text:
ILO Convention 87
The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,
Having been convened at San Francisco by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Thirty-first Session on 17 June 1948;
Having decided to adopt, in the form of a Convention, certain proposals concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, which is the seventh item on the agenda of the session;
Considering that the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation declares "recognition of the principle of freedom of association" to be a means of improving conditions of labour and of establishing peace;
Considering that the Declaration of Philadelphia reaffirms that "freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress";
Considering that the International Labour Conference, at its Thirtieth Session, unanimously adopted the principles which should form the basis for international regulation;
Considering that the General Assembly of the United Nations, at its Second Session, endorsed these principles and requested the International Labour Organisation to continue every effort in order that it may be possible to adopt one or several international Conventions;
adopts this ninth day of July of the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight the following Convention, which may be cited as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948:
PART I. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this Convention is in force undertakes to give effect to the following provisions.
Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.
Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.
The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations and any such organisation, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers.
The provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof apply to federations and confederations of workers' and employers' organisations.
The acquisition of legal personality by workers' and employers' organisations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof.
In exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land.
The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.
The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations.
In accordance with the principle set forth in paragraph 8 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation the ratification of this Convention by any Member shall not be deemed to affect any existing law, award, custom or agreement in virtue of which members of the armed forces or the police enjoy any right guaranteed by this Convention.
In this Convention the term organisation means any organisation of workers or of employers for furthering and defending the interests of workers or of employers.
PART II. PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE
Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this Convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise.
PART III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
In respect of the territories referred to in Article 35 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation as amended by the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation Instrument of Amendment 1946, other than the territories referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said article as so amended, each Member of the Organisation which ratifies this Convention shall communicate to the Director-General of the International Labour Office with or as soon as possible after its ratification a declaration stating:
(a) the territories in respect of which it undertakes that the provisions of the Convention shall be applied without modification;
(b) the territories in respect of which it undertakes that the provisions of the Convention shall be applied subject to modifications, together with details of the said modifications;
(c) the territories in respect of which the Convention is inapplicable and in such cases the grounds on which it is inapplicable;
(d) the territories in respect of which it reserves its decision.
The undertakings referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be deemed to be an integral part of the ratification and shall have the force of ratification.
Any Member may at any time by a subsequent declaration cancel in whole or in part any reservations made in its original declaration in virtue of subparagraphs (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article.
Any Member may, at any time at which the Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 16, communicate to the Director-General a declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect of such territories as it may specify.
Where the subject-matter of this Convention is within the self-governing powers of any non-metropolitan territory, the Member responsible for the international relations of that territory may, in agreement with the government of the territory, communicate to the Director-General of the International Labour Office a declaration accepting on behalf of the territory the obligations of this Convention.
A declaration accepting the obligations of this Convention may be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office:
(a) by two or more Members of the Organisation in respect of any territory which is under their joint authority; or
(b) by any international authority responsible for the administration of any territory, in virtue of the Charter of the United Nations or otherwise, in respect of any such territory.
Declarations communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article shall indicate whether the provisions of the Convention will be applied in the territory concerned without modification or subject to modifications; when the declaration indicates that the provisions of the Convention will be applied subject to modifications it shall give details of the said modifications.
The Member, Members or international authority concerned may at any time by a subsequent declaration renounce in whole or in part the right to have recourse to any modification indicated in any former declaration.
The Member, Members or international authority concerned may, at any time at which this Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 16, communicate to the Director-General a declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect of the application of the Convention.
PART IV. FINAL PROVISIONS
The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.
This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.
It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.
Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve months after the date on which its ratifications has been registered.
A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.
Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.
The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organisation of the registration of all ratifications, declarations and denunciations communicated to him by the Members of the Organisation.
When notifying the Members of the Organisation of the registration of the second ratification communicated to him, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organisation to the date upon which the Convention will come into force.
The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications, declarations and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance with the provisions of the preceding articles.
At such times as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.
Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides:
(a) the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 16 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
(b) as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.
The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.
©2015 - Volta Fashions
Powered by Nimblestrokes


text:
Blog, Events, Music, Newsletter, Paisley, Paisley Events, People from Paisley, Press Release, Renfrewshire, renfrewshire events
NYC Tartan Week
Lisa Kowalski, singer songwriter aged 18 from Paisley, is absolutely thrilled to have been invited by the American Scottish Foundation to take part in New York Tartan Week and perform at the Bryant Park lunchtime concert this April.
This gives the young musician, who to date has only performed in Central Scotland, an opportunity to perform in front of an international audience and network with a number of other important musicians and supporters of music. As well as performing her own songs, Lisa will be polishing up a few popular Scottish folk tunes to entertain the participants of the Tartan Day Parade.
Lisa initially made contact with the Foundation last year after reading about their support for Scottish culture, telling them about her debut EP Free Spirits, her involvement in the Paisley 2021 UK City of Culture Bid and her American family connections. Liking her songs and her story, they featured Lisa in their magazine and offered to support her if she wanted to bring her music to the States. Due to Lisa's youth, her song writing talent and her passion for her local community, the Foundation decided that she would be a good candidate for support from the Lord Malcolm Douglas Foundation bursary scheme, especially in 2018, the Year of Young People.
Several emails and phone calls later, the trip has been confirmed and Lisa will fly over for a week from 4th April. With many New York based artists having influenced Lisa's musical development, she is delighted to be visiting the city for the first time and also catching up with her New England based family.
"I absolutely love performing, no matter where I am. Whether it's a festival mainstage or a small cafe, it's my favourite thing to do. To perform in New York though, a place that I've wanted to visit for my entire life, will be absolutely life changing. I can't wait to see what it's like to be there and perform there."
2018 has already got off to a great start for Lisa, with a headlining gig at King Tuts on the night of her 18th birthday, part of the prize for reaching the finals of the inaugural Salute Music UK Song Writing competition last year. With the activity, excitement and hope generated by the City of Culture bid and the release of Lisa's Paisley 2021 funded EP, 2017 was always going to be a hard year to follow but there's no better way to spread the #thejourneycontinues message than with an invitation to New York.
https://www.paisley.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/52542_image_26757920_1756589254363278_5548007930708174191_o.jpg 480 720 Brian McGuire https://www.paisley.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/paisley-logo-trans.png Brian McGuire2018-02-23 21:48:422021-05-14 07:00:34NYC Tartan Week
Why it works to be happy at work
Pass It On Week 10th-18th March

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Sre Ramana College of Education was established in the Semirural area of Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu in the year 2014 by Sre Ramana College of Education Trust, Upparapatti Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri 635 207. Institute aims to endeavor, encourage and fulfill the student's needs with the latest educational facilities by providing qualitative environment, Holistic transaction, Industrial partnership to inculcate the moral and ethical values, promotion of creative spirit and innovation of excellence.
The candidate whose application form is filled and furnished with required documents will be eligible for the entrance test which comprises 3 rounds consisting written, group discussion and personal interview by the board members.
The Parent Teacher Association is playing a pivotal role in the efficient functioning of the college machinery. It is the prop and support of all endeavors and establishes a positive and constructive link between all the stakeholders.


Solute carrier OCTN1 (SLC22A4) is an orphan transporter, the physiologically important substrate of which is still unidentified. The aim of the present study was to examine physiological roles of OCTN1.
We first constructed octn1 gene knockout (octn1 −/− ) mice. Metabolome analysis was then performed to identify substrates in vivo. The possible association of the substrate identified with diseased conditions was further examined.
The metabolome analysis of blood and several organs indicated complete deficiency of a naturally occurring potent antioxidant ergothioneine in octn1 −/− mice among 112 metabolites examined. Pharmacokinetic analyses after oral administration revealed the highest distribution to small intestines and extensive renal reabsorption of [3H]ergothioneine, both of which were much reduced in octn1 −/− mice. The octn1 −/− mice exhibited greater susceptibility to intestinal inflammation under the ischemia and reperfusion model. The blood ergothioneine concentration was also much reduced in Japanese patients with Crohn's disease, compared with healthy volunteers and patients with another inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis.
These results indicate that OCTN1 plays a pivotal role for maintenance of systemic and intestinal exposure of ergothioneine, which could be important for protective effects against intestinal tissue injuries, providing a possible diagnostic tool to distinguish the inflammatory bowel diseases.
The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s11095-010-0076-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
We thank Lica Ishida, Kazuhiro Suzuki and Ryutaro Matsuhashi for technical assistance in Kanazawa University. We also thank Maki Sugawara and Naoko Toki for technical assistance in Keio University. We thank Prof. Shoichi Iseki in Kanazawa University for fruitful discussion. This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research provided by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan, and a grant from the Mochida Memorial Foundation (Tokyo, Japan) for Medical and Pharmaceutical Research.


