Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended. Earlier research showed that the general public are positive about CRC screening, as too the eligible CRC screening population. Among the eligible CRC screening population this positive perception has been shown to be associated with their perceptions of cancer, preventive health screening and their own health. It is unclear whether these concepts are also associated with the positive perception of the general public. Knowing this can provide insight into the context in which public perception concerning CRC screening is established. The aim of our study was to examine which main perceptions are associated with the public perception concerning CRC screening.
An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample (adults 18+) among 1679 respondents (response rate was 56%). We assessed the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government, and examined their possible association with public opinion concerning CRC screening.
The public's positive attitude towards CRC screening is associated with the public's positive attitude towards preventive health screening in general, their perceived seriousness of cancer, their belief of health being important, and their trust in the government regarding national screening programmes.
Trust in the government and perceptions regarding the seriousness of cancer, preventive health screening and the importance of one's health seem to be important factors influencing how the public view CRC screening. The public are likely to process information about CRC screening in such a way that it confirms their existing beliefs of cancer being serious and preventive screening being positive. This makes it likely that they will notice information about the possible benefits of CRC screening more than information about its possible downsides, which would also contribute to the positive perception of CRC screening.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common causes of cancer death in developed countries [1, 2]. Population-based CRC screening can reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC [3–6], which is why it is widely recommended [7–9]. Since January 2014, a national CRC screening programme exists in the Netherlands, provided by the government. The participation rate for this programme is relatively high (73%) , suggesting a positive perception of CRC screening among the eligible screening population, adults aged 55–75. Even though participation rates in other countries are typically lower, a generally positive perception of CRC screening among the eligible screening population is also found in other countries [11–17], with most people believing that CRC screening saves lives [15, 16] and that it is a good thing to do [13–16]. In addition to potential benefits, CRC screening also involves potential harms and risks (such as overdiagnosis, false negatives, false positives and risks associated with colonoscopy) [9, 18–21]. People seem to be more aware of the possible benefits of CRC screening than of its possible downsides [13, 14, 22]. Assessing whether the possible benefits for an individual outweigh the potential harms involves complicated information as well as personal values [23–25], making it a complex question to address. Therefore, making a well-informed and personal decision concerning CRC screening participation, with people truly understanding the possible benefits and harms as well as their own preferences, is increasingly seen as being important [23–27].
An individual's personal perception and, consequently, personal decision concerning CRC screening might be affected by public opinion regarding CRC screening [28–31]. Therefore, it seems relevant to examine this public opinion. A common definition of public opinion is that it concerns the dominant opinion or the opinion of the majority on a topic relevant for the public [15, 16, 29, 32]. Previous research into public opinion has mostly been conducted in the field of sociology or political science, typically assessing public opinion by examining a large group of individuals representative for the public and determining their level of support [33–35] and/or attitude towards a certain issue or action [15, 16, 32–35]. When assessing public opinion by focussing on attitude, some studies made a distinction between personal attitude, which concerns whether someone thinks that CRC screening is a good idea for themselves, and collective attitude, which concerns whether someone thinks that CRC screening is a good idea for the Dutch population as a whole [29, 32]. Both personal and collective attitude affect the 'overall' attitude towards the CRC screening programme.
The majority of studies into CRC screening focused on examining perceptions of the eligible screening population within the direct context of individual participation [11–17], and not the perception of the general public, which includes people both inside and outside the eligible screening population [17, 36]. Earlier research showed that the Dutch public (adults 18+) are supportive of and positive about the CRC screening programme in the Netherlands, and were more aware of, and knowledgeable about, the possible benefits of CRC screening than about its possible harms and risks . This is consistent with findings among the eligible screening population [17, 35, 38]. The lack of awareness of the possible harms and risks of CRC screening may, in part, explain why the public are positive about the CRC screening programme. In addition, the perception of CRC screening could also be affected by the perceptions regarding more general concepts related to CRC screening [30, 34, 39–42], as has been found in studies among the eligible screening population. The main general concepts examined in these studies were cancer [12, 15, 17, 43, 44], preventive health/cancer screening [15, 17, 43, 45], and one's health [12, 43, 46]. These concepts seem to pertain to the core notion of what CRC screening entails (i.e. preventive screening to avoid becoming ill or to detect cancer in an early stage [7, 9]). Generally, people are more positive about CRC screening when they perceive cancer as being more serious [38, 44], see themselves as more susceptible to getting cancer , are more positive about preventive health screening [38, 45], and consider their health to be important [43, 46, 47]. Mixed results are found concerning the association with anxiety or worry about getting cancer [38, 44] and self-reported health status [38, 47]. Furthermore, the public's perception of the government also seems relevant as the Dutch CRC screening programme is provided by the government . People have a more positive perception towards facilities provided by the government when they trust the government or believe that the government has a responsibility in the public health domain [48, 49]. It is likely that people have had at least some previous experience with, or knowledge about, these more general concepts, resulting in pre-existing perceptions about them. These pre-existing perceptions can provide people with a mental framework, which is then used as a 'short-cut' to help understand and evaluate the less familiar subject of CRC screening by guiding which information is used and how to interpret it [30, 34, 40, 41, 50]. Although this 'short-cut' is often useful, it could also possibly affect how well-informed public opinion concerning CRC screening is, because information fitting well with pre-existing perceptions is generally noticed more, seen to be of more value, and remembered better [30, 34, 39, 40, 50, 51].
What are the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government?
Are the public's attitude and level of support concerning the CRC screening programme associated with the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government?
We recruited participants via a national online research panel (Flycatcher Internet Research, www.flycatcher.eu; ISO 26362). Members of this panel sign up voluntarily to participate in online research. The questionnaire was pre-tested among 36 members of the online panel; they were asked to comment on its comprehensibility, difficulty, length and intrusiveness. After the pre-test, some adjustments in wording and format were made. For our survey, 3000 panel members from the age of 18, diverse in education (low, intermediate, and high according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), 2011) and region were invited in December 2014 via e-mail to complete our online questionnaire.
We assessed participants' support for the CRC screening programme by asking whether they thought it was good that the programme existed in the Netherlands (5-point scale: 1 = totally not good, 5 = totally good) [33, 52].
