text:
Category Archives: Willock: "Molecular Symmetry"
The more we understand, the more we realize how little we've understood what we thought we understood. Here is a double example.
We have 1,400,000 Alu elements in our genome. They are about 300 nucleotides long, meaning that there is over 1 every 3,000 nucleotides in our 3,200,000,000 nucleotide genome. They don't code for protein, and were widely thought to be junk, selfish genes whose only role was to ensure that the organism carrying them, kept them along as they reproduced.
This post contains a heavy dose of contemporary molecular biology. If you're a little shaky on some of it have a look at — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/molecular-biology-survival-guide-for-chemists-i-dna-and-protein-coding-gene-structure/ — and follow the links.
Not so says Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. vol. 117 pp. 415 – 425 '20. They are part of several important physiologic processes (1) T lymphocyte activation (2) heat shock stress (3) endoplasmic reticulum stress. All 3 cause transcription of Alu's by RNA polymerase III (pol III).
All RNA levels increase with heat shock, including RNAs made from Alu elements. They bind directly and tightly (nanoMolar affinity) to RNA polymerase II (which transcribes protein coding genes) and co-occupy the promoters of repressed genes, preventing transcription of these genes and protein synthesis of them. At least that was the state of play 11 years ago (PNAS 105 5569 – 5574 '09)
This paper notes that Alu is not passive, but actually a self-cleaving ribozyme (an enzyme made of RNA), an entirely new role. When complexed with another protein EZH2 (a polycomb protein thought to be a transcriptional repressor using its lysine methylation activity), the rate of Alu self-cleavage increases by 40%.
In addition to stoping transcription, Alu also retards transcription elongation. So stress increases in EZH2 causes Alu to cleave itself faster, turning off repression and improving the responses to the 3 types of stresses above.
So we really didn't understand both Alu which has been studied for years, or EZH2 a polycomb protein (ditto). Alu is a self-cleaving ribozyme, and EZH2 doesn't just turn off genes by its enzymatic activity (lysine trimethylation), but binds to an RNA so it can cleave itself faster (e.g. its a cofactor).
Fascinating and humbling to see how much there is to know about things we thought we knew. But it's also exciting. Who knows what else is out there to discover about the known, never mind the known unknowns.
By luysii | Also posted in Medicine in general, Molecular Biology, Willock: "Molecular Symmetry" | Tagged Alu, endoplasmic reticulum stress, EZH2, Heat shock, junk DNA, lysine methylation, Pol II, pol III, polycomb protein, ribozyme, RNA polymerase II, RNA polymerase III, selfish gene, SINE (Short Interspersed Nucleotide Elements), T lymphocyte activation, trimethylation oflysine | Comments (0)
Going to the mat with representation, characters and group theory
Willock's book (see https://luysii.wordpress.com/category/willock-molecular-symmetry/) convinced me of the importance of the above in understanding vibrational spectroscopy. I put it aside because the results were presented, rather than derived. From the very beginning (the 60's for me) we were told that group theory was important for quantum mechanics, but somehow even a 1 semester graduate course back then didn't get into it. Ditto for the QM course I audited a few years ago.
I've been nibbling about the edges of this stuff for half a century, and it's time to go for it. Chemical posts will be few and far between as I do this, unless I run into something really interesting (see https://luysii.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/a-new-way-to-study-reaction-mechanisms/). Not to worry –plenty of interesting molecular biology, and even neuroscience will appear in the meantime, including a post about article showing that just about everything we thought about hallucinogens is wrong.
So, here's my long and checkered history with groups etc. Back in the day we were told to look at "The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics" by Hermann Weyl. I dutifully bought the Dover paperback, and still have it (never throw out a math book, always throw out medical books if more than 5 years old). What do you think the price was — $1.95 — about two hours work at minimum wage then. I never read it.
The next brush with the subject was a purchase of Wigner's book "Group Theory and its Application to the Quantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra" — also never read but kept. A later book (see Sternberg later in the post) noted that the group theoretical approach to relativity by Wigner produced the physical characteristics of mass and spin as parameters in the description of irreducible representations. The price of this one was $6.80.
Then as a neurology resident I picked up "Group Theory" by Morton Hammermesh (Copyright 1962). It was my first attempt to actually study the subject. I was quickly turned off by the exposition. As groups got larger (and more complicated) more (apparently) ad hoc apparatus was brought in to explain them — first cosets, then subgroups, then normal subgroups, then conjugate classes.
That was about it, until retirement 11 years ago. I picked up a big juicy (and cheap) Dover paperback "Modern Algebra" by Seth Warner — a nice easy introduction to the subject.
Having gone through over half of Warner, I had the temerity to ask to audit an Abstract Algebra course at one of the local colleges. I forget the text, but I didn't like it (neither did the instructor). We did some group theory, but never got into representations.
A year or so later, I audited a graduate math abstract algebra course given by the same man. I had to quit about 3/4 through it because of an illness in the family. We never got into representation theory.
Then, about 3 years ago, while at a summer music camp, I got through about 100 pages of "Representations and Characters of Groups" by James and Liebeck. The last chapter in the book (starting on p. 366) was on an application to molecular vibration. The book was hard to use because they seemed to use mathematical terms differently than I'd learned — module for example. I was used to. 100 pages was as far as I got.
Then I had the pleasure of going through Cox's book on Galois theory, seeing where a lot of group theory originated (along with a lot of abstract algebra) — but there was nothing about representations there either.
Then after giving up on Willock, a reader suggested "Elements of Molecular Symmetry" by Ohrn. This went well until p. 28, when his nomenclature for the convolution product threw me.
So I bought yet another book on the subject which had just come out "Representation Theory of Finite Groups" by Steinberg. No problems going through the first 50 pages which explains what representations, characters and irreducibles are. Tomorrow I tackle p. 52 where he defines the convolution product. Hopefully I'll be able to understand it an go back to Ohrn — which is essentially chemically oriented.
The math of it all is a beautiful thing, but the immediate reason for learning it is to understand chemistry better. I might mention that I own yet another book "Group Theory and Physics" by Sternberg, which appears quite advanced. I've looked into it from time to time and quickly given up.
Anyway, it's do or die time with representation theory. Wish me luck
By luysii | Also posted in Math, Quantum Mechanics, Willock: "Molecular Symmetry" | Comments (0)
Where has all the chemistry gone?
Devoted readers of this blog (assuming there are any) must be wondering where all the chemistry has gone. Willock's book convinced me of the importance of group theory in understand what solutions we have of the Schrodinger equation. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I have the mathematical background to understand group characters and group representations, but I found Willock's presentation of just the mathematical results unsatisfying.
So I'm delving into a few math books on the subject. One is "Representations and Characters of Groups" by James and Liebeck (which provides an application to molecular vibration in the last chapter starting on p. 367). It's clear, and for the person studying this on their own, does have solutions to all the problems. Another is "Elements of Molecular Symmetry" by Ohrn, which I liked quite a bit. But unfortunately I got stymied by the notation M(g)alpha(g) on p. 28. In particular, it's not clear to me if the A in equation (4.12) and (4.13) are the same thing.
I'm also concurrently reading two books on Computational Chemistry, but the stuff in there is pretty cut and dried and I doubt that anyone would be interested in comments as I read them. One is "Essential Computational Chemistry" by Cramer (2nd edition). The other is "Computational Organic Chemistry" by Bachrach. The subject is a festival of acronyms (and I thought the army was bad) and Cramer has a list of a mere 284 of them starting on p. 549. On p. 24 of Bachrach there appears the following "It is at this point that the form of the functionals begins to cause the eyes to glaze over and the acronyms appear to be random samplings from an alphabet soup." I was pleased to see that Cramer still thinks 40 pages or so of Tom Lowry and Cathy Richardson's book is still worth reading on molecular orbital theory, even though it was 24 years old at the time Cramer referred to it. They're old friends from grad school. I'm also pleased to see that Bachrach's book contains interviews with Paul Schleyer (my undergraduate mentor). He wasn't doing anything remotely approaching computational chemistry in the late 50s (who could?). Also there's an interview with Ken Houk, who was already impressive as an undergraduate in the early 60s.
Maybe no one knows how all of the above applies to transition metal organic chemistry, which has clearly revolutionized synthetic organic chemistry since the 60's, but it's time to know one way or the other before tackling books like Hartwig.
Another (personal) reason for studying computational chemistry, is so I can understand if the protein folding people are blowing smoke or not. Also it appears to be important in drug discovery, or at least is supporting Ashutosh in his path through life. I hope to be able to talk intelligently to him about the programs he's using.
By luysii | Also posted in Chemistry (relatively pure), Math, Quantum Mechanics, Willock: "Molecular Symmetry" | Tagged computational chemistry, kenneth houk, lowry and richardson, paul schleyer, protein folding | Comments (2)
Putting Willock Aside
It's apparent from getting through 127 Pages of "Molecular Symmetry" by David J. Willock, that he put a lot of effort into the book, and that group theory is quite important to chemistry. But, it appears that this book is of the 'plug and chug' variety. You are given formulas and codes for irreducible representations of point groups (which the book explained quite well) and then asked to apply them. Just how the formulas are obtained hasn't been given. So you are expected to learn the concepts by example, which I find irritating for something basically mathematical, where concepts are clearly defined and results deduced. I was hoping to understand characters, but I really don't at this point. The book made it clear how useful they are to group theory — another way to slice and dice group structure (along with subgroups, and conjugate classes). So I'll put the book aside, and hopefully come back to it, once I read some more group theory.
Plug and chug can even get you through a math course, but understanding is what's crucial. Even you haven't looked at something for a long time (in my case decades), if you once understood something, it comes back very quickly. Plug and chug does not, just like the combination of key strokes you need for a program you last used years ago.
Students are being cheated when plug and chug is all they get. I did an alumni interview last night with a very bright young woman taking AP calculus (2200 on SAT's etc. etc.). She knew how to calculate a derivative, but had literally no idea what a derivative actually is. She couldn't give a geometric example of a limiting process. It's not because she's stupid, because she's far from that, it's because she isn't being well taught.
For those of you plowing through the book along with me, here are my comments (up to page 127 when I gave up). Comments on earlier pages can be found in the category "Willock: "Molecular Symmetry"
pp. 105 — 127
p. 105 — If you think about a vibration, you are thinking about a molecule in motion, so how can it be the subject of a symmetry element? Because at any instant in (some) vibrations the position of the atoms are fixed, and these positions can (italics) possess varying degrees of symmetry as the example of the guitar shows. Nice.
p. 109 — "contravenes the restrictions of the irreducible representation" — probably should add "(e.g. A1)" to avoid the idea the restrictions of all (italics) irreducible representations have somehow been given.
p. 109 — "The molecule, as a whole, never actually moves during a vibration" — otherwise you'd violate the first law of thermodynamics, getting translational energy from nothing.
p. 110 – Further understanding of what a basis can actually be. You can put 3 basis vectors on each atom of water, giving a total of 9 basis vectors.
p. 115 – "Property 3: The number of irreducible represntations in a point group is equal to the number of classes". But class was defined very incompletely on p. 93 as 'an equivalent set of operations' — bu how two distinct symmetry operations are equivalent is never (italics) defined, just illustrated.
What a culture clash — "Property 3 can be confirmed" — confirmation isn't proof. Hopefully I'll learn something about representations and their utility in chemistry by continuing to plow forward.
My guess is that the notion of equivalence for classes is conjugate equivalence (from my knowledge of group theory) and that the classes are conjugate classes (we'll see).
