. The scan also supports certain conclusions on how these policies apply, or do not apply, to supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion in the procurement of professional services, especially engineering services.
The results of the jurisdiction scan suggest several questions that need to be explored with stakeholders, procurement specialists, and experts. These include:
What are the current best practices in the consulting engineering sector and how could procurement policy support the broader adoption of these best practices?
In promoting increased career opportunities for women in consulting engineering, what is the relative importance of the composition of an assignment team on a particular project versus the overall policies and practices of the engineering firm?
Given the complexity of procuring professional services, how can discretion be delegated to purchasing managers in a way that still preserves the intent of using procurement policy to advance diversity goals in the procurement of engineering services?
Should we be looking at a policy framework applicable to professional services in general, or should we be looking more specifically at a framework that is only for engineering services?
How would a policy framework deal with a situation in which an engineering firm is a sub-contractor rather than a prime contractor?
Is there a role for third-party certification similar to the quality certifications that already operate in some aspects of professional services? If so, what might that look like?
These questions will form the basis for further research for this project so that engineering companies will be encouraged to embrace more diversity in their workforce, especially women.
To view all of OSPE's Research Reports, please visit here.
This project has been funded by Women and Gender Equality Canada.
Ahead of Ontario's 2020 Budget, OSPE delivers recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs
The Made-in-Ontario Environment plan costs Canadians twice as much as the Federal Carbon Tax
Where Do Ontario Parties Stand On Energy Policy?
The purpose of this project, funded by Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE), is to explore the potential to use public procurement policy to advance diversity goals in the procurement of engineering services and to support increased career opportunities for women in consulting engineering and in the engineering profession.
Using Procurement Policy to Advance Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion — Literature Review and Environmental Scan
Supporting Greater Gender Equity in Consulting Engineering Through Procurement


text:
Jonás Guerrero Corona (El Chante, Autlán de Navarro, Jalisco, 20 de novembro de 1946) é um padre e bispo mexicano que serve como bispo de Culiacán.

Ele foi ordenado sacerdote em 5 de junho de 1976.

Nomeado bispo auxiliar da Cidade do México em 29 de janeiro de 2000 pelo Papa João Paulo II.

O cardeal Norberto Rivera o nomeou bispo auxiliar do VI Vigário Episcopal da Arquidiocese Primada do México em 4 de março do mesmo ano.

Em 18 de março de 2011, foi nomeado bispo da Diocese de Culiacán.

Ver também

Bispos católicos do México

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The team at Banbridge Specsavers is making a final push to complete a year's fundraising programme for neo-natal and special baby units in Craigavon and Daisy Hill hospitals.
The store is hosting a coffee morning in the store on Saturday 10 March from 10am to 1pm.
The charity party will include tea, coffee and juice as well as a range of tray bakes, buns and other treats and local customers and shoppers in Banbridge are invited to call in and make a voluntary donation.
Specsavers embarked on a year-long charity drive as store director Wayne Watson and his wife Lynn, a schoolteacher in Banbridge wanted to thank both hospitals for the care and support they had received when twins Isla and Micah were born prematurely back in 2015.