We first assessed participants' collective attitude by asking them to evaluate the CRC screening programme with the Dutch population in mind ('I believe the CRC screening programme to be … for the Dutch population'). Subsequently, we assessed participants' personal attitude by asking them what they thought of the CRC screening programme for themselves ('I believe participating in the CRC screening programme to be … for myself'). Regarding both attitude assessments, we asked participants to evaluate the CRC screening programme on six dimensions using 5-point semantic differential scales (bad/good; disturbing/reassuring; not meaningful/meaningful; not self-evident/self-evident; not frightening/frightening; unimportant/important). These dimensions were derived from the 10-item attitude scale used by Van Dam et al. .
We assessed participants' perception of the severity of cancer by asking to what extent they agreed with the following statements: 1. Cancer is very serious; 2. Cancer has major consequences for your life; 3. Cancer is very treatable; 4. Cancer means the end of your life; 5. Cancer is (virtually) impossible to prevent; 6. Cancer is more serious than other illnesses (5-point scales: 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) [54, 55].
To assess participants' risk perception concerning cancer, we asked what they thought their chance was of getting cancer in general (5-point scale: 1 = very small, 5 = very big), and how they perceived this chance compared to others (5-point scale: 1 = much smaller, 2 = smaller, 3 = the same, 4 = greater, 5 = much greater) [56, 57].
To assess participants' worry and anxiety concerning cancer, we asked to what extent they worry about getting cancer, and to what extent the thought of getting it makes them feel anxious (5-point scales: 1 = not at all, 5 = a lot) [58, 59].
We assessed participants' attitude towards preventive health screening in general (such as cancer screening, screening for high blood pressure, screening for high cholesterol, etc.) by asking them to evaluate preventive health screening on six dimensions using 5-point semantic differential scales (bad/good; disturbing/reassuring; not meaningful/meaningful; not self-evident/self-evident; not frightening/frightening; unimportant/important) .
We asked participants whether they thought that by regularly having their health examined they could detect health problems at an early stage (5-point scale: 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) .
We asked participants to what extent they agreed with the statement 'My health is very important to me' (5-point scale: 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) .
We asked participants to report how they perceived their current health status to be (5-point scale: 1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent) .
First, we assessed participants' trust in the government's current policy in general on protecting and promoting people's health (on a scale from one to ten: 1 = none at all, 10 = a lot) . Second, we assessed participants' trust in the government regarding national screening programmes by asking them to what extent they agreed with the following statements (following the format of Siegrist and Cvetokovich) : 1. The government has people's health as a priority when offering a national screening programme; 2. The government carefully considers the pros, cons and costs of a national screening programme; 3. The government communicates openly and fully about the pros, cons and costs of a national screening programme (5-point scales: 1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree).
We asked participants what responsibility the government should have when it comes to people's health, by asking them whether they agreed (yes/no) with the following statements: 1. The government has no responsibility when it comes to people's health; 2. The government has the responsibility to provide public education concerning how people can stay as healthy as possible; 3. The government has the responsibility to provide national screening programmes (on a voluntary basis); 4. The government has the responsibility to ensure that people participate in national screening programmes.
Missing data were very limited (with a maximum of 20 cases per variable) and were dealt with by performing mean imputation. Composite scores and scale scores (the means of the sum scores) were calculated when reliability was sufficient, based on factor analysis and the correlation between items or Cronbach's alpha (α > .60).
We performed descriptive statistics for the public's perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health, and the government (see Additional file 1: Appendix A for the descriptive statistics of all initial single items used to measure these perceptions). Additionally, for descriptive purposes, scores for all variables were categorised, with scores of 1 and 2 classified as low or negative, scores of 3 as not high/not low or neutral, and scores of 4 and 5 as high or positive. For the variable 'trust in government regarding protection and promotion of people's health' scoring 6 or higher was seen as having reasonable trust .
We conducted multiple linear regression analysis to determine the possible association between public opinion regarding the CRC screening programme and public perceptions concerning the main general concepts related to CRC screening. All analyses are based on the original range of scores and not on the categories we assigned. We explored three models, using three conceptualisations of public opinion (the dependent variable): 1. Level of support (model 1); 2. Personal attitude (model 2); and 3. Collective attitude (model 3). Variables regarding the public perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health and the government were entered as independent variables. Backward selection was applied, where first all independent variables are entered in the model and the variable with the highest non-significant p-value (p ≥ .05) is then removed. Variables with significant effects are left in the final model. All analyses were carried out using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Software Version 22.0.
The response rate to our survey was 56% (1679 participants). The sample characteristics are summarized in Table 1. A full description can be found in a previous publication . Based on data from Statistics Netherlands , the distribution of the sample regarding gender, age, education and geographic location was representative of the Dutch population (i.e. the general public). Non-response analysis showed that people were more likely to have participated in our survey when older, higher educated or male.
People reported support for the CRC screening programme (M = 4.12, SD = .69) and to have a positive personal and collective attitude towards it (M = 4.06, SD = .76 and M = 4.07, SD = .60, respectively; Table 2).
Based on reliability analysis, not all composite and scale scores as described in the Method section could be used as intended. Therefore, the items 'cancer is very serious' and 'cancer has major consequences for your life' were combined as a measure for 'beliefs concerning cancer severity'. Additionally, the single item that asks about whether the government has a responsibility when it comes to people's health is used as a measure for 'beliefs concerning responsibility of the government'.
People believed cancer to be very serious (Table 2), but perceived the chance of getting cancer as neither small nor large and did not worry much about getting it. They had a positive attitude towards preventive health screening and found their health to be important. There is moderate trust in the government's current policy on protecting and promoting people's health as well as in national screening programmes specifically. A majority of our study sample sees a responsibility for the government when it comes to people's health. More than half sees a responsibility in ensuring that people participate in national screening programmes.
Table 3 shows the results for each of the three final models we analysed, with level of support (model 1), personal attitude (model 2) and collective attitude (model 3) as the three conceptualisations we used of public opinion. Level of support, personal attitude and collective attitude all show a positive association with beliefs related to the perception of cancer as well as to the perception of preventive health screening, own health, and the government. Personal attitude and collective attitude were associated with the same four beliefs: 1. Beliefs concerning cancer severity; 2. Attitude towards preventive health screening; 3. Beliefs concerning the importance of own health; and 4. Trust in government regarding national screening programmes. Level of support was associated with these same four beliefs as well as three additional ones: cancer risk perception, cancer worry/anxiety, and beliefs concerning the effectiveness of preventive health screening. The three final models differ slightly in explained variation, with the model with personal attitude as measure of public opinion having the largest explained variation (76%).