p. 116 — I never got to character theory when I studied groups (which is one reason I'm reading this book), but property 4 tells why they are important — they give another way of slicing and dicing groups (like subgroups and conjugate classes). Again property 4 is confirmed for a variety of examples rather than proven.
p. 117 — Property 5 — Yet another way characters give you a way to slice and dice a group — orthogonality.
p. 118 — What is a fundamental vibration of a molecule? A vibration having some symmetry (not all vibrations do)?
p. 119 — you can simplify a reducible representation using the data for the set of irreducible representations in the standard character tables — how are these irreducible representations obtained? Willock isn't telling.
30 Jan '12 — Well, it hasn't been all in vain. Cramer's book on Computational Chemistry (which I'm reading concurrently) assumes that you know nomenclature for the point groups.
By luysii | Also posted in Math, Willock: "Molecular Symmetry" | Comments (3)
Willock pp. 51 – 104
This is a continuation of my notes, as I read Molecular Symmetry" by David J. Willock. As you'll see, things aren't going particularly well. Examples of concepts are great once they've been defined, but in this book it's examples first, definitions later (if ever).
p. 51 — Note all the heavy lifting required to produce an object with only (italics) C4 symmetry (figure 3.6) First, you need 4 objects in a plane (so they rotate into each other), separated by 90 degrees. That's far from enough objects as there are multiple planes of symmetry for 4 objects in a plane (I count 5 — how many do you get?) So you need another 4 objects in a plane parallel to the first. These objects must be a different distance from the symmetry axis, otherwise the object will have A C2 axis of symmetry, midway between the two planes. Lastly no object in the second plane can lie on a line parallel to the axis of symmetry which contains an object in the first plane — e.g. the two groups of 4 must be staggered relative to each other. It's even more complicated for S4 symmetry.
p. 51 — The term classes of operation really hasn't been defined (except by example). Also this is the first example of (the heading of) a character table — which hasn't been defined at this point.
p. 52 — Note H2O2 has C2 symmetry because it is not (italics) planar. Ditto for 1,2 (S, S) dimethyl cyclopropane (more importantly this is true for disulfide bonds between cysteines forming cystines — a way of tying parts of proteins to each other.
p. 55 — Pay attention to the nomenclature: Cnh means that an axis of degree n is present along with a horizontal plane of symmetry. Cnv means that, instead, a vertical plane of symmetry is present (along with the Cn axis)
p. 57 — Make sure you understain why C4h doesn't have vertical planes of symmetry.
p. 59 — A bizarre pedagogical device — defining groups whose first letter is D by something they are not (italics) — which itself (cubic groups) is at present undefined.
Willock then regroups by defining what Dn actually is.
It's a good exercise to try to construct the D4 point group yourself.
p. 61 — "It does form a subgroup" — If subgroup was ever defined, I missed it. Subgroup is not in the index (neither is group !). Point group is in the index, and point subgroup is as well appearing on p. 47 — but point subgroup isn't defined there.
p. 62 — Note the convention — the Z direction is perpendicular to the plane of a planar molecule.
p. 64 — Why are linear molecules called Cinfinity ? — because any rotation around the axis of symmetry (the molecule itself) leaves the molecule unchanged, and there are an infinity of such rotations.
p. 67 — Ah, the tetrahedron embedded in a cube — exactly the way an organic chemist should think of the sp3 carbon bonds. Here's a mathematical problem for you. Let the cube have sides of 1, the bonds as shown in figure 3.27, the carbon in the very center of the cube — now derive the classic tetrahedral bond angle — answer at the end of this post.
p. 67 — 74 — The discussions of symmetries in various molecules is exactly why you should have the conventions for naming them down pat.
p. 75 — in the second paragraph affect should be effect (at least in American English)
p. 76 — "Based on the atom positions alone we cannot tell the difference between the C2 rotation and the sigma(v) reflection, because either operation swaps the positions of the hydrogen atoms." Do we ever want to actually do this (for water that is)? Hopefully this will turn out to be chemically relevant.
p. 77 — Note that the definition of character refers to the effect of a symmetry operation on one of an atom's orbitals (not it's position). Does this only affect atoms whose position is not (italics) changed by the symmetry operation? Very important to note that the character is -1 only on reversal of the orbital — later on, non-integer characters will be seen. Note also that each symmetry operation produces a character (number) for each orbital, so there are (number of symmetry operations) * (number of orbital) characters in a character table
p. 77 – 78 — Note that the naming of the orbitals is consistent with what has gone on before. p(z) is in the plane of the molecule because that's where the axis of rotation is.
Labels are introduced for each of the possible standard sets of characters (but standard set really isn't defined). A standard set (of sets of characters??) is an irreducible representation for the group.
Is one set of characters an irreducible representation by itself or is it a bunch of them? The index claims that this is the definition of irreducible represenation, but given the amiguity about what a standard set of characters actually is (italics) we don't really know what an irreducible representation actually is. This is definition by example, a pedagogical device foreign to math, but possibly a good pedagogical device — we'll see. But at this point, I'm not really clear what an irreducible represenation actually is.
p. 77 — In a future edition, it would be a good idea to lable the x, y and z axes (and even perhaps draw in the px, py and pz orbitals), and, if possible, put figure 4.2 on the same page as table 4.2. Eventually things get figured out but it takes a lot of page flipping.
p. 79 — Further tightening of the definition of a representation — it's one row of a character table.
p. 79 — Nice explanation of orbital phases, but do electrons in atoms know or care about them?
p. 80 — Note that in the x-y axes are rotated 90 degrees in going from figure 4.4a to figure 4.4b (why?). Why talk about d orbitals? — they're empty in H20 but possibly not in other molecules with C2v symmetry.
p. 80 — Affect should be effect (at least in American English)
p. 81 — B1 x B2 = A2 doesn't look like a sum to me. If you actually summed them you'd get 2 for E, -2 for C2, and 0 for the other two. It does look like the product though.
pp. 81 – 82 — Far from sure what is going on in section 4.3
p.82 — Table 4.4b does look like multiplication of the elements of B1 by itself.
p. 82 — Not sure when basis vectors first made their appearance, possibly here. I slid over this on first reading since basis vectors were quite familiar to me from linear algebra (see the category https://luysii.wordpress.com/category/linear-algebra-survival-guide-for-quantum-mechanics/ ). But again, the term is used here without really being defined. Probably not to confuse, the first basis vectors shown first are at 90 degrees to each other (x and y), but later on (p. 85 they don't have to be — the basis 0vectors point along the 3 hydrogens of ammonia).
p. 83 — Very nice way to bring in matrices, but it's worth nothing that each matrix stands for just one symmetry operation. But each matrix lets you see what happens to all (italics) the basis vectors you've chosen.
p. 84 — Get very clear in your mind that when you see an expression of the form
symmetry_operation1 symmetry_operation2
juxtaposed to each other — that you do symmetry_operation2 FIRST.
p. 87 — Notice that the term character is acquiring a second meaning here — it no longer is the effect of a symmetry operation on one of an atom's orbitals (not the atom's position), it's the effect of a symmetry operation on a whole set of basis elements.
p. 88 — Notice that in BF3, the basis vectors no longer align with the bonds (as they did in NH3), meaning that you can choose the basis vectors any way you want.
p.89 — Figure 4.9 could be markedly improved. One must distinguish between two types of lines (interrupted and continuous), and two types of arrowheads (solid and barbed), making for confuion in the diagrams where they all appear together (and often superimposed).
Given the orbitals as combinations of two basis vectors, the character of symmetry operation and a basis vector, acquires yet another meaning — how much of the original orbital is left after the symmetry operation.
p. 91 — A definition of irreducible representations as the 'simplest' symmetry behavior. Simplest is not defined. Also for the first time it is noted that symmetries can be of orbitals or vibrations. We already know they can be of the locations of the atoms in a molecule.
Section 4.8 is extremely confusing.
p. 92 — We now find out that what was going on with a character sum of 2 on p. 81 — The sums were 2 and 0 because the representations were reducible.
p. 93 (added 29 Jan '12) — We later find out (p. 115) that the number of reducible representations of a point group is the number of classes. The index says that class is defined an 'equivalent set of operations' — but how two distinct operations are equivalent is never defined, just illustrated.
p. 100 — Great to have the logic behind the naming of the labels used for irreducible representations (even if they are far from intuitive)
p. 101 — There is no explanation of the difference between basis vector and basis function.
All in all, a very difficult chapter to untangle. I'm far from sure I understand from p. 92 – 100. However, hope lies in future chapters and I'll push on. I think it would be very difficult to learn from this book (so far) if you were totally unfamiliar with symmetry.
Answer to the problem on p. 67. Let the sides of the cube be of length 1. The bonds are all the same length, so the carbon must be in the center of the cube. Any two of the bonds point to the opposite corners of a square of length 1. Therefore the ends of the bonds are sqrt(2) apart. Now drop a perpendicular to the middle of this line to get to the carbon in the center. This has length 1/2. So we have a right triangle of side 1/2 and ( sqrt(2))/2. So the answer is 2 * arctan(1.414). Arctan(1.414 is) 54.731533 degrees giving the angle as 109.46 degrees.
By luysii | Also posted in Linear Algebra Survival Guide for Quantum Mechanics, Math, Willock: "Molecular Symmetry" | Tagged point groups, representation theory | Comments (0)
Willock pp. 1 – 50
These are some very detailed comments, and (hopefully) helpful hints for you as you read "Moleular Symmetry" by David J. Willock. For why I'm reading it, why you should too, and what a group actually is see the first post in this series — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/chemistry-helps-you-understand-group-theory-and-not-vice-versa/
p. 5 — Distinguish in carefully in your mind the difference between a symmetry element and a symmetry operation as you read the book.
A symmetry element is a geometric structure (point, line, plane) about which a molecule is symmetric. On p. 23 This definition is clarified — a symmetry element is the set of points which aren't moved when a symmetry operation takes place. Points of what? The points of the space in which the molecule is embedded.
A symmetry operation is an action carried out using a symmetry element which leaves the shape of the molecule unchanged (although no atom of the molecule may wind up where it was after the operation). Ammonia has a 3 fold axis of rotation (e.g. the symmetry element is a line), but 3 distinct symmetry operations about the symmetry element (rotation by 120, 240 and 360 == 0 degrees).
p. 7 — Principal axis — the line of symmetry (axis) with the largest (highest) order of rotation. Always aligned with the Z axis (vertical). One of the many important conventions you'll need to remember is that the highest (largest) symmetry axis defines the vertical direction. You'll need to know what vertical is to appreciate the labelling of the symmetry planes of water on p. 10, and how to distinguish it from horizontal in the case of BF3 (p. 11).
p. 7. — Also very important to keep straight — after a symmetry operation the atoms of a molecule may move, but the axes do not move — why is this important? — because it's very easy to get confused about how to do the a second symmetry operation after you've done the first. Remembering this will save you later on (see figure 2.4 p. 30).
p. 9 — Another convention — the Greek letter sigma is always used for a plane of symmetry. If you're reading this on your own — start yourself a symbol table with the page the symbol is first defined (not the same as when Willock first mentions the term, definitions sometimes come later — this takes some getting used to if you're used to math books where everything is defined before being used). Molecular Symmetry should have a symbol table (newer math books do) but it doesn't.
p. 12 — The description of when a plane is dihedral and when it is horizontal is ambiguous at best, and confusing at worst. You'll need the actual book to follow the following. In figure 1.15 there are horizontal C2 axes passing through the C-C bond center, but they are not in the mirror planes shown. However, there is a third mirror plane which isn't shown. When this axis is put in one sees that the dihedral mirror plane splits all 3 C2 rotation axes (which is why it's called a dihedral plane). Then another example is given of a dihedral plane which splits the angle with two other planes (called v — for vertical I guess, because the plane contains the vertical (Z) axis). A horizontal plane is perpendicular to the principal axis. This could have been made more explicit, so a clear understanding of sigma(v), sigma(h) and sigma(d) emerges. On p. 23 Willock does make all this explicit. It was probably better to do this at the outset.