text:
Q: Firestore adapter to get all users documents but just not current user document to display in RecyclerView I am using Cloud Firestore as my database to save all users as documents in 'users' collection. I want to display all the users in 'users' collection into my RecyclerView except the current user who is currently using the app. I searched a lot to find a solution all over the internet but could not find any. So please help me out guys and thanks in advance. I'm a beginner, so really need your help. And thanks again.
This is my Firestore adapter:
mQuery = FirebaseFirestore.getInstance().collection("users");
                    FirestoreRecyclerOptions<NearbyUserRecyclerModel> options = new FirestoreRecyclerOptions.Builder<NearbyUserRecyclerModel>()
                            .setQuery(mQuery,NearbyUserRecyclerModel.class)
                            .setLifecycleOwner(getActivity())
                            .build();

                    FirestoreRecyclerAdapter adapter = new FirestoreRecyclerAdapter<NearbyUserRecyclerModel,NearbyProfilesViewHolder>(options) {
                        @Override
                        protected void onBindViewHolder(@NonNull final NearbyProfilesViewHolder holder, int position, @NonNull final NearbyUserRecyclerModel model) {
                            holder.itemBuddyState.setText("0");

                            Glide.with(getActivity()).load(model.getThumb_pictures()).into(holder.itemImage);

                            holder.itemDisplayName.setText(model.getFirst_name());

                            holder.itemOnline.setVisibility(View.VISIBLE);

                            DocumentSnapshot snapshot = getSnapshots().getSnapshot(position);
                            if (snapshot.contains("online")){
                                Boolean onlineState = snapshot.getBoolean("online");

                                if (onlineState == true){
                                    holder.itemOnline.setVisibility(View.VISIBLE);
                                }
                                else {
                                    holder.itemOnline.setVisibility(View.INVISIBLE);
                                }
                            }

                            final String user_id = snapshot.getId();

                            mChatRequestCollection.document(current_user_id).collection("request_received")
                                    .document(user_id).get().addOnCompleteListener(getActivity(),
                                    new OnCompleteListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
                                        @Override
                                        public void onComplete(@NonNull Task<DocumentSnapshot> task) {
                                            if (task.isSuccessful()){
                                                DocumentSnapshot document = task.getResult();
                                                if (document.contains("received_time")){

                                                    holder.itemBuddyState.setText("3");

                                                }else {
                                                    Log.d("REQUEST RECEIVED", "onComplete: received field doest exist, "+task.getException());
                                                }

                                            }else {
                                                Log.d("REQUEST RECEIVED", "onComplete: Document doesn't exist, "+ task.getException());
                                            }

                                        }
                                    });

                            mChatRequestCollection.document(current_user_id).collection("request_sent")
                                    .document(user_id).get().addOnCompleteListener(getActivity(),
                                    new OnCompleteListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
                                        @Override
                                        public void onComplete(@NonNull Task<DocumentSnapshot> task) {
                                            if (task.isSuccessful()){
                                                DocumentSnapshot document = task.getResult();

                                                if (document.contains("sent_time")){

                                                    holder.itemBuddyState.setText("2");

                                                }else {
                                                    Log.d("REQUEST SENT", "onComplete: sent field doesn't exist, "+ task.getException());
                                                }

                                            }else {
                                                Log.d("REQUEST SENT", "onComplete: Document doesn't exist,");
                                            }
                                        }
                                    });

                            mChatHolderCollection.document(current_user_id+"/user_chats/"+user_id)
                                    .get().addOnCompleteListener(getActivity(),
                                    new OnCompleteListener<DocumentSnapshot>() {
                                        @Override
                                        public void onComplete(@NonNull Task<DocumentSnapshot> task) {
                                            if (task.isSuccessful()){
                                                DocumentSnapshot document = task.getResult();
                                                if (document.contains("timestamp")){

                                                    holder.itemBuddyState.setText("1");

                                                }else {
                                                    Log.d("CHAT_HOLDERDOC", "onComplete: timeStamp field doesn't exist, "+task.getException());
                                                }

                                            }else {
                                                Log.d("CHAT_HOLDERDOC", "onComplete: chat buddy doesn't exist, "+task.getException());
                                            }
                                        }
                                    });

                            holder.itemImage.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() {
                                @Override
                                public void onClick(View v) {

                                    userPopupDialog(model, user_id);
                                    //  popupIntent(user_id);
                                }
                            });

                            holder.itemButton.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() {
                                @Override
                                public void onClick(final View v) {

                                    String message = holder.itemEditText.getText().toString();

                                    if (holder.itemBuddyState.getText().equals("0")){

                                        if (!TextUtils.isEmpty(message)) {

                                            WriteBatch request_batch = mRootStore.batch();

                                            Map<String, Object> sentMap = new HashMap<>();
                                            sentMap.put("sent_time", FieldValue.serverTimestamp());
                                            sentMap.put("message", message);

                                            Map<String, Object> receivedMap = new HashMap<>();
                                            receivedMap.put("received_time", FieldValue.serverTimestamp());
                                            receivedMap.put("message", message);

                                            Map<String, Object> notificationMap = new HashMap<>();
                                            notificationMap.put("from", current_user_id);
                                            notificationMap.put("type", "request");

                                            DocumentReference sentRef = mRootStore.collection("chat_requests").document(current_user_id + "/request_sent/" + user_id);
                                            request_batch.set(sentRef, sentMap, SetOptions.merge());

                                            DocumentReference receivedRef = mRootStore.collection("chat_requests").document(user_id + "/request_received/" + current_user_id);
                                            request_batch.set(receivedRef, receivedMap, SetOptions.merge());

                                            DocumentReference notificationRef = mRootStore.collection("users/" + user_id + "/notifications").document();
                                            request_batch.set(notificationRef, notificationMap, SetOptions.merge());

                                            request_batch.commit().addOnCompleteListener(new OnCompleteListener<Void>() {
                                                @Override
                                                public void onComplete(@NonNull Task<Void> task) {
                                                    if (task.isSuccessful()) {

                                                        //------------Request Sent------------//
                                                        holder.itemEditText.setText("");

                                                        holder.itemBuddyState.setText("2");

                                                        Log.d("REQUEST_LOG", "onComplete: Request sent Successfully");
                                                        Log.d("REQUEST_LOG", "onComplete: Notification sent Successfully");

                                                        Snackbar.make(v, "Request sent Successfully", Snackbar.LENGTH_LONG).show();
                                                    } else {
                                                        Snackbar.make(v, "Failed Sending Request", Snackbar.LENGTH_LONG).show();

                                                        Log.d("REQUEST_LOG", "onComplete: Failed sending request" + task.getException());

                                                    }
                                                }
                                            });
                                        }

                                    }

                                    if (holder.itemBuddyState.getText().equals("3")){
                                        holder.itemEditText.setText("");
                                        Snackbar.make(v, "Request already received by user", Snackbar.LENGTH_LONG).show();
                                    }

                                    if (holder.itemBuddyState.getText().equals("2")){
                                        holder.itemEditText.setText("");
                                        Snackbar.make(v, "Request already sent", Snackbar.LENGTH_LONG).show();
                                    }

                                    if (holder.itemBuddyState.getText().equals("1")){
                                        holder.itemEditText.setText("");
                                        Snackbar.make(v,"User already chat buddy", Snackbar.LENGTH_LONG).show();
                                    }

                                }
                            });

                        }

                        @NonNull
                        @Override
                        public NearbyProfilesViewHolder onCreateViewHolder(@NonNull ViewGroup parent, int viewType) {
                            View view = LayoutInflater.from(parent.getContext()).inflate(R.layout.nearby_profiles_recycler_items, parent, false);

                            final AppCompatImageButton button_send = view.findViewById(R.id.itemSendButton_id);
                            final AppCompatEditText editText_message =  view.findViewById(R.id.itemEditText_id);

                            Drawable drawable = getResources().getDrawable(R.drawable.ic_send_new);
                            drawable = DrawableCompat.wrap(drawable);
                            DrawableCompat.setTint(drawable, getResources().getColor(R.color.colorTabUnselected));
                            button_send.setImageDrawable(drawable);
                            button_send.setEnabled(false);

                            editText_message.addTextChangedListener(new TextWatcher() {
                                @Override
                                public void beforeTextChanged(CharSequence s, int start, int count, int after) {