The Dutch public are generally supportive of, and positive about, the CRC screening programme. Their positive attitude towards preventive health screening in general, their perceived seriousness of cancer, their belief of health being important, and their trust in the government regarding national screening programmes are all associated with this positive attitude towards CRC screening. Additionally, the general public see a role for the government in promoting and protecting the public's health.
Our findings are consistent with earlier research among the eligible CRC screening population into individual perceptions concerning concepts related to CRC screening [12, 15, 17, 43, 48]. This indicates that the opinion concerning CRC screening of people both inside and outside the eligible screening population is associated with a similar set of beliefs. To our knowledge, however, previous studies did not examine the relationship between the perception of CRC screening and the perceptions concerning cancer, preventive health screening, own health and the government all in one study. The set of beliefs that people have concerning a certain topic can provide them with a mental framework that is used as a 'short-cut' in forming an opinion about this topic by guiding the use and interpretation of information [30, 34, 40, 41, 50, 51]. This 'short-cut' is often very useful in daily life for quickly assessing how one thinks and feels about something, such as CRC screening. However, it could also lead to the public not noticing or remembering possibly relevant information because it does not fit well with their existing perceptions [30, 34, 39, 40, 51]. Following this rationale, regarding CRC screening, it could be that the public, given that they believe cancer to be serious and preventive health screening to be positive, are more likely to notice and remember information that confirms those beliefs, such as information about the possible benefits of CRC screening. Additionally, the public could be less likely to notice and remember information that does not confirm those beliefs, such as information about the possible downsides of CRC screening. They could also be more likely to interpret information about the possible downsides as not being downsides, or to discount their value, again confirming their existing belief that screening for cancer is something positive [39, 40, 51]. Thus, the set of beliefs that the public have concerning CRC screening could result in an overemphasis on the possible benefits of CRC screening and a lack of awareness and understanding of the possible downsides of CRC screening. This could affect the extent to which public opinion concerning CRC screening is well-informed [39, 40, 51]. Earlier research showed a lack of awareness of the possible harms and risks of CRC screening among the Dutch public . The public being well-informed is of relevance because it is considered important that people make a well-informed personal decision concerning CRC screening [23, 26, 27] and public opinion might affect people's personal view and decision concerning CRC screening [28–31]. Therefore, future research could focus on examining whether public perceptions regarding subjects related to CRC screening are associated with how well-informed the public are about CRC screening.
Based on previous research, we used three different measures of public opinion in our study: 1. Level of support; 2. Personal attitude; and 3. Collective attitude. When using level of support as a measure, we found three additional beliefs to be significantly associated with public opinion (cancer risk perception, cancer worry/anxiety, and beliefs concerning the effectiveness of preventive health screening) compared to when personal attitude or collective attitude was used as a measure. This difference might be because we assessed level of support using a single-item question, whereas we assessed personal and collective attitude using a six-item scale. In general, multi-item measures are considered to be more reliable and capable of capturing a broader meaning of a concept [63, 64], suggesting that personal attitude or collective attitude would be better measures to use. However, single-item measures could be more appealing for participants to answer, which could increase survey effectiveness , and they have been shown to sometimes have the same predictive validity as multi-item measures [63, 64]. In our study, using level of support as a measure does show a general similar result regarding public opinion to when personal or collective attitude was used as a measure. Further research is needed to examine the question of whether level of support, personal attitude or collective attitude would be best to use as a measure of public opinion. Additionally, we believe clearer definitions of conceptual terms such as 'opinion', 'attitude', 'perception' and 'beliefs' are also of importance, as these are often used interchangeably, making further theory development more complex.
Although it is fairly common practice to use a random sample of members of a national internet panel as participants, this might limit generalizability since people who participate in online research may differ in significant ways from people who do not participate in online research. Additionally, while we had a decent response rate of 56%, people were more likely to have participated in our online survey when older, higher educated or male. Furthermore, we are aware that the CRC screening uptake of 73% in the Netherlands  is relatively high compared to other countries, which might limit generalizability as well. However, although the participation rates in other countries are typically lower, a generally positive perception of CRC screening among the eligible screening population is also found in these other countries [11–17]. A strength of our study is that we examined the possible association between public opinion concerning CRC screening and public perceptions regarding various concepts related to CRC screening, providing a more comprehensive portrayal of the set of beliefs that may be relevant.
Public opinion regarding the Dutch CRC screening programme is positive and supportive. Earlier research showed a lack of awareness of the possible harms and risks of CRC screening among the public , which may, in part, explain why the public are so positive. Additionally, our current study shows that the public's trust in the government and their perceptions regarding the seriousness of cancer, preventive health screening and the importance of one's health are important for how the public view CRC screening. When informing the public about CRC screening it would be useful to be aware of the fact that the public are positive about CRC screening, and that they are likely to process information about CRC screening in such a way that it confirms their existing beliefs of cancer being serious and preventive screening being positive [39, 40, 51]. This means that the public are likely to be inclined to notice and recall information about the possible benefits of CRC screening better than information about its possible downsides, which would thus contribute to a positive perception of CRC screening. Measures should be taken to ensure that the public are truly aware of both the possible benefits and the possible downsides of CRC screening in order to form a well-founded opinion.
This research was funded by the Strategic Programme of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).
All authors made significant contributions to the conception of this study. LD analysed the data and drafted the manuscript with contributions from EU and DT. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center (IRB00002991, FWA00017598) has declared that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and an official approval of this study by their committee is not required. According to ISO 26362 certificate regulation, people give written consent when signing up to be a member of an online research panel as well as when agreeing to participate in any specific survey sent to them.
World Health Organization. Globocan 2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. [http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home]. Accessed 26 Oct 2018.
Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland. Nederlandse Kankerregistratie [Dutch Cancer Registration]. [http://www.cijfersoverkanker.nl] Accessed 2 Feb 2017.