p. 21 "The absorption in an NMR experiment takes a short, but finite time". It is truly maddening to find out how long this time is using Google or any of my NMR books. I've speculated about the time it takes for absorption of a wavelength of light in an earlier post. Here it is again — if any physicist types are reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong, or enlighten me further.
***** The penultimate chapter of Anslyn and Dougherty "Modern Physcal Organic Chemistry" contains an excellent discussion of photochemistry, with lots of physics clearly explained but it leaves one question unanswered which has always puzzled me. How long does it take for a photon of a given wavelength to be absorbed?
On p. 811 there is an excellent discussion of the way the quantum mechanical operator for kinetic energy (-hBar/2m * del^2) is related to kinetic energy. The more the wavefunction changes in space, the higher the energy. It's like cracking a whip, the faster you move the handle up and down (e.g. the faster the frequency), the more energy you impart to the whip. Note that the kinetic energy operator applies to particles (like protons, neutrons, electrons) with mass.
Nonetheless, in a meatball sort of way, apply this to the (massless) photon. Consider light from the classical point of view, as magnetic and electrical fields which fluctuate in time and space. The fields of course exert force on charged particles, and one can imagine photons exerting forces on the electrons around a nucleus, changing their momentum, hence doing work on them. Since energy is conserved (even in quantum mechanics), it's easy to see how the electrons get a higher energy as a result. The faster the fields fluctuate, the more energy they impart to the electrons.
Now consider a photon going past an atom, and being absorbed by it. It seems that a full cycle of field fluctuation (e.g. one wavelength) must pass the atom. So here's a back of the envelope calculation, which seems to work out. Figure an atomic diameter around 1 Angstrom (10^-10 meters) for the average atom. The chapter is about photochemistry, which is absorption of light energetic enough to change electronic energy levels in an atom or a molecule. All the colored things we see, are colored because changes between their electronic energy levels are absorb photons of visible light — the colors actually result from the photons NOT absorbed. So choose light of 6000 Angstroms — which has a wavelength of 6 * 10^-7 meters. It will appear orange to you.
In one second, light moves 3 * 10^8 meters, regardless of how many many wavelengths it contains. If the wavelength were 1 meter it would move past a point in 1/(3 * 10^8) seconds But wavelength of the visible light I chose is 6 * 10 ^-7 meters, so the wavelength moves past in 6*10^-7/3 * 10^8 = 2 x 10^-15 seconds, which (I think) is how long it takes visible light to be absorbed. Have I made a mistake? Are there any cognoscenti out there to tell me different?
p. 26 — Note that sigma(v') is in the plane of benzene and water here, while in the case of BF3 (p. 11) the mirror plane in the plane of BF3 is called sigma(h) — this is because the latter is perpendicular to the principal axis of rotation (p. 7), while the former two are parallel to it. It's best to have these things clear in your mind when reading further.
p. 26 — Note which of the two operations in C2sigma(v') is done first — it is always the rightmost — this is standard in the mathematical literature, and probably comes from the way functions within functions are applied — sin(3x) means that you do 3x first and then apply sine to it. Yet another convention to keep straight and crucial in what follows.
p. 26 — Point group — all the symmetry operations a molecule can undergo. None of the amino acids making up our proteins (except glycine) have more than 1 (the identity operation).
p. 27 — Note the convention for the X, Y and Z axes — Z points in the direction of the principal axis. Y in the plane of the molecule (assuming there is one) and X perpendicular to Y and Z. None of this tells you which is positive and negative on each axis — but (without saying so) the X,Y and Z axes are a right handed coordinate system (remember the old right hand rule — use the fingers of your right hand to coil the positive X into the positive Y, and your thumb will point in the positive Z direction.
p. 27 – I think the bottom diagram of sigma(v') is incorrect H1 and H2 aren't changed by it.
p. 27 — The following is also very important to note (and not especially clear), Distinguish the global coordinate axes (capital X, Y, Z) which aren't changed by the symmetry operation and the vectors attached to atoms (small x, y, z) which are (italics) changed by the symmetry operations. So capital X, Y, Z means global coordinate axis, while small x, y, z means vector. Easy to confuse the two.
p. 28 — Another important convention — when faced with a table for the multiplication of symmetry operations, do the operation in the row of operations at the top of the table first and the operation in the column of operations on the left side of the table second.
Remember all this advice and you'll do a lot less looking back.
p. 31 — the Sn operation. Note that in the example given (staggered ethane), that neither S6 nor C2 in the plane horizontal to it is an actual symmetry element of the molecule.
p. 36 — The term basis is mentioned but not really defined. It appears to be an arrow attached to an atom which follows the atom through various symmetry operations. Apparently not the same as vectors attached to the oxygen of water (p. 27) which are labeled x, y and z.
p. 37 — Perhaps the improper rotation on BF3 which requires applications (with a total of 720 degrees) to get things back to where they started, is relative to some rotations in particle space that I recall reading about, that took 720 degrees of rotation to get things back together.
p. 38 — Requiring that an inverse of a symmetry operation exist is a crucial property of groups, but here it is introduced by fiat without saying why. For what a group is see the first post in the series.
End of chapter 2 — The fact that the set of symmetry operations of a molecule must be closed, along with the fact that there are only finitely many of them, means that for any symmetry operation (S), applying it over and over eventually gets you back to the original operation. This means there is some n in the non-negative integers such that for every symmetry operation S, S^n = S (S^n is a Mathematica convention meaning S to the nth power — multiplying S by itself n times — multiplication of symmetry operations just means applying one after the other — rightmost first . A bit of thought then shows that S^(n-1) = E (the identity). A bit more thought shows that the powers of S form a group by themselves (they contain 1, and have an inverse).
This means that they are a subgroup of group of all symmetry operations. Subgroup isn't in the index, as this is a chemistry book, not a math book. It's simple enough concept — a subset of a group of symmetry operations which is also a group (e.g. it contains E, the identity, every element has an inverse and a more obscure characteristic called associativity — which it inherits from the parent group).
This is true for each symmetry operation. What molecular geometry allows you to do, which isn't obvious when group theory is studied abstractly, is to see how the powers of each element combine with each other. E.g. For water what is C2*sigma(v)? The symmetries of water are an example of a very peculiar group called the viergruppe (German — four group). Nice ! ! ! !
p. 45 — Introduces the character table, and notes that not all the symbols in it have been defined yet. The term character also isn't defined at this point. It's an interesting teaching technique, and very different from those used in math books.
p. 46 — Pasteur was lucky to find tartaric acid which crystalizes in two form each containing a pure enantiomer. How often does this happen?
p. 48 — Watch out when reading about point groups. Lots of molecules contain a 2 fold rotation axis (e.g. C2), but the C2 point group contains only that symmetry operation and none other (except the identity) — this is why it must have at least 4 points (because 3 points define a plane, which is a different symmetry element).
p. 48 — The drawing of the C(s) symmetry group is truly terrible and should be improved in a second edition. Notice that the symmetry plane sigma is labelled sigma(h) even though it appears vertical.
Hopefully this was helpful — I wish I'd written all this down the first time I went through these pages.
By luysii | Also posted in Chemistry (relatively pure), Math, Willock: "Molecular Symmetry" | Comments (2)
Chemistry helps you understand group theory and not vice versa
Back in the day, we were told that group theory was important in quantum mechanics, because it simplified the Schrodinger equation, and ultimately the interpretation of spectra. We really didn't get into groups in the graduate QM course I took in '61, but were told to look at Weyl's book "The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics" which didn't get into representation theory until p. 120 after a lot of linear algebra and physics. What chemist had the time? I didn't.
In retirement, I've indulged my taste for math, and audited a graduate algebra course, which had a fair amount of group theory, but no representation theory. In addition the instructor dumped all over chemistry and physics as part of his schtick of being a pure mathematician. He avoided all applications to chemistry. He did hold up for derision a book written by a chemist with several large groups explicitly written out.
So now that I'm reading chemistry again and am up to Ch. 14 of Anslyn and Dougherty on computation of orbitals, I thought it was time to give group theory another shot.
The postulates of group theory really couldn't be simpler, and as you delve into the subject, it's amazing how much structure can arise from them.
Here they are.
A group is just a set G, which can be finite or infinite. Chemical symmetry uses only finite sets, but in physics groups with an infinite number of elements are possible.
Just one operation is defined on G. It is a binary operation, which is to say it takes any 2 elements of the group, and produces a third element of the group. Examples include addition and multiplication, which take any two numbers and give you a third. In mathematical terms, the operation is said to be closed. Call the operation *.
* : G x G –> G ;
* : g * h |–> i, where g, h and i are elements of G not necessarily distinct.
There is only one other requirement on the operation. The operation must be associative — so that given 3 elements of the group, the order on which you subject them to the group operation doesn't matter. e.g.
a * (b * c) = (a * b) * c ; where you do the operation inside the parentheses first
The group must have one special element (usually called e for the German einheit meaning identity), but 1 will do.
For any element of a of the group 1 * a = a * 1 = 1
Lastly, every element of the group must have an inverse (written a' ) such that
a * a' = 1 and a' * a = 1, so 1 is its own inverse, and other elements can be as well.
So the positive integers are NOT a group under addition (no inverse). The integers are not a group under multiplication ( 0 has no inverse).
That's all there is to it. Yet the classification of all finite groups took 30 years, and 10,000 pages in journals, and people aren't really sure they've got it done. The classification of the quasithin groups (don't ask) was the subject of a 1221 page paper.
Representation theory is the correspondence of the elements of a group to a set of matrices. The group operation of a representation is always matrix multiplication. You can find a gentle introduction to matrices in the 9 posts in the category — https://luysii.wordpress.com/category/linear-algebra-survival-guide-for-quantum-mechanics/.
The math books don't have any chemistry, and while groups are worth studying for their own sweet selves, I want to see what they offer the chemist (well, more realistically- HOW they offer what they do to the chemist). So I've begun reading "Molecular Symmetry" by D. J. Willock. Lots of chemical structures, schematic diagrams (some not particularly intuitive), and an approach to groups through symmetry.
What is really exciting about all this, is that chemistry lets you explore the structure of groups by moving a molecule around so that it superimposes on itself. The book shows how the set of symmetry operations you can perform on a molecule form the elements of a group (showing that the elements of a group aren't limited to just numbers). The group operation is simply doing one symmetry operation after another. So instead of screwing around with matrices, which have no visual content (although their effects do), you can play around with simple molecules like water, ammonia, benzene and watch a group in action.
Technically what you are really doing when you do this is looking at what is called a group action — the action of a group on another set (e.g. the distribution of a collection of atoms in space in this case). But, to my mind it's really a way (and a better one) of representing a group. Water is an example of the Viergruppe (4 group), which has only 4 elements. The instructor said it's a very strange group.
Parenthetically it is worth noting that Slater (of the Slater orbitals, and Slater determinant of quantum mechanics) hated groups — calling them the gruppenpest. Anslyn has a lot about both in pp. 817 – 822.
It's too early to fully recommend the book, but the first 50 pages are quite fine. Stay tuned
By luysii | Also posted in Anslyn & Doughterty, Chemistry (relatively pure), Math, Willock: "Molecular Symmetry" | Comments (0)
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. | .