                                }

                                @Override
                                public void onTextChanged(CharSequence s, int start, int before, int count) {
                                    String message = editText_message.getText().toString();

                                    if (TextUtils.isEmpty(message)){
                                        Drawable drawable = getResources().getDrawable(R.drawable.ic_send_new);
                                        drawable = DrawableCompat.wrap(drawable);
                                        DrawableCompat.setTint(drawable, getResources().getColor(R.color.colorTabUnselected));

                                        button_send.setImageDrawable(drawable);
                                        button_send.setEnabled(false);
                                    }
                                    else {
                                        Drawable drawable = getResources().getDrawable(R.drawable.ic_send_new);
                                        drawable = DrawableCompat.wrap(drawable);
                                        DrawableCompat.setTint(drawable, getResources().getColor(R.color.colorTabSelected));

                                        button_send.setImageDrawable(drawable);

                                        button_send.setEnabled(true);
                                    }

                                }

                                @Override
                                public void afterTextChanged(Editable s) {

                                }
                            });

                            return new NearbyProfilesViewHolder(view);
                        }
                    };

                    nearbyRecycler.setAdapter(adapter);

A: Change the IF condition in the below method
 public void getUserData(){
    db.collection("users")
            .get().addOnCompleteListener(new OnCompleteListener<QuerySnapshot>() {
        @Override
        public void onComplete(@NonNull Task<QuerySnapshot> task) {
            if (task.isSuccessful()) {
                for (QueryDocumentSnapshot document : task.getResult()) {
                    Log.d(TAG, document.getId() + " => " + document.getData());
                    if(document.getData().get("userID").equals(userID)){
                       // User user = (User)document.getData();
                       // Log.e(TAG, "onComplete: "+user.getUserName()+ user.getDescription() + user.isGender());
                        Map<String, Object> user = new HashMap<>();
                        user.put("name", document.getData().get("name"));
                        user.put("userID", document.getData().get("userID"));
                        user.put("email", document.getData().get("email"));
                        user.put("companyName",document.getData().get("companyName"));
                        user.put("officeAddress", document.getData().get("officeAddress"));
                        user.put("phoneNumber", document.getData().get("phoneNumber"));
                        user.put("gender",document.getData().get("gender"));
                        user.put("isProfileComplete",document.getData().get("isProfileComplete"));
                        user.put("profilePicUrl", document.getData().get("profilePicUrl"));
                        user.put("description", document.getData().get("description"));

                       /* if(document.getData().get("isProfileComplete")){
                            LoginActivity loginActivity = (LoginActivity)mContext;
                            loginActivity.navigateToHome();
                        }else{
                             LoginActivity loginActivity = (LoginActivity)mContext;
                            loginActivity.navigateToHome();
                        }*/
                       boolean check = (Boolean) document.getData().get("isProfileComplete");

                       if(check){
                           LoginActivity loginActivity = (LoginActivity)mContext;
                           loginActivity.navigateToHome();
                       }else{
                           LoginActivity loginActivity = (LoginActivity)mContext;
                           loginActivity.navigateToOnBoarding();
                       }

                        Log.e(TAG, "onComplete:GET DADA "+ user.get("isProfileComplete"));
                    }else{
                        Log.e(TAG, "onComplete:ID "+document.getData().get("userID") );
                        LoginActivity loginActivity = (LoginActivity)mContext;
                        loginActivity.navigateToOnBoarding();
                    }
                }
            } else {
                Log.w(TAG, "Error getting documents.", task.getException());
            }
        }
    });
}

A: There is no way in which you can query a Firestore database using != (not equal to operator). So the following line of code does not exist:

Query query = db.collection("users").whereNotEqualTo("userID", userID);

In this case, you need to create your own logic for that. To solve this, you need to query your database for all users but the adapter should receive all of them except one, the current user. So you need to create an if statement to check if the current user is different than the others.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Being connected is more of a good thing than it is a bad thing
Mathew Ingram Nov 30, 2014 (Jun 11, 2020) -- Blog Post
As smartphones and social platforms become more and more ubiquitous, debate continues over whether being connected all the time — even in a small way — is good for us, and that debate is probably never going to be settled. But even though I wrestle with the difficulties of ubiquitous connectivity and the "always on" social web, I believe that the vast majority of us are better off than we were before the internet came along.
What got me thinking about this again was a piece that Scottish novelist Andrew O'Hagen wrote in the New York Times' style magazine a few weeks ago, entitled "In Defense of Technology." In it, the author talks about trying to convince his children that things were better when he was younger, before technology came along. But he admits that his heart isn't really in it:
[blockquote person="" attribution=""]"One is supposed to stare into the middle distance and recall the superior days of a life less needy, the rich rewards of having to wait and having to try and having to do without. But the actual truth, my friends, is that my childhood would have been greatly, no, infinitely, improved, if only I'd had a smartphone."[/blockquote]
Past vs. future
This is not a popular view, by any means. Many parents — and even those who aren't parents, but are simply observing other people's behavior with their children — complain about the amount of time that kids spend with their phones, or iPads, or other devices. I confess that even I have forcefully encouraged my offspring to spend a little time outside on a sunny day, or asked them if they wouldn't rather be talking with their "real friends."
But O'Hagen is right when he says that we often have a rose-colored view of the past — a desire to paint it as more richly rewarding than it was, to make it seem as though spending hours walking to a library to try and check out a book is inherently better than reading one on a tablet. Or that asking people for directions is somehow more noble than using Google Maps.
[blockquote person="" attribution=""]"I now feel — and this is a revelation — that my past was an interesting and quite fallow period spent waiting for the Internet. What has been lost? Nothing. Has something gone out of my experience of life by ordering all the shopping on Ocado rather than by pushing a cart around the aisles of a supermarket for an hour and a half? Yes: A pain in my backside has been relieved."[/blockquote]
That's not to say there isn't a risk in having a smart device always at our fingertips. I've written before about trying to rediscover the value of boredom — the kind we used to get as children, before the internet or smart devices, when we were forced to daydream or use our imaginations. And I enjoy having times when I disconnect and go for a walk, or paddle a canoe across a lake, or just listen to the kind of twittering that comes from birds instead of the kind that comes from a computer.
Your real friends
But then any activity can become restrictive if we do it all the time, not just being online. It's good to take breaks from all kinds of things — but there is nothing magical about doing so that suddenly makes us better people. And when I tell my children to play with their "real friends," they are right to get irritated with me: the friends that my teenaged daughters have made on Tumblr and Twitter and Instagram are real friends — just because they have never been in a room together doesn't change that.
[blockquote person="" attribution=""]"I've heard many a nostalgist say there was something more, well, effortful, and therefore poetic, in the old system of walking for miles to a record shop only to discover they'd just sold out. People become addicted to the weights and measures of their own experience: We value our own story and what it entails. But we can't become hostages to the romantic notion that the past is always a better country."[/blockquote]
I can still remember an elderly relative scolding me for spending so much time on the telephone when I was a teenager, back when phones were attached to the wall. He told me that in his day, if you wanted to talk to somebody, then you bloody well put your boots on and went to visit them — implying that using a device to do so was evidence of some kind of moral failure.
An amazing gift
There are certainly all kinds of rude ways to behave when you have a mobile computer that fits in your pocket, and we are having to develop a whole new etiquette to deal with the effects of that. But at the same time, the fact that you can have all the world's facts and entertainment at your fingertips — and that you can stay in touch with friends from around the world on the same device, with just the press of a button — is an amazing gift.
[blockquote person="" attribution=""]"Technology is not doing what the sci-fi writers warned it might — it is not turning us into digits or blank consumers, into people who hate community. Instead, there is evidence that the improvements are making us more democratic, more aware of the planet, more interested in the experience of people who aren't us."[/blockquote]
I've probably learned more about the world in the years since I got a mobile phone than I learned in the 30 years prior to that, and hopefully I am still learning. Almost every day, I take the phone out at the dinner table so we can learn something as a family — even something seemingly trivial. And every year I meet up with dozens people who I would never have known if it wasn't for the connections I've created via Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
Can that kind of ubiquitous connectivity or the technology that enables it be abused? Sure it can — anything can be abused. But like O'Hagen, I wouldn't give it up for anything. I am far better off having it than not having it, so long as I remember that I am the one in control of when I choose to use it and when I don't.
Cloud & Infrastructure, Media, Mobile, Technology, Work & Collaboration
Image credit: Gorodenkoff
William McKnight Jan 26, 2022 @ 12:00 PM CST -- Live Webinar
Yellowbrick Solution Profile of Key Criteria for Data Warehouse
This free 1-hour webinar from GigaOm Research brings together experts in data management, featuring GigaOm analyst William McKnight and a special guest…
Image credit: Tierney
Mark Chillingworth Jan 20, 2022 -- Business & Technology Impact
Alfred Housing Bot
"RPA allows us to grow. There were a lot of processes that were very repeatable and mundane. We are very much a…
Artificial Intelligence, Robotic Process Automation
Image credit: metamorworks
Logan Andrew Green, Chris Grundemann Jan 20, 2022 -- Market Radar
GigaOm Radar for Global LPWAN Network Providers
Global Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) providers offer Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity as a service over widespread geographical areas. In this…
Edge & Networking, Networking
Image credit: ra2 studio
Alastair Cooke Jan 7, 2022 -- Market Sonar
GigaOm Sonar for VMware Global Clouds
The largest global public cloud providers all have services that provide customers with a vSphere cluster inside the provider's data center. These…
Chris Grundemann Jan 6, 2022 -- Solution Profile
GigaOm Solution Profile: Grey Matter
Developed in-house from the ground up and released in February 2019, Grey Matter is an enterprise-proven, universal service mesh networking platform offering…
Image credit: Golden Sikorka
Joep Piscaer, Enrico Signoretti Dec 30, 2021 (Jan 21, 2022) -- Market Radar
GigaOm Radar for Kubernetes Data Protection
Kubernetes is the de facto standard for container orchestration, and it's being used by born-in-the-cloud startups and cloud-native enterprises alike. In 2021,…
Data Protection for Kubernetes