CBS [Statistics Netherlands]. MOA Golden Standard. [www.moaweb.nl/services/services/gouden-standaard.html] Accessed 9 Apr 2015.


BLOCKLIVEASIA is a world's first public lifestyle/meets/blockchain festival, which is targeting the average people, young and old.
You will be able to learn how blockchain is changing the world, listen to speeches by the best in blockchain, and one of the speakers is our VP – Salina Bo, which will speak about blockchain and its influences on many industries.
KYCBench team and partners are very excited, as in this festival so much is happening, you just have to check it out for yourself! Moreover, this festival is taking the tired conference world by storm, letting you attend it free of charge.
Organisers promise promise to "break down every barrier known to the common man, inviting them to new world, where token is king and blockchain reigns supreme. Meet over 70 projects on the exhibition floor, and throw a few curveballs to the 15 brave projects taking the pitching stage. Projects get to pitch to over 8,000 attendees at their very own booth and gain organic community growth with our live event-wide airdrop".


text:
Nicola Kraus (born August 17, 1974) is an American novelist.

Personal life
Kraus was born in New York City, and graduated from the Chapin School and then New York University's Gallatin School of Individualized Study. She met Emma McLaughlin while both were attending  New York University, and working as nannies. She lived as a child at 1000 Park Avenue, whose residents she claims inspired some of the characters in her fiction.

Kraus married David Wheir on June 14, 2008.

Published works (all with Emma McLaughlin)
 The Nanny Diaries (2002)
 Citizen Girl (2004)
 Dedication (2007)
 The Real Real (2009)
 Nanny Returns (2009)
 Cinderella Gets a Brazilian (2011)
 Over You (2012)
 The First Affair: A Novel (2013)
 How to be a Grown-Up: A Novel (2015)

External links
 Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus homepage
 Interview with Emma McLaughlin
 Barnes & Noble Biography

1974 births
21st-century American novelists
American women novelists
American chick lit writers
Living people
New York University Gallatin School of Individualized Study alumni
Writers from Manhattan
21st-century American women writers
Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni
People from the Upper East Side
Novelists from New York (state)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Celebrating 100 Years of Armstrong Siddeley.
For more information on our celebrations starting Saturday March 30, 2019 at Old Parliament House, Canberra, download our flyer.
Bruce Lindsay's story of Armstrong Siddeley appears in the March - April edition of Restored Cars - number 253. Well worth a read.
This year marks 100 years of Armstrong Siddeley. To celebrate this event, the Club is organising its Annual Federal Rally in Canberra over the weekend of 29-31 March. Stay tuned for more details over the coming months.
A Centenary Rally Shirt has been produced for those attending (or not) the Centenary Rally this March 2019 in Canberra. You can order your shirt using the online Centenary Shirt Order Form available from the Regalia menu above.
Australia Day 2019 at Parramatta Park - Saturday 26th January.
Our Club is being showcased at this year's Australia Day celebrations to be held in Parramatta Park. Come along and meet us in the ASCC marquee and have a look at the 20 plus cars we'll have on display. We look forward to welcoming you.
Here is your 2019 calendar celebrating the Centenary of the Marque.
A new Car Badge has been struck to celebrate the centenary of Armstrong Siddeley Motors. Order yours now so it can be fitted prior to the Canberra Rally next March.
The Southern Sphinx: July / August edition. The latest edition of the Club Journal is now available to Members - it is sited within the Members Only Section under the heading Newsletters. We are currently uploading to the Members Only Section all copies of The Southern Sphinx since June 1960.
Thoroughbred & Classic Cars Magazine, in their April 2018 edition, has an excellent 7-page article on the 1960 Star Sapphire Mkll. Their conclusion runs: True automotive class, as the Star Sapphire Mkll so vividly demonstrates, is both indefinable and timeless.
The Armstrong Siddeley Car Club in Australia was formed in 1960 by a group of Sydney enthusiasts. There are now Branches in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.
Wanted to buy internal rear view mirror and internal cab light to suit 1949 utility coupe.
For Sale: A pair of Sapphire or Star Sapphire main body members. Excellent condition and fully galvanised.


text:
Sunday Night Delight
On August 25, 2017 August 23, 2017 By jbIn TV
(Pictured: L to R, Margot Chapman, Jon Carroll, Taffy Danoff, and Bill Danoff of the Starland Vocal Band.)
The limited-run summer variety series was a staple of 70s TV. Networks signed various performers to appear in four- or six-episode shows to burn off airtime in the season when viewership was the lowest. A sure-fire way to draw eyeballs was to surround a popular singer with a company of actors. Since many of the summer series were a half-hour long, all it took to make an episode was two or three songs linked with a handful of comedy bits.
In the summer of 1976, the Starland Vocal Band took "Afternoon Delight" to #1. The next winter, they won two Grammys, including Best New Artist. So in the summer of 1977, CBS gave them a six-week variety show. The Starland Vocal Band Show premiered on Sunday, July 31, tucked between Rhoda and the CBS Sunday Night Movie. Each episode features several performances by the group, shot in various places: a club in Washington, DC (the group's hometown), a concert at Pepperdine University, an outdoor stage in Great Falls, Montana, and a recording studio in Los Angeles. Other recurring bits have the group attending a Renaissance fair, and exploring an abandoned amusement park in surreal video bits.
Linking all of these are comedy segments, often performed by a young man who functioned as the program's host: David Letterman. (Some of Letterman's stuff, collected here, will remind you of bits he would do in years to come.) Also in the cast is Jeff Altman, who plays several recurring characters including Billy Carter and a nature-show host; he and Letterman do a recurring bit in which Letterman interviews a character played by Altman and ends up punching him in the stomach. The show also includes brief segments by political humorist Mark Russell taped at a Washington hotel with the members of the group in the audience, and scattered appearances by Firesign Theater veterans Phil Proctor and Peter Bergman.