What is the number of First Nations people in Canada?
What is the state of progressive political parties in Canada?
Why are people immigrating to Canada?
Enter your email to receive updates from Darrell J. Bricker directly to your inbox.


text:
Twisting arms: court referred and court linked mediation under judicial pressure
Genn, H., Fenn, P., Mason, M., Lane, A., Bechai, N., Gray, L. and Vencappa, D. 2007. Twisting arms: court referred and court linked mediation under judicial pressure. Ministry of Justice.
Genn, H., Fenn, P., Mason, M., Lane, A., Bechai, N., Gray, L. and Vencappa, D.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110201125714/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/Twisting-arms-mediation-report-Genn-et-al.pdf
On objectivity and staying 'native': Researching LGBTQI+ lawyers as a queer lawyer
Mason, M. 2019. On objectivity and staying 'native': Researching LGBTQI+ lawyers as a queer lawyer. in: Creutzfeldt, N., Mason, M. and McConnachie, K. (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Socio Legal Theory and Methods London Routledge.
Sexuality at the Bar: An Empirical Exploration into the Experiences of LGBT+ Barristers in England & Wales
Mason, M. and Vaughan, S. 2017. Sexuality at the Bar: An Empirical Exploration into the Experiences of LGBT+ Barristers in England & Wales. London University College London.
Making way for change at the Bar: The practical implications of the new Bar Standards Board Handbook
Mason, M. 2015. Making way for change at the Bar: The practical implications of the new Bar Standards Board Handbook. Journal of Professional Negligence. 31 (3), pp. 139-155.
Room at the inns: the increased scope of regulation under the new Bar Standards Board Handbook for England and Wales
Mason, M. 2014. Room at the inns: the increased scope of regulation under the new Bar Standards Board Handbook for England and Wales. Legal Ethics. 17 (1), pp. 143-147. doi:10.5235/1460728X.17.1.143
Children in military custody
Sedley, S., Scotland, P., Oldham, F., Hildyard, M., Khan, J., Harrill, J., Lanchin, J., Davies, G. and Mason, M. 2012. Children in military custody. London United Kingdom Foreign & Commonwealth Office.
Book review: A great and noble occupation!: the history of the Society of Legal Scholars. By F. Cownie and R. Cocks
Mason, M. 2009. Book review: A great and noble occupation!: the history of the Society of Legal Scholars. By F. Cownie and R. Cocks. International Journal of the Legal Profession. 16 (2-3), pp. 263-268. doi:10.1080/09695958.2009.486916
Vexatious litigants
Mason, M. and Sherr, A. 2008. Vexatious litigants. in: Cane, P. and Conaghan, J. (ed.) The new Oxford companion to law Oxford Oxford University Press.
Legal profession, social background, entry and training
Mason, M. and Sherr, A. 2008. Legal profession, social background, entry and training. in: Cane, P. and Conaghan, J. (ed.) The new Oxford companion to law Oxford Oxford University Press.
Lawyer-client relations
Mason, M. and Sherr, A. 2008. Lawyer-client relations. in: Cane, P. and Conaghan, J. (ed.) The new Oxford companion to law Oxford Oxford University Press.
Permalink - https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/91xx7/twisting-arms-court-referred-and-court-linked-mediation-under-judicial-pressure