Does your Amateur Radio Club have its details on the WIA website?
website, that's what the Callbook will publish.
If an update is needed, please do it NOW!!!!!
from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego. beginning November this year.
Please note that a safe return is anticipated!
or phone/fax K0GMO John Croonquist 406-837-0525."
(14.0-14.350 MHZ) on SSB and PSK31.
where he will sign-on as VK0BP/P.
SEPT 26 LEAVING 8 AM.
GRAHAME VK2FA ON 04 1868 63 97 FOR MORE INFORMATION OR CATCH HIM ON AIR.
with Michael Owen and Vice President Ewan Mcleod.
Sunday 15th November at the Geebung- Zillmere RSL club.
each radio club in the state to attend.
A podcast is simply an audio file distributed somewhat automatically via RSS.
check if there's anything new.
most current one - you'll know it is.
Give it a go this week and never miss the news again!
grades conducted by S.R.A.G. in VK5.
The rating is the competition points scored within a year.
performance. Points for different contests then develop.
team of young sportsmen of Russia is defined.
communication technologies, journalism and public relation.
Held over 3 Saturdays, some 100 are expected to qualify.
station with automatic antenna tracking as well as a backup vertical antenna.
Astronaut Frank De Winne answered 12 questions in the time slot.
Hamfest at the Von Braun Centre, Alabama.
all thanks to science teacher Karl Beutel, KE6MAO.
Some 75 teenagers have already become licensed amateur radio operators!
also be added to the blocked list.
a change in call sign.
each DAY a violation continued.
a complaint of interference regarding the aviation frequency of 122.875 MHz.
amateur radio station with the callsign VU2ZH.
emergency power. It has HF and VHF capability.
Efforts are being made to replicate this elsewhere in India.
reporter on assignment in Kabul, 2nd is Jim McLaughlin, T6AF.
seven people and injured nearly 100.
quickly began filing news reports, in my case for the Voice of America.
are actually on the air from this war torn nation.
In Kabul, Afghanistan, I'm Steve Herman, T6AD, for the Amateur Radio Newsline.
created the following for your enjoyment. Please... enjoy.
attacker and allow you to escape."
Mr. Ham : "It's a lovely day for a walk."
Attacker: "I'm going to attack you."
Emergency key shortcut for 2 seconds."
will blind you while the beeping sound will disorient you."
UHF calling frequency will hear *beep, beep* on his radio too.
and inform them of my situation."
BUT many operators have selected the wrong operating category.
very well cost them a winning situation.
Something to bear in mind for the future.
Westlakes Cup on September 19 is another Westlakes Amateur Radio Club Contest.
2 sections, open, for Standard and Advanced and, F call, for Foundation class.
hilltop! We are told more details are on the WIA contest page.
Are sunspots normal this cycle?
Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?"
Quoting their paper, "Something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle.
state since space measurements began nearly 40 ago."
recorded in Europe during the Little Ice Age."
sunspots might completely vanish by 2015."
seen more frequently now in conjunction with high infrared intensities."
Maunder Minimum, remains to be seen."
exclusive worldwide amateur radio service band 7100-7200 kHz.
National Telecommunications Commission scheme to become legal broadcasters.
operate are now considered illegal.
use of transmitters and radio frequencies.
and violence, offend the monarchy or disrupt social morals.
VK6MJ in Perth WA and VK2ZAZ in New South Wales at the Wyong Field Day 2009.
Geoff VK2ZAZ is using handheld FM equipment.
CHIRP is a cross-platform, cross-radio programming tool.
ICOM D-STAR (or D-STAR-capable) radios and exchange data between them.
distributed by those who receive them from AMSAT.
The agreement covers the period of April 1, 2009 to April 1, 2010.
are now active on the air.
Servamus/ Community Police Forum/Emcom Amateur Radio Wing.
after applying for membership free of charge at the amateur radio wing.
The Murray Marathon "IS ON"
The event will now be known as the "VicSuper Murray Marathon".
and Amateur Radio equipment has been installed.


Piano Class II will continue to build on the physical and theoretical music skills learned in Piano Class I. New students must place into this course level. The instructor will assess your level the first class meeting. Students will need to buy a companion book. 5 students maximum. Instructor: Julie McConnell. Class meets on Wednesdays.
CSP 4000 24206 1/30-4/3 7-8:30 p.m.