So The Starland Vocal Band Show was not the traditional Hollywood soundstage variety show. That doesn't mean it worked, though. A regular viewer would quickly learn the difference between "recurring" and "repetitive." The opening and closing credits are exactly the same pieces of tape each week. The musical numbers come from the same four venues. Some of the recurring comedy bits, and many of the jokes, land with a thud. Proctor and Bergman's stuff seems particularly toothless given their background, and while Russell could be razor-sharp (as on his long-running series of PBS comedy specials), he's fairly tame on this show. Letterman is always watchable, but he had a lot of clunkers to dismiss, in the same way he would for the rest of his network TV career: with an expression, an inflection, or a throwaway line that makes clear how dumb something is, just as the viewer is having the same thought. In 2015, group member Jon Carroll told USA Today, "It wasn't all bad. It was mostly bad."
I watched all six episodes, which are available at YouTube and linked in the Jon Carroll interview above. The producers missed a bet by not featuring Margot Chapman and Taffy Danoff more than they did, because Margot has some acting chops and Taffy is gorgeous. But there is one moment that blew me away: in the final episode, aired September 5, 1977, the group performed a stunning acapella version of Paul Simon's "American Tune."
Given its oddball comedic tone, the surreal amusement park videos, and some weird linking bits featuring a squawking goose and the group watching a video monitor in the middle of a hayfield, it's clear that the show was aimed at a sophisticated viewing audience—young, urban, hip. The problem with that is the Starland Vocal Band itself. Some of their songs are almost comically bland, and at one venue, Taffy and Margot wear long dresses like something from Little House on the Prairie. Their rock songs sound OK, but rockin' or not, they tend to come off pretty square. If CBS hoped to capture the young, urban, hip crowd that stayed up late for Saturday Night Live, The Starland Vocal Band Show wasn't going to get much of it.
Golden Ages
Fifty Years Have Come and Gone Since We Heard the News 'Bout Billie Joe
2 thoughts on "Sunday Night Delight"
In Firesign and on their own, Proctor and Bergman spent a *lot* of time either skewering crappy TV or inventing surrealistic riffs on TV.
(The "Americathon" movie was their idea; they also based an entire album of skits on the programming of a mythical pay-per-view TV channel.)
No doubt, dropping them into an actual network TV show struck somebody as an "it's so crazy, it just might work!" kind of idea.
But, nah.
I might have to watch these shows, especially the "American Tune" show.
Pingback: Annual Custom | The Hits Just Keep On Comin'

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: docx4j library is supporting specific version of MS word I am using below dependency of docx4j library. I am programmatically generating doc file using several templates in Java and it is working fine for specific version but As I am changing anything on existing templates using higher version or office 365 Microsoft word, it is allowing me to download the file but on opening it, it is showing that this file is corrupt file.
    <dependency>
        <groupId>org.docx4j</groupId>
        <artifactId>docx4j-parent</artifactId>
        <version>8.1.4</version>
        <type>pom</type>
    </dependency>

I Have gone through docx4j official forum as well, they are suggested to change the version. So I have upgrade the version from 8.1.4 to 8.1.6 . Now there is no such CORRUPT FILE error but now I am getting error on console that I am pasting below here.
    org.docx4j.openpackaging.exceptions.InvalidFormatException: Range problem
at com.plutext.merge.DocumentBuilder.a(DocumentBuilder.java:783) ~[Enterprise-8.1.0.3.jar:na]
at com.plutext.merge.DocumentBuilderIncremental.addBlockRange(DocumentBuilderIncremental.java:12) ~[Enterprise-8.1.0.3.jar:na]
at com.se.qdo.document.managment.service.DocumentServiceImpl.mergeDocument(DocumentServiceImpl.java:415) [classes/:na]
at com.se.qdo.document.managment.service.DocumentServiceImpl.downloadProposal(DocumentServiceImpl.java:221) [classes/:na]
at com.se.qdo.document.managment.controller.DocumentController.downloadProposal(DocumentController.java:32) [classes/:na]
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) ~[na:1.8.0_251]
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source) ~[na:1.8.0_251]
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source) ~[na:1.8.0_251]
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source) ~[na:1.8.0_251]
at org.springframework.web.method.support.InvocableHandlerMethod.doInvoke(InvocableHandlerMethod.java:190) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.method.support.InvocableHandlerMethod.invokeForRequest(InvocableHandlerMethod.java:138) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.annotation.ServletInvocableHandlerMethod.invokeAndHandle(ServletInvocableHandlerMethod.java:105) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerAdapter.invokeHandlerMethod(RequestMappingHandlerAdapter.java:878) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.annotation.RequestMappingHandlerAdapter.handleInternal(RequestMappingHandlerAdapter.java:792) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.method.AbstractHandlerMethodAdapter.handle(AbstractHandlerMethodAdapter.java:87) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet.doDispatch(DispatcherServlet.java:1040) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet.doService(DispatcherServlet.java:943) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.processRequest(FrameworkServlet.java:1006) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.doPost(FrameworkServlet.java:909) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:652) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:4.0.FR]
at org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.service(FrameworkServlet.java:883) [spring-webmvc-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:733) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:4.0.FR]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:231) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.tomcat.websocket.server.WsFilter.doFilter(WsFilter.java:53) [tomcat-embed-websocket-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at brave.servlet.TracingFilter.doFilter(TracingFilter.java:65) [brave-instrumentation-servlet-5.8.0.jar:na]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:320) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.access.intercept.FilterSecurityInterceptor.invoke(FilterSecurityInterceptor.java:126) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.access.intercept.FilterSecurityInterceptor.doFilter(FilterSecurityInterceptor.java:90) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.access.ExceptionTranslationFilter.doFilter(ExceptionTranslationFilter.java:118) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.session.SessionManagementFilter.doFilter(SessionManagementFilter.java:137) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.AnonymousAuthenticationFilter.doFilter(AnonymousAuthenticationFilter.java:111) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.servletapi.SecurityContextHolderAwareRequestFilter.doFilter(SecurityContextHolderAwareRequestFilter.java:158) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.savedrequest.RequestCacheAwareFilter.doFilter(RequestCacheAwareFilter.java:63) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.oauth2.server.resource.web.BearerTokenAuthenticationFilter.doFilterInternal(BearerTokenAuthenticationFilter.java:130) [spring-security-oauth2-resource-server-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:119) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.logout.LogoutFilter.doFilter(LogoutFilter.java:116) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.header.HeaderWriterFilter.doHeadersAfter(HeaderWriterFilter.java:92) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.header.HeaderWriterFilter.doFilterInternal(HeaderWriterFilter.java:77) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:119) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.context.SecurityContextPersistenceFilter.doFilter(SecurityContextPersistenceFilter.java:105) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.context.request.async.WebAsyncManagerIntegrationFilter.doFilterInternal(WebAsyncManagerIntegrationFilter.java:56) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:119) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:334) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy.doFilterInternal(FilterChainProxy.java:215) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:178) [spring-security-web-5.3.4.RELEASE.jar:5.