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Hill by Jessica Crews is a short children's story about a mean giraffe, named Jermaine, who likes to pick on smaller ants, especially hard working Grant. Being bigger doesn't mean you get to pick on others that aren't as big and Jermaine must learn a hard lesson about being nice and being friends.
'Again!' was the first thing my son said after reading The Hill the first time. I read this book three times in a row to my 3-year old twins. Both my son and his sister were easily able to pick up on the underlying message of bullying and being nice. They both said, 'that's not nice' and 'he's being naughty' when Jermaine was picking on the smaller ants. They also described Jermaine as being in time-out at another point in the book.
This book is beautifully illustrated in gorgeous detail. Both my twins spent time on each page pointing out little details to me – the ants, the ladders, the flags, and the other bugs. The illustrations masterfully correspond to the story and visually reinforce the message of the author. The author also included a short list of facts on giraffes and ants at the end of the book. The Hill is suitable for younger children as well as older children, especially those learning concepts of sharing, being nice, hurt feelings, and bullying. Parents can easily relate the message of the book to situations in their child's life and help them relate it to Jermaine and Grant.


The safe is constructed of heavy 20-gauge beige powder coated steel. All safes are delivered already programmed making it completely turnkey.
THE SIMPLE WAY TO MANAGE AND TRACK ACCESS TO NARCOTICS!
Program key's permissions and schedules through management software and assign key to provider.
Insert authorized key into lock and turn. Enter correct 3 digit combo and turn wheel. Open door.
Create audit reports of all access events, update provider schedules, disable lost keys.
With over 400 different versions to choose from, our wireless locks can retrofit your existing lock boxes, safes, cabinets, doors, and more.
Each time a key is used, a detailed audit trail is left in both key and lock so you will always have a record of who is going where and when.
Since there is no wiring needed to operate the electronic locks, retrofitting your existing lock hardware takes less than 5 minutes!
The easy to use cloud based management software allows you to control and update system remotely using any desktop, laptop, tablet, or cell phone.
Our system is a fraction of the cost of similar electronic narcotics storage units which allows you to secure more locks inexpensively.
If a key is lost or stolen simply disable it through the management software, limiting liability. Never worry about re-keying locks again.