text:
Fourth Circuit Upholds Injunction on Trump's Travel Ban in IRAP v. Trump: A Summary
By Jordan Brunner, Amira Mikhail
Friday, May 26, 2017, 1:12 PM
Yesterday, in a highly anticipated 10-3 decision in International Refugee Assistance Program v. Trump, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Maryland Judge Theodore Chuang's nation-wide injunction of the provision of President Donald Trump's revised executive order that suspended immigrant and refugee entry to the United States. In a lengthy and comprehensive opinion for the majority, Chief Judge Roger Gregory focuses on the central issue in the case: whether the Constitution "protects Plaintiffs' right to challenge an Executive Order that in the text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination." The court concludes that the president's power "cannot go unchecked where, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation," and affirmed "in substantial part" the district court's suspension of Section 2(c) of Trump's travel ban.
Below we summarize the majority opinion and the numerous concurrences and dissents.
Majority Opinion
Factual and Procedural History
Judge Gregory starts by painstakingly laying out the history of Trump's original and revised travel bans.
Seven days after being sworn in as president, Trump signed E.O. 13769, entitled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States" (which Amira summarized for Lawfare here and Ben analyzed here), invoking his authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to suspend immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of foreign aliens for 90 days from seven Muslim-majority countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). This suspension's stated purpose was to give Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates time to conduct a review of the vetting process for admitting immigrants and refugees with an eye towards tightening it. The E.O. also severely restricted the entry of refugees, indefinitely suspending entry for Syrian refugees and suspending refugee entry from all countries for 90 days. After that 90 days, refugees from the countries listed in the E.O. of a minority religion were to have their entry prioritized if they made claims of religious persecution.
The order was immediately challenged in federal district court in Washington state, where Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order against it, which the Ninth Circuit declined to lift (see here and here). Trump then issued a revised order on March 6.
Trump's second executive order (which is summarized here for Lawfare by Helen Klein Murillo and analyzed by Ben here) included substantial revisions. Judge Gregory notes that Section 2 of the order, the relevant provision for purposes of the plaintiffs' challenge, continued the 90-day suspension, but removed Iraq from the list of countries. The order states that the remaining countries "present heightened threats" as "state sponsors of terrorism." Section 2 also provides descriptions of the problematic conditions in each country. In marked departures from the original order, the revised E.O. clarifies that its provisions are restricted to those outside the United States who did not have a valid visa on or after January 27, 2017; permits consular officers to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis; eliminates the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees; and eliminates the preferential treatment provision.
As the Fourth Circuit points out in its analysis, a classified DHS memo obtained by MSNBC shortly before the second order was signed asserted that most foreign-born U.S.-based terrorist had been longtime residents of the United States before radicalizing and that increased screening was unlikely to help, undermining the rationale provided by the Trump administration to support the order.
IRAP v. Trump (District Court)
On February 7, 2017, six individuals—Americans citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have family members seeking entry from one of the designated countries—brought suit against Trump and members of his Cabinet in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the first E.O. They claimed the order violated the Establishment Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
On March 10, 2017, four days after promulgation of the second E.O., the plaintiffs sought to enjoin implementation of it in its entirety. Four of the plaintiffs (Paul Harrison, two John Does, and a Jane Doe) claim that Section 2(c) of the E.O. will "prolong their separation from their loved ones," by preventing them from obtaining visas, while "several" of the plaintiffs claim that the anti-Muslim animus in the executive caused them "feelings of disparagement and exclusion." The organizational plaintiffs (the International Refugee Assistance Program and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) claim that they have had to divert significant resources to deal with the fallout of the E.O. and that their clients are injured by it.
Judge Chuang determined that four plaintiffs had standing to sue under either the INA's prohibition against discrimination based on nationality or the Establishment Clause. The district court then ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed under the INA only as it applied to immigrant visas, but would most likely prevail on their Establishment Clause claims. The district court therefore issued an injunction against Section 2(c) of the revised executive order as violative of the Establishment Clause. The government appealed.
Statutory (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) Claim
The Fourth Circuit majority begins its analysis by addressing the plaintiffs' claim that the president's actions violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of of nationality "in the issuance of immigrant visas." The court explained that the district court limited the plaintiff's allegation here by (1) limiting § 1152(a)(1)(A)'s application only to immigrants visas (not nonimmigrant visas), and (2) pointing out that it only applies to visas, not necessarily entry.
Explaining that it would be required to look at the plaintiff's' Establishment Clause claim whether it agreed with the district court's analysis of § 1152(a)(1)(A) or not, the court quickly concludes that it will not address the district court's statutory ruling. While acknowledging the doctrine of constitutional avoidance from American Foreign Service Association v. Garfinkel, the court states it is forced to examine the plaintiff's constitutional claim because this is largely the basis for the district court's injunction.
The court begins its analysis with a de novo examination of whether the plaintiffs have standing.
To establish Article III standing as a "case or controversy," a plaintiff must show "(1) an injury in fact; (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision" (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife). The injury in fact should be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical" (Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins). And the court must assume arguendo that Section 2(c) of E.O. violates Establishment clause of the Constitution (Cooksey v. Futrell).
The court explains that the plaintiffs must allege "direct harm of what is claimed to be an establishment of religion," to establish standing in an Establishment clause suit, but also that the "direct harm" can either be tangible (such as a pecuniary loss from forcing you not to work on Sundays), or intangible (such as "feelings of marginalization or exclusion") based on Suhre v. Haywood County.
In examining John Doe #1's claim, the court highlights two bases of standing: separation from his wife (which the government acknowledges can be a basis for standing-in-fact) and feelings of marginalization and exclusion stemming from the executive order's alleged animus towards Muslims. The court dismisses the government's claim that Doe's harm of separation is not "imminent" because Section 2(c) constitutes simply a "short pause" in entry, reasoning that if Section 2(c) were to be implemented, it would result in either a delay in the issuance of Doe #1's wife visa, or its denial altogether, "forcing her to restart the [lengthy visa] application process" all over again after having come so close to entry.
This, coupled with the message from the executive order that Muslims are "outsiders, not full members of the political community," (which inspires the prohibited feelings of marginalization and exclusion) is enough for the court to believe John Doe #1 has asserted injuries sufficient to establish standing.
The court then criticizes the government's standing arguments:
The Government attempts to undercut these injuries in several ways. It first frames Plaintiffs' injuries as "stress." That minimizes the psychological harm that flows from confronting official action preferring or disfavoring a particular religion and, in any event, does not account for the impact on families. The Government next argues that because the Second Executive Order "directly applies only to aliens abroad from the specified countries," it is "not directly targeted at plaintiffs," who are based in the United States, "in the way that local- or state-government messages are." An executive order is of course different than a local Sunday closing law or a Ten Commandments display in a state courthouse, but that does not mean its impact is any less direct. Indeed, because it emanates from the highest elected office in the nation, its impact is arguably felt even more directly by the individuals it affects. From Doe #1's perspective, the Second Executive Order does not apply to arbitrary or anonymous "aliens abroad." It applies to his wife.
The court then rejects the government's assertion that the John Doe #1 is asserting third-party rights, since he has shown personal harm. The court concludes that whether the other plaintiffs have standing is irrelevant, since John Doe #1 does. Lastly, the court rejects the government's "ripeness" claim based on a potential waiver, on the grounds that since the plaintiff's claim presents a strictly legal question "not dependent on the factual uncertainties of the waiver process," under Miller v. Brown the claim can be adjudicated.
In one last attempt to dispute standing, the government argues that under the D.C. Circuit case Saavedra Bruno v. Albright, "a consular official's decision to issue or withhold a visa is not subject to judicial review, at least unless Congress says otherwise." However, the court points out that this opinion also states that when cases are brought by U.S. citizens, or when they couple statutory claims with constitutional ones (both of which are the case here), that judicial review is permitted.
The court criticizes the government's reasoning at a higher level:
Behind the casual assertion of consular nonreviewability lies a dangerous idea— that this Court lacks the authority to review high-level government policy of the sort here. Although the Supreme Court has certainly encouraged deference in our review of immigration matters that implicate national security interests . . . it has not countenanced judicial abdication, especially where constitutional rights, values, and principles are at stake. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has affirmed time and again that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This "duty will sometimes involve the 'resolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches,'" but courts cannot avoid their responsibility.
Establishment Clause Claim
The remaining half of the court's opinion focuses on the Establishment Clause claim. The court begins by acknowledging that "[a] preliminary injunction is an 'extraordinary remed[y]' involving the exercise of very far-reaching power,' and is 'to be granted only sparingly and in limited circumstances.'"
Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, an Establishment Clause case, the district court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and had met the other requirements of the preliminary injunction standard because the primary purpose of the travel ban was likely to effectuate a ban on Muslim entry. The government, by contrast, argues that the district court should have applied the more deferential standard in Kleindienst v. Mandel, an immigration case where the Supreme Court held that "when the Executive exercises this power [to exclude an alien] on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason," the court's would not look beyond that exercise of discretion nor balance it with constitutional interests.
The Fourth Circuit majority explains that Mandel only constitutes "the starting point" in its analysis and is "still subject to important constitutional limitations." Specifically, the court points out that Mandel imposes a high burden on the plaintiff in that they must overcome the government's demonstration of a "facially legitimate" (valid reason) and "bona fide" (good faith) action, because normally it would be "difficult for a plaintiff to make an affirmative showing of bad faith with plausibility and particularity." But where good faith has "seriously been called into question," the court concludes it should be allowed to "look behind the stated reason for the challenged action."
The court explains that the plaintiffs "point to ample evidence that national security is not the true reason" for the E.O., including Trump's campaign statements, Ruly Giuliani's statement that Trump asked him to find a "legal way" to create a Muslim ban, and the weakness of the revised E.O. in fulfilling its stated national security interest.
This unique historical record means that the court is, in effect, forced to make new law to handle it. As the court writes, "no court has confronted a scenario where, as here, plaintiffs have plausibly alleged with particularity that an immigration action was taken in bad faith. We therefore have minimal guidance on what 'look[ing] behind' a challenged immigration action entails."
The court decides that applying Lemon here is appropriate because of the constitutional limits on the political branches' immigration power, the Mandel burden of proof having been met by the plaintiffs, and because "there is an obvious symmetry between Mandel's bona fide prong and the constitutional inquiry established in Lemon. The court explains that under Lemon, the burden shifts to the government, which must prove that its action (1) has a primarily and genuinely secular purpose; (2) that its "principal and primary effect [is] one that neither advances nor prohibits religion; (3) does not foster an "excessive government entanglement with religion."
In examining the first factor, the court explains that it must examine, and indeed cannot turn a blind eye to, the action's "historical context." Relying heavily on statements made by Trump both before and after his inauguration as president in public statements, website material, and interviews, as well as the text of the first executive order and other statements by those in Trump's administration, the court concludes that what motivated both executive orders was "President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States." The court further clarifies that the executive order "cannot be read in isolation from the statements of planning and purpose that accompanied it," especially due to their sheer volume, their "singular source," and the "close connection they draw between the proposed Muslim ban" and the revised E.O.
The court then turns to address the government's arguments. The court quickly dismisses the government's assertions that the text of the revised E.O. is facially neutral and therefore constitutional, reasoning instead that the Lemon test exists precisely because "facially neutral government actions can violate the Establishment clause." The court also draws on the internal DHS report knocking down the effectiveness of the E.O. as further support. And the court explains that the revised executive order's "practical operation is not severable from the myriad statements explaining its operation as intended to bar Muslims from the United States."
After rejecting the government's objection to the use of "extrinsic evidence," outside the text, the court also rejects the government's use of McCreary County v. ACLU for the proposition that the court could only consider "the operative terms of governmental action and official pronouncements." The courts instead interprets McCreary as permitting the courts to rely on principles of "common sense" when construing the relevant context of government action.