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.DelegatingFilterProxy.invokeDelegate(DelegatingFilterProxy.java:358) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.DelegatingFilterProxy.doFilter(DelegatingFilterProxy.java:271) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.springframework.web.filter.RequestContextFilter.doFilterInternal(RequestContextFilter.java:100) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:119) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.springframework.web.filter.FormContentFilter.doFilterInternal(FormContentFilter.java:93) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:119) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.springframework.cloud.sleuth.instrument.web.ExceptionLoggingFilter.doFilter(ExceptionLoggingFilter.java:50) [spring-cloud-sleuth-core-2.1.6.RELEASE.jar:2.1.6.RELEASE]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at brave.servlet.TracingFilter.doFilter(TracingFilter.java:82) [brave-instrumentation-servlet-5.8.0.jar:na]
at org.springframework.cloud.sleuth.instrument.web.LazyTracingFilter.doFilter(TraceWebServletAutoConfiguration.java:145) [spring-cloud-sleuth-core-2.1.6.RELEASE.jar:2.1.6.RELEASE]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.springframework.boot.actuate.metrics.web.servlet.WebMvcMetricsFilter.doFilterInternal(WebMvcMetricsFilter.java:93) [spring-boot-actuator-2.3.4.RELEASE.jar:2.3.4.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:119) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.springframework.web.filter.CharacterEncodingFilter.doFilterInternal(CharacterEncodingFilter.java:201) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:119) [spring-web-5.2.9.RELEASE.jar:5.2.9.RELEASE]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at com.se.qdo.document.managment.component.CorsFilter.doFilter(CorsFilter.java:40) [classes/:na]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:193) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:166) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapperValve.invoke(StandardWrapperValve.java:202) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContextValve.invoke(StandardContextValve.java:97) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.authenticator.AuthenticatorBase.invoke(AuthenticatorBase.java:541) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardHostValve.invoke(StandardHostValve.java:143) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.valves.ErrorReportValve.invoke(ErrorReportValve.java:92) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardEngineValve.invoke(StandardEngineValve.java:78) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.service(CoyoteAdapter.java:343) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Processor.service(Http11Processor.java:374) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.coyote.AbstractProcessorLight.process(AbstractProcessorLight.java:65) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.coyote.AbstractProtocol$ConnectionHandler.process(AbstractProtocol.java:868) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.NioEndpoint$SocketProcessor.doRun(NioEndpoint.java:1590) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.SocketProcessorBase.run(SocketProcessorBase.java:49) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source) [na:1.8.0_251]
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source) [na:1.8.0_251]
at org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.TaskThread$WrappingRunnable.run(TaskThread.java:61) [tomcat-embed-core-9.0.38.jar:9.0.38]
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source) [na:1.8.0_251]
    Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: Attempt to set incorrect parent value SdtBlock
at org.docx4j.wml.P.setParent(P.java:427) ~[docx4j-openxml-objects-8.1.6.jar:na]
at com.plutext.merge.n$c.walkJAXBElements(n$c.java:23) ~[Enterprise-8.1.0.3.jar:na]
at com.plutext.merge.n$c.walkJAXBElements(n$c.java:31) ~[Enterprise-8.1.0.3.jar:na]
at org.docx4j.TraversalUtil.<init>(TraversalUtil.java:271) ~[docx4j-core-8.1.6.jar:na]
at com.plutext.merge.n.a(n.java:200) ~[Enterprise-8.1.0.3.jar:na]
at com.plutext.merge.n.a(n.java:15) ~[Enterprise-8.1.0.3.jar:na]
at com.plutext.merge.DocumentBuilder.a(DocumentBuilder.java:45) ~[Enterprise-8.1.0.3.jar:na]
... 105 common frames omitted

A: You'll need to upgrade your Docx4j Enterprise jar(s), from 8.1.0.3.  Our current release is 8.1.0.7.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Two arrested on gang rape charges
KANYAKUMARI: Kotticode police have arrested two youths for allegedly raping a woman on January 28. The police said that the victim, 46, residing near Kotticode, was offered a lift by the two, who were known to her, and taken to a secluded place before being raped. Police said that she was living alone as she had separated from her husband over difference of opinion. They quoted the woman as saying she had gone for purchase of monthly provisions and was waiting for a bus at Kotticode, to return home late in the evening on that day.
At that time the accused Anish, 21, and Sampath, 24, came there on a bike and offered her a lift. The police said that she accepted the help as Anish was well known to her, but was shocked when they rode the bike in a different direction and took her to a secluded place. She was raped and let go with a warning that they will kill her if she told anyone about the incident. The woman reached home and later told her relatives about her ordeal.
On the delay for registering a case, the police said that the victim lodged a complaint only on Wednesday. The duo were booked under sections 376(D) (gang rape) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, arrested on Thursday and lodged in jail under judicial custody on Thursday.
Inquiry is underway to confirm the allegations or if there is a different story, while the complainant would also be subjected to medical test for the same, police added.
gangrape gangrape in india india gangrape india news indian news Sexual assaults teenaged rape victim woman rape	2018-02-09
Tagged with: gangrape gangrape in india india gangrape india news indian news Sexual assaults teenaged rape victim woman rape
Previous: Student's rape at school: 2 teachers arrested
Next: DJ dancer alleges gang rape in UP


text:
How durable is the Samsung Galaxy S8?
Marvin Velasco
We can all agree that Samsung's Galaxy S8 is a beautiful piece of hardware with the performance to match. Now that it's been around for a while and finally reaching consumer hands, we must ask: How much of a beating can it take?
While we admittedly don't have the resources to do multiple drop and scratch tests ourselves, several other outlets have purchased their own retail units and put the Galaxy S8 through some rigorous tests to come up with interesting results.