text:
October Term 2019
Term Archive
Tributes to Justice John Paul Stevens
Symposium on the court's ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York
Symposium on the court's ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek
Symposium on the court's ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie
Symposium on the court's ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
Symposium on what's next in June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee
Search Blog or Docket
Edith Roberts Editor
Posted Mon, June 24th, 2019 6:55 am
Bio & Post Archive »
Monday round-up
Posted Mon, June 24th, 2019 6:55 am by Edith Roberts
On Friday the justices released four more opinions, leaving 12 to be decided before the Supreme Court's summer recess. In Flowers v. Mississippi, the case of Curtis Flowers, who was tried six times for the same murders, the justices held 7-2 that a prosecutor's repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution. Amy Howe has this blog's opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At The Economist's Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that "the majority opinion in Flowers, penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stretched to 31 pages but, as it said, broke 'no new legal ground.'" Nina Totenberg reports for NPR that "the Supreme Court made clear that in making its decision it could not ignore the history of this case and its prosecutor." For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that Justice "Clarence Thomas, the court's only African American, filed a furious dissent, dismissing the ruling as a feel-good exercise that pandered to media interest in the case and exhibited its own bias—against state courts in the South." Commentary comes from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.
In Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, the justices, by a 5-4 vote, overruled a 34-year-old precedent that required property owners to follow state compensation procedures before bringing federal takings claim under the Constitution. Miriam Seifter analyzes the opinion for this blog. Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin report for The Wall Street Journal that the ruling "made it easier for property owners to challenge land-use regulations and seek compensation from the government, [and it] revealed deep divisions between the court's conservative and liberal camps." At The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that "[t]he decision was notable for an exchange about the court's attitude toward precedent." Nina Totenberg reports at NPR that "[t]he decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development." Additional coverage comes from Ellen Gilmer at E&E News and Tony Mauro at Law.com. Commentary comes from Nick Sibilla in an op-ed for Forbes and from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.
In Rehaif v. United States, the court held 7-2 that to convict a defendant in U.S. illegally for violating a federal gun-possession law, prosecutors must show that defendant knew he was in the country illegally. Evan Lee has this blog's opinion analysis. Trialdex observes that "it is pretty clear that Rehaif will apply to the much more common ex-con in possession cases."
And in North Carolina Dept of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, the justices ruled unanimously that a trust beneficiary's residence is not sufficient under the due process clause for a state to assert tax jurisdiction over undistributed trust income. This blog's opinion analysis comes from Erin Scharff. At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson writes that "[t]he Court's conclusion clearly rests on the fact that there was no actual income or entitlement to distribution of any income from the trust managed by an out-of-state trustee." Mark Walsh has an first-hand look at Friday's opinion announcements for this blog.
At The Federalist, Ilya Shapiro asserts that The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, in which the court held that a 40-foot cross honoring World War I veterans on public land in Maryland does not the violate Constitution's bar on establishing religion, reached "the correct result …, but the mish-mash of opinions—it took a paragraph to explain which justice was joining which aspect of the decision—leaves Establishment Clause jurisprudence in the muddled state it's been for decades." At the Duke Center for Firearms Law's Second Thoughts blog, Darrell Miller wonders about the implications of the ruling for "firearm regulations that are about as old, or much, much older" than the 90-year-old cross. At The Interdependent Third Branch, Lawrence Friedman pushes back against Justice Neil Gorsuch's suggestion in a concurrence that the plaintiffs did not have had standing to challenge the cross, arguing that "abandoning 'offended observer' standing in the Establishment Clause context would … mean that public displays that obviously violate the constitution would become more common." Additional commentary comes from Jay Wexler in an op-ed for Newsweek and from Lisa Soronen for the Council of State Governments' Knowledge Center blog. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]
Also at Notice & Comment, Adrian Vermeule throws cold water on predictions of an impending revival of the nondelegation doctrine after Gundy v. United States, noting that "[i]n many ways, Gundy represented the easiest possible case for constitutional invalidation, … yet, even here, the Court's uniform practice of rejecting nondelegation challenges held." At Take Care, Gillian Metzger remarks that in Gundy, "Chief Justice Roberts joined an extreme [dissenting] opinion that threatens to disrupt a basic and longstanding feature of modern government, unnecessarily undercuts a co-equal branch's ability to function, and clearly advances a strongly partisan anti-regulatory agenda"; she warns that "if Gundy is any sign of things to come, John Roberts the institutionalist has left the building." In an op-ed for Forbes, Nick Sibilla argues that "[b]y upholding [the] broad delegation of power [in the federal sex-offender registration act], the Supreme Court has set a precedent for even greater federal criminalization, which is already—quite literally—incalculable." Additional commentary on Gundy comes from Ilya Somin at Reason's Volokh Conspiracy blog and Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg.
At his eponymous blog, Sheldon Nahmod explains that after McDonough v. Smith, in which the court held that the clock on the time to file a federal civil rights claim based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings does not start to run until the criminal proceedings end in the claimant's favor, "[i]t is … crucial that a section 1983 plaintiff identify with some specificity just what is challenged as unconstitutional and under what constitutional provision." At Reason's Volokh Conspiracy blog, Jonathan Adler writes that "McDonough is potentially important because it makes it easier for criminal defendants to sue police or prosecutors who engage in misconduct against them." Another look at the decision comes from Lisa Soronen at the Council of State Governments' Knowledge Center blog.
Opening Arguments (podcast) "break[s] down the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the "dual sovereignty" doctrine." At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost looks at Thomas' concurring opinion in Gamble, in which Thomas asserted that "the Supreme Court is constitutionally bound to give a precedent no weight whatsoever if the prior decision is, in his 20-20 hindsight, 'demonstrably erroneous.'" Dan Cotter looks at last week's decisions in a post at LinkedIn.
At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that "[m]embers of Congress on Friday explored ways to increase transparency and accountability of the federal judiciary, though some voiced concern that reforms could jeopardize the security of judges and the unique status of Supreme Court justices." At Bloomberg Law, Patrick Gregory reports that "[s]cholars raised concern … about a #MeToo-inspired congressional proposal for a code of ethics for U.S. Supreme Court justices."
At Howe on the Court, Amy Howe highlights the 12 remaining cases the justices will dispose of before the end of the term.
Christopher Walker has this blog's analysis of Monday's opinion in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.; the court sent the case, which asks whether the Hobbs Act, a jurisdictional-channeling statute, requires courts to accept the FCC's interpretation of a statute allowing recipients of "junk faxes" to sue the senders for damages, back for the lower court to resolve two preliminary questions.
At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that "[f]ormer U.S. solicitors general Theodore Olson and Donald Verrilli Jr. are set to square off before the U.S Supreme Court in October to resolve a complex dispute over the status of an oversight board established by Congress in 2016 to help Puerto Rico recover from a devastating financial crisis."
At the Yale Journal on Regulation's Notice & Comment blog, Bernard Bell discusses last week's decision in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, in which the court held that a private nonprofit that runs a public-access TV channel can't be sued for violating the First Amendment, suggesting that "[w]hether or not private entities sometimes or even often serve [a] 'traffic cop' role in government-created fora, serving in that role shouldbe a function exclusively exercised by entities, be they public or private, having governmental responsibilities," notably, "the duty to act in conformance with the U.S. Constitution."
At Irish Liquor Lawyer, Sean O'Leary wonders whether, in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, a challenge to Tennessee's durational residency requirements for liquor licensing, the decision [will] be narrow and limited to the facts of the case," or will "shake[] the liquor world to its core."
We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you'd like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
Posted in Round-up
Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 24, 2019, 6:55 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/monday-round-up-444/
Justice Stevens: Setting an example for all of us	– Jeffrey Fisher
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has died	– Amy Howe
Battle over border wall comes to the court	– Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives
This term's merits cases Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVriesApple Inc. v. PepperAzar v. Allina Health ServicesBiestek v. BerryhillBNSF Railway Company v. LoosBox v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc.Bucklew v. PrecytheCity of Escondido, California v. EmmonsCochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. HuntCulbertson v. BerryhillDawson v. SteagerDepartment of Commerce v. New YorkEmulex Corp. v. VarjabedianFlowers v. MississippiFood Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader MediaFort Bend County, Texas v. DavisFourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.comFranchise Tax Board of California v. HyattFrank v. GaosGamble v. United StatesGarza v. IdahoGundy v. United StatesHelsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.Herrera v. WyomingHome Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. JacksonIancu v. BrunettiJam v. International Finance Corp.Kisor v. WilkieKnick v. Township of Scott, PennsylvaniaLamone v. BenisekLamps Plus Inc. v. VarelaLorenzo v. Securities and Exchange CommissionMadison v. AlabamaManhattan Community Access Corp. v. HalleckMaryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist AssociationMcDonough v. SmithMerck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. AlbrechtMission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLCMitchell v. WisconsinMont v. United StatesMoore v. TexasMount Lemmon Fire District v. GuidoNew Prime Inc. v. OliveiraNielsen v. PreapNieves v. BartlettNorth Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family TrustNutraceutical Corp. v. LambertObduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLPParker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. NewtonPDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.Quarles v. United StatesRehaif v. United StatesRepublic of Sudan v. HarrisonReturn Mail Inc. v. United States Postal ServiceRimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.Rucho v. Common CauseShoop v. HillSmith v. BerryhillStokeling v. United StatesSturgeon v. FrostTaggart v. LorenzenTennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. ThomasThacker v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityThe American Legion v. American Humanist AssociationThe Dutra Group v. BattertonTimbs v. IndianaUnited States v. DavisUnited States v. HaymondUnited States v. SimsUnited States v. StittVirginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-HillVirginia Uranium, Inc. v. WarrenWashington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceYovino v. Rizo
Next term's merits cases Allen v. CooperAltitude Express Inc. v. ZardaAtlantic Richfield Co. v. ChristianAurelius Investment, LLC v. Puerto RicoBabb v. WilkieBanister v. DavisBarton v. BarrBostock v. Clayton County, GeorgiaCITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd.Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned MediaCounty of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife FundDepartment of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaDex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LPEspinoza v. Montana Department of RevenueFinancial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLCGE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLCGeorgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.Guerrero-Lasprilla v. BarrHernandez v. MesaHolguin-Hernandez v. United StatesIntel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. SulymaKahler v. KansasKansas v. GarciaKansas v. GloverKelly v. United StatesLand of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United StatesLucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc.Maine Community Health Options v. United StatesMathena v. MalvoMcAleenan v. VidalMcKinney v. ArizonaModa Health Plan Inc. v. United StatesMonasky v. TaglieriNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New YorkOfficial Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, LLCOpati v. Republic of SudanOvalles v. BarrPeter v. NantKwest Inc.R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionRamos v. LouisianaRetirement Plans Committee of IBM v. JanderRitzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLCRodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc.Rotkiske v. KlemmShular v. United StatesThole v. U.S. Bank, N.A.Trump v. NAACPUnited States v. Aurelius Investment, LLCUTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico
Archives Month July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 Apr 2019 Mar 2019 Feb 2019 Jan 2019 Dec 2018 Nov 2018 Oct 2018 Sept 2018 Aug 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Nov 2017 Oct 2017 Sept 2017 Aug 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 Apr 2017 Mar 2017 Feb 2017 Jan 2017 Dec 2016 Nov 2016 Oct 2016 Sept 2016 Aug 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 Apr 2016 Mar 2016 Feb 2016 Jan 2016 Dec 2015 Nov 2015 Oct 2015 Sept 2015 Aug 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 Apr 2015 Mar 2015 Feb 2015 Jan 2015 Dec 2014 Nov 2014 Oct 2014 Sept 2014 Aug 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 Apr 2014 Mar 2014 Feb 2014 Jan 2014 Dec 2013 Nov 2013 Oct 2013 Sept 2013 Aug 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 Apr 2013 Mar 2013 Feb 2013 Jan 2013 Dec 2012 Nov 2012 Oct 2012 Sept 2012 Aug 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 Apr 2012 Mar 2012 Feb 2012 Jan 2012 Dec 2011 Nov 2011 Oct 2011 Sept 2011 Aug 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 Apr 2011 Mar 2011 Feb 2011 Jan 2011 Dec 2010 Nov 2010 Oct 2010 Sept 2010 Aug 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 Apr 2010 Mar 2010 Feb 2010 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009 Oct 2009 Sept 2009 Aug 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 Apr 2009 Mar 2009 Feb 2009 Jan 2009 Dec 2008 Nov 2008 Oct 2008 Sept 2008 Aug 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 Apr 2008 Mar 2008 Feb 2008 Jan 2008 Dec 2007 Nov 2007 Oct 2007 Sept 2007 Aug 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 Apr 2007 Mar 2007 Feb 2007 Jan 2007 Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Oct 2006 Sept 2006 Aug 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 Apr 2006 Mar 2006 Feb 2006 Jan 2006 Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Oct 2005 Sept 2005 Aug 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 Apr 2005 Mar 2005 Feb 2005
Category Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court Emergency appeals and applications to the Supreme Court SCOTUStalk Legal challenges to Trump's entry ban Empirical SCOTUS Event Announcements First Mondays Round-upSpecial Features Plain English / Cases Made Simple Book Reviews Academic Round-up Analysis Cases in the Pipeline Detainee Litigation Everything Else Featured Live Merits Cases This Week at the Court What's Happening Now Corrections SCOTUS for law students Community Podcast Editor's Notes Breaking News Cases and Controversies Nominations Supreme Court history
Term Snapshot
This Week at the Court
The justices are on their summer recess.
Department of Commerce v. New York
The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation for his decision.
Kisor v. Wilkie
Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency's reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
Rucho v. Common Cause
Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Gamble v. United States
The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the "same offence" for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term's cases »
Lamone v. Benisek Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Department of Commerce v. New York The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation for his decision.
Mitchell v. Wisconsin The Wisconsin Supreme Court's judgment – affirming the drunk-driving convictions of Gerald Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious – is vacated, and the case is remanded.
Rucho v. Common Cause Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Kisor v. Wilkie Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co – under which deference is given to an agency's reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations – are not overruled.
Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas Tennessee's 2-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the commerce clause and is not saved by the 21st Amendment.
United States v. Haymond The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's judgment – that 18 U. S. C. §3583(k)'s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable – is vacated, and the case is remanded.
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is "confidential" within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 4.
Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a "crime of violence," is unconstitutionally vague.
Current Relists
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot
Cases argued 70
Cases decided 67
Summary reversals 5
Merits cases granted to date 74
Live Blog Archives
Orders | June 28, 2019
Opinions | June 27, 2019
Orders and opinions | June 24, 2019
Orders and opinions | June 3, 2019
Orders and opinions | May 28, 2019
Orders and opinions | April 29, 2019
Opinions | April 24, 2019
Orders and opinions | April 1, 2019
Opinions | March 27, 2019
Orders and opinions | March 4, 2019
Opinions | February 27, 2019 (with Casetext's Pablo Arredondo)
Opinions | February 26, 2019 (with Casetext's Jake Heller)
Opinions | February 20, 2019
Orders and opinions | January 22, 2019
Opinions | January 15, 2019
Opinions | January 8, 2019
Day five of confirmation hearing | September 27, 2018
Day four of confirmation hearing | September 7, 2018
Day three of confirmation hearing | September 6, 2018
Day two of confirmation hearing | September 5, 2018
Day one of confirmation hearing | September 4, 2018
Tweets by @SCOTUSblog
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Calendar: July 2019
Full Calendar Submit Event
Orders/Opinions
Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all
Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society
On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual lecture at the Supreme Court.
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public's understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.
© 2019 SCOTUSblog (click for license)
© 2019 SCOTUSblog (click for license) This work by SCOTUSblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
This website may use cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can leave if you wish.Accept Read More