Finally, the court addresses the government's contention that it should not rely upon campaign statements in its examination, since they predate Trump's "constitutionally significant 'transition from private life to the Nation's highest public office,'" and therefore are "less probative than official statements" (Quinta Jurecic has examined for Lawfare how this line of thinking is "arguing for a return to the regular order and the normal landscape of judicial behavior in the form of deference" towards Trump as expressed in the presumption of regularity). The court doesn't buy it, declining to "impose a bright-line rule against considering campaign statements." The court explains, in response to the government's argument that such a practice of looking at campaign statements would "encourage scrutiny of all religious statements ever made by public officials, even remarks from before they assumed office," that it engages in a very particularized and narrow use of campaign statements based on Supreme Court precedent:
Indeed, this case is unique not because we are considering campaign statements, but because we have such directly relevant and probative statements of government purpose at all. . . . To the extent that our review chills campaign promises to condemn and exclude entire religious groups, we think that a welcome restraint.
Lastly, the court emphasizes that analyzing campaign statements as part of an overall motivation inquiry is not unique to Establishment Clause cases. This type of inquiry is made in cases dealing with hiring, marriage, and voting cases. Here the court barely conceals its frustration:
The Government has repeatedly asked this Court to ignore evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to executive action, all in the name of the Constitution's separation of powers. We decline to do so, not only because it is the particular province of the judicial branch to say what the law is, but also because we would do a disservice to our constitutional structure were we to let its mere invocation silence the call for meaningful judicial review. The deference we give the coordinate branches is surely powerful, but even it must yield in certain circumstances, lest we abdicate our own duties to uphold the Constitution.
Based on all of the above, the court holds that the district court did not err in concluding that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits of their claim.
Briefly, the court examines whether the plaintiffs are likely to suffer "irreparable harm" in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The court concludes they are because "loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." The court also concludes that the "balance of equities and the public interest factors" favor granting a preliminary injunction, rejecting the government's invocation of national security as a "silver bullet that defeats all other asserted injuries" and reasoning that national security necessarily includes "defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart," the "most cherished" of which is the First Amendment.
As a final matter, the court concludes that the nationwide scope of the district court's preliminary restraining order, which "should be carefully addressed to the circumstances of the case," was not an abuse of discretion. Given that (1) the plaintiffs were dispersed throughout the United States; (2) immigration laws should be enforced uniformly (Texas v. United States); and (3) applying the injunction only to the plaintiffs "would not cure the constitutional deficiency," the court felt the district court had acted properly. However, the court did lift the injunction as to the president himself based on the government's reliance on Mississippi v. Johnson.
The court thus substantially upheld the district court's preliminary injunction against Trump's travel ban.
Concurrences
Judge Traxler
Judge Traxler concurs with the majority's Establishment Clause holding. He also concurs in lifting the injunction on Trump.
Judge Keenan (joined by Thacker)
Judge Keenan writes a separate concurrence, disagreeing with the Plaintiffs claim that Section 1152(a)(1)(A), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality in issuing immigration visas, acts as a limitation on Trump's authority under § 1182(f). She finds that the actual language of § 1152(a)(1)(A) addresses immigration visas, not entry to the United States. This is the one part of Keenan's analysis that Judge Thacker does not join in.
Despite this, Judge Keenan concludes that the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief succeeds on the grounds that the E.O. does not comply with the actual text and language of Section 1182(f), which permits a president to suspend entry to the U.S. if he finds that the entry of an alien would be—not may be—detrimental to the country's national interests. Judge Keenan determines that the text of the E.O., in particular Section 2(c), does not identify a basis for a ban on 180 million nationals of six different countries; as she alluded with her questions during oral argument, she concludes there is no basis to believe that their entry to the United States would be detrimental, as required by the terms of the statute. Keenan finds the government's different rationales that Section 2(c) meets the statutory preconditions for lawful exercise of Trump's power under Section 1182(f) insufficient including that the government is not sure whether the banned individuals would present a risk, that the E.O. describes a process to study if the aliens would be detrimental to the country, and the government's reliance on the exclusion of the specified countries from the Visa Waiver Program.
Judge Wynn
Judge Wynn writes a solo concurrence to assert that the Plaintiffs' claim, that Section 2(c) exceeds Trump's authority, would likely succeed on the merits due to the fact that the government relies on national origin as a "proxy for discrimination based on religious animus."
Judge Wynn kicks off by criticizing the invidious discrimination that the government has "shrouded in layers of legality," harkening back to Dred Scott and Korematsu. Judge Wynn then asks whether "Congress, in enacting Section 1182(f), authorized the President to deny entry to a class of aliens on the basis of invidious discrimination." In answering this question, Wynn raise two canons of statutory construction. First, when a Congressional Act raises serious doubt to the constitutionality of the Act, a court must construe the statute in a manner that avoids constitutional problems where an alternative interpretation of the statute is "fairly possible." Second, courts are not permitted to construe a broad generalized delegation of authority by congress to the executive to allow the executive branch the authority to "trench upon fundamental rights" without an explicit statutory statement that gives the executive that authority.
Judge Wynn concludes that if construed broadly, § 1182(f) could authorize Trump to infringe on fundamental rights, a distinction that is forbidden by Constitutional values set forth in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments; limitations that have also been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. The result, Wynn finds, could lead anywhere:
The President could deny entry to aliens of a particular race solely based on the color of their skin; The President could deny entry to citizens of a particular nation solely on the basis of their place of birth; The President could deny entry to adherents of a particular religion solely because of their subscription to that faith; Or, as this Court concludes the President likely did here, the President could rely on one form of invidious discrimination—discrimination based on national origin—to serve as pretext for implementing another form of invidious discrimination—discrimination based on religion.
Moreover, although the government has broad authority to control immigration, in particular in times of war, the Supreme Court has placed on the government important constitutional limitations, especially when that authority falls on citizens and other individuals entitled to constitutional protections. In this case, Judge Wynn, argues that the U.S. citizens are impacted by the messaging that the government promulgated by way of the E.O., including that Muslims are 'outsiders, not full members of the political community' and the feeling that they are inferior as to their status in community.'
Judge Wynn concludes that because the government's broad reading of the § 1182(c) raises serious constitutional concerns, the court must reject that interpretation in the absence of clear congressional intent to authorize such discrimination.
In order to ascertain congressional intent, a court must look to the "plain meaning" of Section 1182(f), by looking to the language itself as well as the specific and broader context of the statute. Judge Wynn finds that there is no explicit or in fact, after reviewing congressional intent of various portions of text in the INA, implicit statements that Congress "intended to authorize the President to deny entry to aliens based on invidious discrimination."
Judge Thacker
Judge Thacker writes separately for three reasons. First, Judge Thacker prefers to not consider statements made by Trump during his campaign and assess rather only statements made after Trump took the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" and began operating under the executive powers of Article II. Thacker seems to accept the government's argument under McCreary that the oath of office is a "profound transition."
Second, he determines that Trump's statements and sentiments after he was inaugurated are enough for the plaintiffs to establish the likelihood of success on the merits on their Establishment Clause claim. Judge Thacker bases this conclusion on "the morphing of the First Executive Order ("EO-1") into EO-2, the statements of presidential representatives and advisors, the lack of evidence supporting a purported national security purpose, and the text of and logical inconsistencies within EO-2."
Third, he finds that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their statutory claim that Section 2(c) violates § 1152(a)(1)(A) of the INA. Judge Thacker rejects the government's claim that § 1152(a)(1)(A) and § 1182(f) do not conflict as nonsensical and concludes that the prohibition on nationality-based discrimination set forth in § 1152(a)(1)(A) modifies the broader and older § 1182(f) according the President broad discretion to limit entry.
Dissents
Judge Niemeyer (joined by Shedd & Agee)
Judge Niemeyer asserts that the majority makes three errors. First, Niemeyer believes that the court misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Mandel by recognizing the facial legitimacy of the E.O. but not its facial bona fides. Put differently, Niemeyer seems to interpret the "facially" descriptor in the Mandel standard as modifying both the "legitimate" and "bona fide" prongs. He concludes that the E.O. on its face is lawful, and no inquiry into purpose is permitted.
Second, Niemeyer criticizes the majority's reliance on Trump's campaign statements as part of its analysis of executive purpose. Beginning his analysis with the Supreme Court's warning in McCreary against "judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter's heart of hearts," Niemeyer opposes use of campaign statements as an unprincipled exercise that permits a court to strike down any executive action that it disagrees with. Niemeyer also determines that the majority's reliance on campaign statements will "chill political speech directed at voters seeking to make their election decision" (what the majority finds would be a welcome restraint).
Third, Niemeyer finds that the majority radically extended Supreme Court Establishment Clause precedents by applying the Establishment Clause to matters of national security and foreign affairs, something that the Supreme Court has never done. Judge Niemeyer believes that the majority's new rule will become a "sword for plaintiffs challenge of facially neutral government actions, particularly those affecting regions dominated by a single religion."
Judge Shedd (joined by Niemeyer & Agee)
Judge Shedd, explaining that "[national security is a complex business with potentially grave consequences," defends the government's interest in combatting terrorism as "an urgent objective of the highest order" per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. Shedd accepts the government's arguments about the president's (and his advisor's) responsibility to protect the nation and the need for due deference to the political branches' decision-making (especially in immigration cases), and also that Section 2(c) of the E.O. constitutes only a "temporary pause" in immigrant and nonimmigrant entry.
Judge Shedd also takes the district court to task, declaring that "the shortcomings in the district court's fact-finding are obvious," since it is based on campaign statements, statements of former government officials ("many of whom openly oppose this President"), and its "misplaced conclusion" that Trump did not submit the order for inter-agency review. Shedd also criticizes the district court for faulting the president for not explaining why the travel pause is necessary without access to intelligence information.
Shedd concludes:
Undoubtedly, protection of constitutional rights is important, but there are often times in the federal system when constitutional rights must yield for the public interest. . . . Today's decision may be celebrated by some as a victory for individual civil rights and justice, and by others as a political defeat for this President. Yet, it is shortsighted to ignore the larger ramifications of this decision. Regrettably, at the end of the day, the real losers in this case are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm.
Judge Agee (joined by Niemeyer & Shedd)
Judge Agee dissents on the ground that the plaintiffs have no standing to bring their Establishment Clause claim. Judge Agee argues that the district court erred in finding that Plaintiff Meteab had standing to challenge Section 2(c) of the E.O. because Meteab's brothers were refugees and Section 2(c) does not apply to refugees. He also asserts that stigma is insufficient to confer standing on Doe #3, and that Doe #1 does not have standing because the feared denial of a visa for his wife is too vague and speculative to meet the standard of an actual or imminent harm.
Judge Agee concludes that the plaintiffs' pleadings only show alleged personal perception of stigmatization, which does not meet the standard of a cognizable injury, and could allow future plaintiffs to pursue claims based on negative feelings about government actions. He would have vacated the preliminary injunction.
Donald Trump,
refugees,
immigration,
Fourth Circuit
Jordan A. Brunner is a graduate of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, and was a national security intern at the Brookings Institution. Prior to law school, he was a Research Fellow with the New America Foundation/ASU Center for the Future of War, where he researched cybersecurity, cyber war, and cyber conflict alongside Shane Harris, author of @War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex. He graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University with a B.S. in Political Science.
Amira Mikhail is the co-founder and director of Eshhad, a nonprofit that is focused on the protection of religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Amira has worked as a Non-Resident Fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP) and as a legal fellow at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. She is a graduate of Washington College of Law at American University, where she worked with the UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic, the Human Rights Brief, and as a research assistant to the Chairperson of the United Nations Committee against Torture. She has worked with the International Refugee Assistance Project and the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch and has been published on a variety of legal and social issues relating to Egypt and the Middle East. After graduating from Covenant College, Amira worked for five years in Cairo, Egypt where she worked at the American University in Cairo. She has also worked in Jordan and India.
@amiramikhail
What the British Government Really Thinks
Benjamin Wittes Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 2:54 PM
Donald Trump and the Politically Weaponized Executive Branch
Bob Bauer Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 8:00 AM
In Praise of the President's Iran Tweets
Benjamin Wittes Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 4:36 PM
Some Questions for Attorney General Barr
Paul Rosenzweig Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:52 PM
Full Text of the Mueller Report's Executive Summaries
Lev Sugarman Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 3:41 PM