Here are a few of the conclusions we've found:
The screen can take a beating
According to Consumer Reports, the Galaxy S8 has a more scratch-resistant screen than its predecessor, the Galaxy S7. Although the S7's display is quite durable, able to withstand anything below a level 7 pick, the S8 shows signs of damage only when it reaches a level 8 pick, which is as solid as a masonry drill bit.
Chances are you're not going to have something as tough as that in your pocket or bag with the Galaxy S8, so we're looking at some grade-A screen resistance. We can attribute this to the strong metal frame sandwiched between two layers of Gorilla Glass 5.
Popular YouTube channel JerryRigEverything backs up these results with a video of his own:
On top of the great scratch resistance, the Galaxy S8 performs well in the bend test, too. With that, we can all see how well-built Samsung's latest flagship smartphone is — unless the drop tests have anything to say against it.
Drop tests aren't as forgiving
On the flip side, accidentally dropping a Galaxy S8 on hard floors can cause lots of harm. Based on reputable tests conducted by Test.de, the S8 cracks and shatters after just 50 drops at a height of 80cm on stone flooring. That doesn't sound so bad, but you have to consider how most smartphones in their tests manage 100 falls with only a dent at that height.
So, despite the nicely rounded corners and edges, the ergonomic design ended up becoming the phone's downfall for drop resistance. Samsung must have been aware of the Galaxy S8's sensitivity, and thus offers protective cases that cover up the weak spots.
Another YouTube channel — GizmoSlip, this time — backed up these findings:
A retail unit bought straight from Best Buy was used during the video, making this as real as it gets. As you can see, it takes a single drop to expose the Galaxy S8's fragility. Still, the handset lasted until the end and managed to continue powering on.
In conclusion: Scratch resistance? Great. Drop resistance? Below average. The next hurdle the Galaxy S8 will have to overcome is how well Bixby's newly launched voice features hold up against the likes of Google Assistant and Apple's Siri. As usual, only time and several real-world tests will tell.
SEE ALSO: Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8+ review
[irp posts="12278″ name="Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8+ review"]
Related Topics:Galaxy S8Samsung
Will the talking robot take over the world?
Luigi Leonardo
Back in the earlier days of the internet, an emerging but short-lived trend involved chatbots who could generate conversation with whomever it talked to. Does this sound familiar? Today, a similar phenomenon is creating a lot of waves online, headed by the infamous ChatGPT. The exceedingly popular ChatGPT is turning heads out of fear that the technology will eventually upend society and eradicate a lot of jobs.
But what exactly is ChatGPT? How is it different from language programs in the past? Is the world right to worry about them?
On the rise of language learning
ChatGPT is hardly the first software to inexplicably generate comprehensible dialogue without human intervention. Decades ago, the internet hosted rudimentary versions of today's chatbot technology. The concept is somewhat similar, though. The early versions relied on a database of responses from human users. If you asked about coffee, for example, the answer you get will likely come from the logs of another user who talked about coffee in the past.
Because the system was imperfect in its infancy, part of the appeal was trying to get the software to fumble a conversation. However, if it did mess up, you can count on it asking you what it should have said. The next time someone asks the same question, the software might mirror what you said, creating a learning process between the software and the user.
Today, chatbots — meaning those usually used by businesses today — operate in the same way. If a customer comes with a query, the software will rely on a set of responses to most appropriately address the user's problem. If the software can't come up with a solution, the ball usually gets passed on to a human consultant.
Is ChatGPT just another chatbot?
Though the label certainly gets thrown around, ChatGPT isn't strictly a chatbot. Instead, the software uses GPT-3.5, a specific language model created by OpenAI. Whereas early and more rudimentary versions of the same technology can already store an unbelievable amount of information in its memory, ChatGPT can analyze billions of words and the relationship between them.
Further, OpenAI extensively trains the software, ensuring that comprehension and grammar can live up to today's standards. The learning is supervised. In fact, the company even has a makeshift reward system to ensure that the software puts out the most appropriate response. With users also contributing to the software's learning process, ChatGPT is quickly emerging as a powerhouse for the technology.
The results speak for themselves. While users can generate simple conversations with the software, ChatGPT can just as easily answer more extensive queries with lengthier responses. If you ask it to create an essay about Christopher Columbus, for example, it can write a lengthy piece that can easily fool a casual reader. It can even handle more speculative queries. In a sample published by the developer, ChatGPT can answer what would happen if Columbus discovered America in 2015.
What's it good for?
Based solely on what the software can do, ChatGPT can find its purpose in today's world. The software can improve voice assistants and chatbots all over the internet. It can make big strides in the world of automation, enabling a more responsive interface between user and software.
On a more human aspect, the software can also handle more professional jobs with simpler prompts such as those involving simple marketing copy. It can help with more ephemeral research efforts, allowing users to get simple answers for otherwise complex questions.
And, on a more technical side, ChatGPT can reportedly analyze and detect what's wrong with a piece of coding. With the software, developers can use ChatGPT to potentially repair code without having to pore over every single line. Allowing a powerful tool to inspect code speaks volumes for a lot of applications all over the world including smart vehicles and technical machinery.
However, as with every piece of technology, users will always find a way to use something beyond what it was originally designed for. ChatGPT is now changing the world of education as students are using the software to do their homework for them. Though a lot of the sample texts look like they can fool only lower levels of education, a Wharton business school professor (via Business Insider) recently stated that he would have been fooled by a ChatGPT essay, grading a sample with a passable grade of B or B-.
Should we be scared of ChatGPT?
ChatGPT is undoubtedly rocking the world of education. While some schools have banned the technology outright, others are debating on the software's impact on how schools are taught. Since ChatGPT deals out more factual information, could education reinvent itself to teach more personal, tailored learning, rather than just the ability to spit out memorized facts. ("Factual" might even be an exaggeration. CNET, which recently experimented with AI-written articles, discovered a plethora of errors from using the software.)
Now, education isn't the only world in peril. The creative industry is facing an extreme challenge wherein ChatGPT can potentially cause workers their jobs. Though the danger certainly seems real, the limitations of technology are also real. ChatGPT can create comprehensible text that can fool a human, but it will likely stumble with conceptualization.