To learn more about MSSC's Military and Veteran programs, click here.
If you represent a company, government organization or association and would like to learn more about MSSC's Active Duty and Veteran's Programs, please contact Raquel Davila, Senior Operations Manager, MSSC.
If you are an active or veteran member of the military, including reserve or guard, click here to learn more about our certification programs.
If you are in the Army and are interested in the CLA program, please click here to learn more.
The Veteran-Employer Career Connector program is designed to connect employers to industry certified Military and Veterans in transportation, logistics and distribution (TDL) and Manufacturing. Click Here to enroll your company today!


text:
#include <zephyr.h>
#include <device.h>
#include <devicetree.h>

#include <drivers/edac.h>

#include <logging/log.h>
LOG_MODULE_REGISTER(main, CONFIG_LOG_DEFAULT_LEVEL);

#define STACKSIZE	1024
#define PRIORITY	7

static atomic_t handled;

/**
 * Callback called from ISR. Runs in supervisor mode
 */
static void notification_callback(const struct device *dev, void *data)
{
	/* Special care need to be taken for NMI callback:
	 * delayed_work, mutex and semaphores are not working stable
	 * here, using integer increment for now
	 */
	atomic_set(&handled, true);
}

#define DEVICE_NAME DT_LABEL(DT_NODELABEL(ibecc))

void main(void)
{
	const struct device *dev;

	dev = device_get_binding(DEVICE_NAME);
	if (!dev) {
		LOG_ERR("Cannot open EDAC device: %s", DEVICE_NAME);
		return;
	}

	if (edac_notify_callback_set(dev, notification_callback)) {
		LOG_ERR("Cannot set notification callback");
		return;
	}

	LOG_INF("EDAC shell application initialized");
}

void thread_function(void)
{
	LOG_DBG("Thread started");

	while (true) {
		if (atomic_cas(&handled, true, false)) {
			printk("Got notification about IBECC event\n");
			k_sleep(K_MSEC(300));
		}
	}
}

K_THREAD_DEFINE(thread_id, STACKSIZE, thread_function, NULL, NULL, NULL,
		PRIORITY, 0, 0);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Before I begin today's rant, I'd like to make it clear that I am neither related to, friends with, a supporter of, or in any way influenced by the work of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. I hold no great love for our cousins from Merseyside, but I certainly don't think of them as hysterical self-obsessed grief monkeys. As Boris might have said.
But today, the red side of Liverpool is once again angry about a perceived injustice. A blight on our fair game, if you will. How can it possibly be fair that, in the second half and with the score stuck at 1-0, Rob Styles chose to award Chelsea a penalty after misinterpreting a Malouda attempt to dummy an SWP pass on to Didier Droga? I'm not sure I have it in me to answer this one. So I do what I often do when words fail me: I turn to the Collected Sayings of England's vice-captain and hero of the Andorra tie, Steven Gerrard.
"These things happen and some decisions you get, some you don't. I'm sure over the season decisions will even themselves out." Steven, I couldn't agree more. Why engage in a fruitless search for justice in this crazy world of ours? Why inflict on yourself a grinding, soul-crushing, spirit-draining quest to find an element of purity and truth in this pantomime that we call the Premiership? Simply sit back, accept the non-free kick that you were awarded against Villa, and lap up the three points. You'd think that, after such a flagrant example of injustice had been cast their way only a matter of days ago, it would be fitting to show a little character in the face of adversity. After all, them's the breaks, right?
So what did we see yesterday, apart from the shameful sight (once again) of John Terry barracking Styles at every available opportunity? (I am, perhaps, alone as a Chelsea fan in roundly condemning this behaviour from our otherwise inspirational captain. He's certainly not alone in it, as the hellish Gemini of Carragher and Finnan proved as they surrounded Styles after the penalty call, but it almost seems to be part of the culture at Chelsea, a little like underachievement at Spurs or casual GBH at Blackburn.) We saw a decent enough game, in fact: quite a departure from the bore-fest that usually exemplifies these meetings. In my heart of hearts, I believe that the Chelsea-Liverpool ties of recent years have been elegant illustrations of the inverse square law. How is it possible to have two such talented squads and two such meticulous managers, and yet produce the sort of excitement that has me reaching for a can of Dulux in the vain hope that if I get that kitchen wall painted in the next 40 minutes, I'll have something decent to watch in the second half.
Hats off to Torres, who capped a lovely through ball from his injured for England but not for Liverpool captain by sliding a delightful finish beyond Petr Cech. Hats off to Shaun Wright-Phillips, whose return to the fold of the talented is entrancing all of us, and hats off to Alex, who seems to be the missing link between man and potato. This game settled nothing, but it did feed the Scouse squad's self-image as the victims of organised injustice. A siege mentality was one of the prime factors in Chelsea's recent double league titles. You never know… it may work for Rafa too.


text:
/* -*- buffer-read-only: t -*- vi: set ro: */
/* DO NOT EDIT! GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY! */
/* Test the getaddrinfo module.

   Copyright (C) 2006-2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

   This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
   the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
   (at your option) any later version.

   This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
   GNU General Public License for more details.

   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
   along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */

/* Written by Simon Josefsson.  */

#include <config.h>

#include <netdb.h>

#include "signature.h"
SIGNATURE_CHECK (freeaddrinfo, void, (struct addrinfo *));
SIGNATURE_CHECK (gai_strerror, char const *, (int));
SIGNATURE_CHECK (getaddrinfo, int, (char const *, char const *,
                                    struct addrinfo const *,
                                    struct addrinfo **));

#include <arpa/inet.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

/* Whether to print debugging messages.  */
#define ENABLE_DEBUGGING 0

#if ENABLE_DEBUGGING
# define dbgprintf printf
#else
# define dbgprintf if (0) printf
#endif

/* BeOS does not have AF_UNSPEC.  */
#ifndef AF_UNSPEC
# define AF_UNSPEC 0
#endif

#ifndef EAI_SERVICE
# define EAI_SERVICE 0
#endif

static int
simple (char const *host, char const *service)
{
  char buf[BUFSIZ];
  static int skip = 0;
  struct addrinfo hints;
  struct addrinfo *ai0, *ai;
  int res;
  int err;

  /* Once we skipped the test, do not try anything else */
  if (skip)
    return 0;

  dbgprintf ("Finding %s service %s...\n", host, service);

  /* This initializes "hints" but does not use it.  Is there a reason
     for this?  If so, please fix this comment.  */
  memset (&hints, 0, sizeof (hints));
  hints.ai_flags = AI_CANONNAME;
  hints.ai_family = AF_UNSPEC;
  hints.ai_socktype = SOCK_STREAM;

  res = getaddrinfo (host, service, 0, &ai0);
  err = errno;

  dbgprintf ("res %d: %s\n", res, gai_strerror (res));

  if (res != 0)
    {
      /* EAI_AGAIN is returned if no network is available. Don't fail
         the test merely because someone is down the country on their
         in-law's farm. */
      if (res == EAI_AGAIN)
        {
          skip++;
          fprintf (stderr, "skipping getaddrinfo test: no network?\n");
          return 77;
        }
      /* IRIX reports EAI_NONAME for "https".  Don't fail the test
         merely because of this.  */
      if (res == EAI_NONAME)
        return 0;
      /* Solaris reports EAI_SERVICE for "http" and "https".  Don't
         fail the test merely because of this.  */
      if (res == EAI_SERVICE)
        return 0;
#ifdef EAI_NODATA
      /* AIX reports EAI_NODATA for "https".  Don't fail the test
         merely because of this.  */
      if (res == EAI_NODATA)
        return 0;
#endif
      /* Provide details if errno was set.  */
      if (res == EAI_SYSTEM)
        dbgprintf ("system error: %s\n", strerror (err));

      return 1;
    }

  for (ai = ai0; ai; ai = ai->ai_next)
    {
      dbgprintf ("\tflags %x\n", ai->ai_flags);
      dbgprintf ("\tfamily %x\n", ai->ai_family);
      dbgprintf ("\tsocktype %x\n", ai->ai_socktype);
      dbgprintf ("\tprotocol %x\n", ai->ai_protocol);
      dbgprintf ("\taddrlen %ld: ", (unsigned long) ai->ai_addrlen);
      dbgprintf ("\tFound %s\n",
                 inet_ntop (ai->ai_family,
                            &((struct sockaddr_in *)
                              ai->ai_addr)->sin_addr,
                            buf, sizeof (buf) - 1));
      if (ai->ai_canonname)
        dbgprintf ("\tFound %s...\n", ai->ai_canonname);

      {
        char ipbuf[BUFSIZ];
        char portbuf[BUFSIZ];

        res = getnameinfo (ai->ai_addr, ai->ai_addrlen,
                           ipbuf, sizeof (ipbuf) - 1,
                           portbuf, sizeof (portbuf) - 1,
                           NI_NUMERICHOST|NI_NUMERICSERV);
        dbgprintf ("\t\tgetnameinfo %d: %s\n", res, gai_strerror (res));
        if (res == 0)
          {
            dbgprintf ("\t\tip %s\n", ipbuf);
            dbgprintf ("\t\tport %s\n", portbuf);
          }
      }