text:
Voices: Jay Greene
Health benefits open enrollment offers opportunity to save money, but you must plan carefully
Health care and Energy
Enrollment for most starts Nov. 1, Medicare started Oct. 15
Many changes in place this year, including costs and coverage
"Trumpcare" polices offer low-cost, short-term, limited benefits
Those signing up for health care coverage for next year will find more lower-cost, short-term and limited coverage policies available, but they don't cover as much as an Affordable Care Act-compliant policy.
With open enrollment season here again, it is not too soon for people considering changes in their health benefits plans to read updates from employers or check out the healthcare.gov marketplaces.
The 2020 version of open enrollment for people buying individual market Obamacare policies begins Nov. 1 and concludes Dec. 15. Check with your employer for individual company open enrollment periods, which usually are shorter. For Medicare, open enrollment started Oct. 15 and runs through Dec. 7. Coverage starts Jan. 1.
What's new this year? Plenty, including minimal average price increases for private individual, small business and large group plans, more expanded Medicare benefits and an updated Medicare plan finder. There also will be more lower-cost, short-term and limited coverage policies available, but beware they don't cover as much as an Affordable Care Act-compliant policy.
Employer-based health insurance benefit costs are projected to grow by 3.9 percent in 2020, according to Mercer's National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans.
"While this continues the trend of low single-digit increases that began in 2012, health benefit costs are still rising faster than overall inflation. And with the economy slowing, employers know they can't afford to be complacent," said Tracy Watts, Mercer's national leader for health policy.
Earlier this year, Crain's reported that midsize employer average health care costs in Michigan were projected to increase after benefit plan changes by an average of 3 percent in 2019, one of the lowest increases in the past five years, according to Troy office of Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC.
Experts project that midsize employer health cost increases are expected to remain less than 4 percent for 2020.
In Michigan, 17 health insurers are selling small group policies, averaging a 3.6 percent increase in premiums for 2020, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services. Premiums in the small group market in Michigan, which includes companies with 2-51 employees, have seen small increases in premiums since the Affordable Care Act was approved in 2010.
2020 Michigan health insurance rate change requests
2020 Michigan health insurance rate change requests >
Michigan's individual Obamacare market is also experiencing lower average premium increase than the past two years, averaging 2.5 percent for 2020 for the 332,893 individuals who are enrolled. Nine health insurance companies filed to have individual plans included next year on the Obamacare exchange in Michigan, requesting rate changes ranging from an increase of 8.3 percent to a decrease of 8.8 percent, DIFS said.
"Michigan consumers have a strong lineup of insurers from which to choose when shopping for health insurance coverage," DIFS Director Anita Fox said in a news release. "We are entering the 10th year of the Affordable Care Act, the fact that we have nine companies continuing to offer plans shows that Michigan's Marketplace is continuing to thrive. Some states have as few as one or two options. A robust Marketplace is an important part of ensuring that more Michiganders are covered in 2020."
Since 1999, the cost of employer health insurance has risen every year. But average increases have dropped tremendously since the Affordable Care Act was approved. For example, average annual increases for employer-sponsored plans have averaged a 3 percent to 4 percent since 2012. Prior to Obamacare in the 2000s, average premiums frequently rose more than 9 percent each year.
Declining enrollment
But because health care costs have risen faster than workers' pay and so have deductibles, co-payments and co-insurance, and that may partially account for the pinch people feel.
As a result, individual enrollment has been declining since the high of 2015 during the Obama administration, when 17.4 million were enrolled in the individual market to about 13.8 million in 2018. Some 10 million of those individuals are covered on the Obamacare exchanges.
The reasons for the decline over three years are multifaceted, but one major reason is that Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 on a platform that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced. He promised a "great" new health care plan, and people are still waiting.
Instead of a new health care reform plan, Trump instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to support state-based lawsuits to render the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional based on changes Congress made in the law to wipe out the individual mandate tax. If successful and neither Trump nor Congress acts, the Urban Institute estimates approximately 20 million people will lose coverage.
Last year, the Trump administration also expanded short-term, limited-duration insurance policies, which some call Trumpcare. Critics contend these plans are "junk policies" because they don't cover all of Obamacare's 10 essential benefits.
Congress approved and federal rules also changed to eliminate the financial penalty for failing to purchase a health insurance policy. In addition, Trump cut the open enrollment period for the individual Obamacare market to 45 days from more than 90, reduced marketing and educational advertising for open enrollment and expanded the availability of non-Obamacare plans. Several states, including Michigan, have instituted Medicaid work requirements, which are expected to reduce insurance rates.
As a result, since 2016, people covered by health insurance have declined by 3 million, according to Kaiser. The U.S. Census Bureau also said the uninsured rate increased by 0.5 percent in 2018, adding 1.9 million people to the uninsured. The 2018 uninsured rate for all people was 8.5 percent, or 27.6 million people.
Insurance officials recommend people shop around for best policies and coverages. Every year, circumstances change. Families grow, children go out on their own, parents age and may need more or less coverage based on medical needs. Medicare could be on the horizon as a choice.
"We talk about how much time people spend (researching) open enrollment," said Dustin Hinton, CEO of UnitedHealthcare of Michigan. "You want to spend some time on it. Some people spend one hour on it, but 14 hours researching a car or TV. .... Health insurance is way more important."
Besides spending more time exploring your benefits options, here are some tips by experts:
First, check to see if the plan you have been on at work or in the individual market, maybe for years, has changed. Or maybe you have changed. Are you spending more out of pocket health for things like prescriptions, physician office visits or diagnostic tests?
Two, gather all your medical cost information, receipts, statements and so on, from the previous year. Calculate how much you spent out of pocket for the year. Did you meet your deductible? Blow past it? Or way under?
One of the major changes for 2020 is that the maximum out-of-pocket for individuals is increasing from $7,900 this year to $8,150. The maximum out-of-pocket for families is double that. Employer-based insurance has a range of maximum out-of-pocket costs.
On average, individual market premiums for a 27-year-old purchasing the second-lowest priced silver individual Obamacare plan will cost 4 percent less, about $374, in 2020 than it was this year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. With subsidies, premiums could drop as low as $50 per month. For a family of four, premiums will decrease 4 percent to $1,520, though most people shopping on the exchanges receive subsidies to help afford the premium costs.
The biggest new product offered by UnitedHealthcare for the first time during open enrollment in Detroit will be the UHC-Beaumont Health narrow network insurance program. Launched in August, UnitedHealthcare's Core Network plan offers 15 percent cost savings if employees use Beaumont's 5,000 doctors, eight hospitals and 145 outpatient centers. So far, more than 2,000 people in businesses are covered by the plan, Hinton said.
Overall, Hinton said rate increases for UHC products will be lower than in previous years. DIFS said United's two active companies in the small group space included the new All Savers Insurance Co. products with a 3.1 percent average rate increase and UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. with a 2.9 percent increase for 2020.
"All Savers is a level funded business product. We are seeing more interest in this. It has a shared savings (component). If the group runs really well, the surplus is shared," Hinton said.
Hinton said small group plans are expected to offer expanded wellness programs, lower co-payments for telehealth services and more specialty bundling of health, dental, vision and life insurances to lower costs.
Another expanded benefit UnitedHealthcare is offering policy holders are what Hinton calls "transparency tools."
"We want to make sure employees are engaged" in searching for high quality and lower cost providers, said Hinton, adding that United's cost estimators will give exact prices of what certain procedures or services cost.
Michigan Blues
Blue Care Network plans — representing 76 percent of total individual product enrollment 0f 185,000 in 2019 — will offer an average premium rate cut of 1.2 percent for 2020. PPO plans offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan will offer an even greater average rate reduction of 7.7 percent.
Rick Notter, the Blues' vice president of individual business, said the rate cuts were made possible by increased market stability, fewer high-cost claims and fewer people dropping coverage mid-year. He said Blue Cross has been cutting health care costs and improving efficiencies by helping network hospitals and physicians manage care.
Blue Cross continues to be the only carrier offering a variety of coverage options within each of Michigan's 83 counties. It offers 29 total plans across Gold, Silver, Bronze and Catastrophic levels, which represent low to high member cost sharing. A new Gold-level option has been added for 2020, Blue Cross Premier PPO Gold 70/30.
"Our new plan offers consumers a simplistic cost structure that reduces confusion and surprise costs by providing a set co-insurance amount with no deductibles or co-pays on medical services," Notter said.
Priority Health also cut average monthly premiums in the Obamacare individual market and is the only insurer that has cut prices for two consecutive years, spokesman Jeremy Bakken said in a statement.
"We're focused on making care more affordable for people, that's why we've introduced new benefits like no-cost diabetes supplies, out-of-state doctor visits and free gym memberships," said Bakken, adding that no-cost vision exams are also offered.
For 2020, MyPriority individual Obamacare plans will begin coordinating care with auto-related injuries in response to auto insurance reform passed earlier this year that is set to go into effect July 1, Priority said.
In small group products, Priority Health is offering premium rate cuts that average less than 1 percent.
Health Alliance Plan
For 2020, HAP projects enrollment growth across all product lines, including individual, small group and Medicare, said Margaret Anderson, the company's chief sales and marketing officer. She said it is too early in the year to project numbers.
In 2019, HAP saw great retention rates among employer group customers, with 94 percent retention for small group and 91 percent retention for large group employers. She said HAP projects similar numbers in 2020.
Small business employers should shop for coverage because the market is very competitive, Anderson said.
"It's important to debunk the myth that small business owners can't offer their employees benefits choices the way large employers can. That's just not true," Anderson said in an email to Crain's. "There are plenty of options for small groups who want to give their employees the freedom to choose the plan that works for their individual needs and lifestyle."
For example, HAP has introduced an HMO for small groups called Primary Choice Small Group, which is available for employers based in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties. "This cost-effective option gives this plan's members access to an integrated network of primary care physicians, along with the full HAP network of specialists and facilities," Anderson said.
On Medicare, Michigan continues to age faster than other states, ranking 18th in percent of people over age 65. Michigan's 10 million population includes 1.6 million people, or 16.2 percent, over age 65, up from 12.3 percent in 2000.
In 2020, HAP has expanded its Medicare service area to include four new counties in West Michigan — Kent, Muskegon, Oceana and Ottawa — with new HMO plans, including a $0 plan. There also is a new $0 PPO plan in Southeast Michigan that complement HAP's $0 HMO.
Anderson said regional insurance carriers like HAP that are headquartered in Michigan reinvest profits and financial resources into local communities.
"National carriers are more likely to take dollars from Michigan and reinvest them elsewhere, which takes critical health care dollars away from the people of Michigan," Anderson said. "I hope employers and individuals remember this as they are choosing their plans this year."
Dr. Bill Conway steps back after 45 years at Henry Ford, but he's not done
New CEO for Henry Ford Medical Group takes neurosurgery, cancer roles to next level
Will 2020 bring peace and harmony to Wayne State board?
Sponsored Content: Ishbia's 2020 Challenge: Make Business a Team Sport


text:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<title>Struct template implementation_defined</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../../../../../doc/src/boostbook.css" type="text/css">
<meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.78.1">
<link rel="home" href="../../../index.html" title="The Boost C++ Libraries BoostBook Documentation Subset">
<link rel="up" href="../stack.html#idp320627584" title="Description">
<link rel="prev" href="../stack.html" title="Class template stack">
<link rel="next" href="node.html" title="Struct template node">

Home
Libraries
People
FAQ
More

Struct template implementation_defined

boost::lockfree::stack::implementation_defined

Synopsis

// In header: <boost/lockfree/stack.hpp>

template<typename T, ... Options>
struct implementation_defined {
  // types
  typedef node_allocator allocator;
  typedef std::size_t    size_type;
};

Copyright © 2008-2011 Tim
      Blechmann

        Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying
        file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
package p00rkhs

import breeze.linalg._

/**
 * Note that only here are the data types known. In the Gram package, everything occurs in the RKHS, and the data types need to to be nown since
 * only the kernel evaluations are required.
 * Bibliography:
 * -	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducing_kernel_Hilbert_space#Examples
 */
object Kernel {
  object R {
    def product(x: Double, y: Double): Double = x * y
    def gaussian(x: Double, y: Double, sd: Double): Double = math.exp(-math.pow(x - y, 2) / (2 * math.pow(sd, 2)))
  }

  object Rn {
    def linear(x: DenseVector[Double], y: DenseVector[Double]): Double = x dot y
  }
}