A piece of software is just software. Even if it can write an essay about existentialism, it cannot think of the concept metaphysically. In the same way, even if it can show you a photo of a parrot, it cannot think of that photo as anything but a pattern of pixels. To a language learning software, words don't mean anything else besides their relationship with each other. It's the same thought process as a dog learning to run to its human when its name is called. The dog doesn't know that you just said its name (or even the mere concept of a name); it just knows to do a certain action after hearing a specific sound.
Can ChatGPT change the world? Overall, the jury is still out, but it's unlikely that a piece of learning software can do much to replace human-centric work. Regardless, it's important to think of how ChatGPT can improve (or detriment) humanity.
Like with other supposedly dangerous technology, the world of technology is a Pandora's box. We can never put the genie back into the bottle. Once it's out, it's out. Instead of worrying about how technology can destroy the world, the more appropriate response is to figure out how it can better humanity without sacrificing anyone's wellbeing in the process.
Worthy upgrades!
Samsung has finally Unpacked the newest Galaxy S23, S23+, and S23 Ultra in San Francisco.
This is actually Samsung's first in-person event during the pandemic.
With all the design and hardware improvements, do you actually need to upgrade?
Watch our Samsung Galaxy S23 Series Hands-on video to help yourself decide.
SHOP S23 Ultra
Unlocked https://howl.me/ci2ICzDQu0Q
T-Mobile https://howl.me/ci2IDo6qZUG
Verizon https://howl.me/ci2ID56daVG
AT&T https://howl.me/ci2IEWNMKTP
SHOP S23 & S23+
Unlocked https://howl.me/ci2IFxtKHcH
T-Mobile https://howl.me/ci2IF5vp5IC
Verizon https://howl.me/ci2IGLvASrz
AT&T https://howl.me/ci2IHoNpUeY
DISCLOSURE: GadgetMatch earns a commission from qualifying purchases from any of these links.
Strong 2023 start for HONOR?
HONOR is determined to make some serious noise in the smartphone space in 2023. In the Philippines, they're looking to start strong with the release of the HONOR X9a 5G.
If you follow any tech publications and some influencers and endorsers online, you likely saw the drop test videos the company had literally everyone do. That includes GadgetMatch.
For what it's worth, the thing is really tough. During our quick shoot, we dropped it around 3 times on concrete. No major damages suffered. The 0.65mm 'Deeply Reinforced Glass' on the display is, for the most part, not just a gimmick. Still, don't go dropping the phone carelessly if you do decide to get it.
We're already talking about the display anyway, so let's dig into it a little more.
Pleasant to the eyes
The HONOR X9a 5G sports a 6.67-inch OLED Curved Display. It has a 394 pixels per inch count with a 2400 x 1900 resolution and 800 nits of peak brightness. Marketing materials also tout its 1.07 billion colors and TUV Rheinland Low Blue Light Certification.
For the most part, the phone is everything it says it is on paper. The curved display affects more how the phone feels on-hand than it does for your eyes. It makes the phone's profile feel slimmer than it actually is. And it's not too curved to the point that it distracts from whatever you're watching.
Colors also look great. We can confidently say that you'll have a good time watching videos on the HONOR X9a 5G. Whether that's one of our YouTube videos, mindlessly scrolling on TikTok, or catching up on your favorite series.
It also delivers a buttery-smooth feel, it has a 120Hz refresh rate and a 300Hz touch sampling rate.
Familiar look
Going over to how the rest of the phone looks, it gives off a Magic-ish, Mate-ish vibe. The circular camera module on the back plays a huge part in that. We'll get to the camera details later on. For now, let's focus on the look.
One glance and you could mistake it as an HONOR Magic or even a HUAWEI Mate phone. After all, they share a similar design language.
All the buttons (power and volume) are on the right.
And at the bottom, you'll find the SIM Card tray, USB-C port, and speaker-grille. Pretty standard stuff.
Globally, the phone comes in three colors: Titanium Silver, Emerald Green and Midnight Black. In the Philippines, it appears only the first two colors will be available at launch.
Overall, it's your standard slab with a signature look. That camera module is certainly doing a lot to separate it from the pack.
Capable cameras
Now onto the cameras. Here they are by the numbers:
Main (Wide): 64MP, f/1.8, PDAF
Ultrawide: 5MP, f/2.2,
Macro: 2MP, f/2.4, (macro)
Front (wide): 16MP, f/2.5
And since video taking seems to be all the rage these days, you might be pleased to know that both the front and back cameras can take 1080P at 30fps footage.
Again, these are pretty standard numbers for midrangers. The same is true for the actual output. There's nothing here that's mind blowing. But for posting on socials and just capturing stuff on the daily, it's more than serviceable.
Take a look at these samples:
Steady performer
The HONOR X9a 5G is powered by the Qualcomm SM6375 Snapdragon 695 5G processor. In the Philippines, it comes with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of internal storage. It also has a massive 5,100mAh battery. Software-wise, it's running Magic UI 6.1 based on Android 12.
In practice, all these components come together to deliver a steady performer of a smartphone. The HONOR X9a 5G is reliable in all the ways that matter. The processor, while not new by 2023 standard, still does what you expect it to do. That is to keep the stuff you need running in the background as needed.
It also has a decent power efficiency, which, paired with the massive battery, delivers an overall battery life that won't have you running to the nearest power outlet as the day winds down.
We didn't do much gaming on the phone, but given that it's the same processor that was equipped on mobile gaming-inclined phones in the past, we're confident it can steadily run plenty of the most-played games on mobile.
Solid start for HONOR
The HONOR X9a 5G is a tough, capable smartphone that's easy on the eyes. It's the quintessential midrange smartphone. Everything we've come to expect from midrangers is present on this phone while also being extra tough and lasting extra long.
With this being HONOR's first offering in 2023 in the Philippines, the company is off to a solid start.


When testing a theory, we should ask not just whether its predictions match what we see in the data, but also about its "completeness": how much of the predictable variation in the data does the theory capture? Defining completeness is conceptually challenging, but we show how methods based on machine learning can provide tractable measures of completeness. We also identify a model domain—the human perception and generation of randomness—where measures of completeness can be feasibly analyzed; from these measures we discover there is significant structure in the problem that existing theories have yet to capture.