    }

  freeaddrinfo (ai0);

  return 0;
}

#define HOST1 "www.gnu.org"
#define SERV1 "http"
#define HOST2 "www.ibm.com"
#define SERV2 "https"
#define HOST3 "microsoft.com"
#define SERV3 "http"
#define HOST4 "google.org"
#define SERV4 "ldap"

int main (void)
{
  return simple (HOST1, SERV1)
    + simple (HOST2, SERV2)
    + simple (HOST3, SERV3)
    + simple (HOST4, SERV4);
}


OLYMPIA – The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) recently joined with the cities of Olympia, Port Angeles, and Port Townsend to file an amicus brief in the suit challenging Seattle's authority to impose an income tax.
As stated in the brief, cities and towns have differing policy views on tax policy and revenues. AWC takes no position on the issue of income tax. AWC's participation in the amicus brief is part of an ongoing effort to protect cities' local decision-making ability.
AWC serves its members through advocacy, education and services. Founded in 1933, AWC is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation that represents Washington's cities and towns before the state legislature, the state executive branch, and with regulatory agencies.


text:
Our expanded mission sure looks pretty – but will it actually defeat IS?
by George Petrolekas
The leaked expansion of Canada's Islamic State mission will certainly look pretty on a PowerPoint slide. At least 500 more troops will be sent with a doubling of special forces, a dollop of humanitarian aid and an as yet unclear diplomatic effort. The enabling aircraft, the refueller and surveillance planes will stay, so we are still part of the air campaign, but look at how much more we are doing. Just don't ask too many difficult questions.
The key and central question is, should be, and always has been: "How does this materially defeat the Islamic State?" That question has been a central concern of the initial air campaign, which is expanding rather than contracting. Since the notion of Western army boots on the ground simply isn't in the cards, the next best thing was the containment of IS through an aerial campaign to purchase time for local forces to be trained to carry the fight on the ground. That has begun to occur in Iraq.
The Kurds have held their own, in part with Canadian training. They are not strong enough yet to fully go on the offensive, but can hold on to what they have. Small operations, such as cutting off the Raqqah-Mosul supply line, have been possible through U.S. Special Forces assistance. Further South, the main Iraqi Army has recaptured Ramadi, most importantly by integrating Sunni troops and Sunni tribes, but the liberation of Mosul, the toughest task, is not yet in view.
In Western Syria, U.S. and international diplomacy, as a consequence of Russian military action, will lead to some sort of deal concerning the Assad government. Assad may stay a little longer or a lot longer – negotiations have yet to determine which. Regardless, the western part of Syria will fade from view. (What is to be done with the more militant members of the opposition, such as the al-Nusra Front, is another matter.)
But the central questions remain: How do we materially defeat the Islamic State, especially when it has now spread to Libya? And how does Canada's contribution materially affect that strategy?
Retaining the aircraft is a good idea. Refuelling aircraft are always in short supply, and the surveillance airplanes are proving to be invaluable. Doubling special forces could be good, but using them as trainers is akin to using a race horse to pull a plow. Conventional forces could train just as well. Using special forces in direct actions or in expanded advise-and-assist roles would have been a better option.
But with the 500 soldiers heading (most likely) to Jordan, it begs more questions: Who are they to train, and to what effect? Are we training Jordanians who will now take the fight to IS on the ground in Syria? It was only last year that the U.S. spent $500-million to train anti-IS fighters to produce a net output of five people.
In a deficit-challenged environment, costs are going to increase. It isn't the issue of roles, but the logistical challenges in maintaining widely separated Canadian military footprints overseas. Our numbers in Kuwait will be reduced to around 200, nevertheless this presence needs to be resupplied. We will have to add support elements to Jordan, and increase how we are supporting a doubled presence in Kurdish territory, trainers in the Ukraine and soldiers rotating into Poland as part of NATO's Operation Reassurance. Add all of those up and the support costs through C-17 flights and other means will be enormous.
Given increased costs and increased presence, what is the return? How is what Canada is doing speeding up, or materially contributing, to the defeat of IS. Will our allies see our contribution as sufficient to be invited to the coalition strategy table? Without answers to those questions, the contribution slide in the PowerPoint presentation will be impressive – but the deeper questions are hidden and begging to be answered.
George Petrolekas is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He served with the military in Bosnia and Afghanistan and was an adviser to senior NATO commanders.


text:
How to Organize and Add Shortcuts to the All Apps List on Windows 10
Chris Hoffman
Chris Hoffman is Editor-in-Chief of How-To Geek. He's written about technology for over a decade and was a PCWorld columnist for two years. Chris has written for The New York Times and Reader's Digest, been interviewed as a technology expert on TV stations like Miami's NBC 6, and had his work covered by news outlets like the BBC. Since 2011, Chris has written over 2,000 articles that have been read more than one billion times---and that's just here at How-To Geek. Read more...
@chrisbhoffman
Updated Jul 10, 2017, 9:45 pm EST | 3 min read
Windows 10's All Apps list functions a bit differently than the All Programs list in Windows 7. You can't just drag-and-drop shortcuts or right-click All Programs and select Explore anymore.
Use this trick to add your own custom shortcuts to the menu or remove existing shortcuts. For example, you could clean up the menu by removing unnecessary folders or organize your desktop apps into folders.
Organizing and Customizing Existing Shortcuts
To modify, organize, or rearrange an existing app shortcut, open the All Apps list, locate the app shortcut, right-click it, and select "Open file location".
Note that you can't do this to a "universal app" from the Store. You'll have to right-click it and select Uninstall to remove its shortcut — this will also remove the entire app. If you want to remove the shortcuts to apps that are part of the default Windows 10 system, you'll have to use this trick to remove preinstalled apps.
You must right-click a shortcut to a desktop application. You can't even right-click a folder in the All Apps list — you have to right-click a desktop app shortcut itself.
You'll see a File Explorer window appear with the shortcut selected. Make changes from here and they'll automatically be picked up by the All Apps list.
For example, you could:
Rename the shortcut by right-clicking it, selecting Rename, and entering a new name.
Change the shortcut's properties by right-clicking it, selecting Properties, and changing its options. This might be necessary if you want to customize a program's startup options or just change its icon.
Delete the shortcut from the Start menu by right-clicking it and selecting Delete. This would be particularly useful with useless shortcuts like the links to websites some programs include.
We might want to move this particular shortcut out of a folder. First, we'd right-click it and select Cut or press Ctrl+X. Next, we click the up arrow next to the address box to "Go Up".
You'll end up in the top-level folder and you can paste the shortcut here with Ctrl+V. It will then appear in the top-level All Apps list. You could then remove the original folder if it has no shortcuts left in it, although the All Apps list will always hide empty folders anyway.
Repeat this process all you like to further clean up your All Apps list, moving application shortcuts from unnecessary folders to the main list.
(If a shortcut doesn't appear in this folder, go to the All Apps list, right-click it, and select "Open file location." Windows stores these shortcuts in two separate folders.)
You could also arrange the shortcuts into folders. For example, you could make a "Games" folder and move all your game shortcuts from their individual folders into there. They'd all appear under the Games folder in All Apps, making for easier scrolling through the rest of your apps list.
Add Custom Shortcuts
Adding your own desktop application shortcuts to the All Apps list is simple, too. You just need to add them to the appropriate folder on your system. These are the same folders that will appear when you right-click shortcuts and select "Open file location".
You can access them by copy-pasting the below addresses into a File Explorer window, the Search box in the Start menu, or a Run dialog. You can't just browse there normally without hidden files visible, as these folders are hidden by default.
Start menu shortcuts for your user account:
%appdata%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs
Start menu shortcuts for all users:
C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs
Create any shortcuts you like here. For example, you can right-click an .exe file elsewhere on your system, select Copy, access this shortcut, and then right-click and select "Paste shortcut." Rename the shortcut anything you like and it will appear in your Start menu.
This is particularly useful for portable applications and similar applications that don't automatically install shortcuts.
Although you could actually copy-paste .exe files directly into the Start Menu folders on Windows 7 and earlier and they'd appear in the Start menu, you can't do this on Windows 10. if you place an .exe file directly into one of these folders, Windows will ignore it and not display it in the Start menu. Instead, you'll need to place the .exe file elsewhere and then create a shortcut to it in one of these folders. Windows will only show shortcuts in the All Apps list.
Windows 10's Start menu works differently under the hood. It's actually managed by a system service that scans the above folders for changes and displays an All Apps list based on them. In practice, it works similarly.
Ars Technica found that the initial release version of Windows 10 could only handle 500 entries in this shortcut database before it breaks and stops showing new shortcuts, so don't add too many! Microsoft will hopefully fix this low limit in a future update to Windows 10.
› How to Turn Wi-Fi On or Off With a Keyboard or Desktop Shortcut in Windows
› How to Open the Start Menu Folder in Windows 7 or 10
Chris Hoffman is Editor-in-Chief of How-To Geek. He's written about technology for over a decade and was a PCWorld columnist for two years. Chris has written for The New York Times and Reader's Digest, been interviewed as a technology expert on TV stations like Miami's NBC 6, and had his work covered by news outlets like the BBC. Since 2011, Chris has written over 2,000 articles that have been read more than one billion times---and that's just here at How-To Geek.