text:
Missing Mondays; The Disappearance Of Katelin Michelle Akens
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF KATELIN MICHELLE AKENS
Katelin Akens 19 years old
Race: White Female
Hair: Strawberry Blonde (short)
Eyes: Blue - Dark Frame Glasses
Ht: 5'4" Wt 122
Piercings: nose, lower right lip, ears (guage style)
Tattoos: Butterflies on left forearm covering slash marks/scars, 3 red
Stars on left foot
Katelin was last seen wearing a black "Bass Pro" brand fleece jacket and black pants. She was wearing Black and Pink Vann's brand shoes. She wears dark frame glasses and her strawberry hair is short, lower than her ears but not at her neck.
Katelin Akens had lived with her mother Lisa Sullivan in Caroline County, Virginia until September 2014 when she moved in with her girlfriend in Havasu County, Arizona. Shortly after the birth of her nephew Katelin returned to Fredericksburg, Virginia for a visit. She flew in on December 1 for what was suppose to be a 4 night visit.
On the morning Katelin was scheduled to fly back home to Arizona, she made sure to grab her high school diploma. Katelin had graduated at the age of 16 and was very proud of herself for accomplishing this. She also needed this to enroll into cosmetology school in Arizona.
Katelin and her mother left her mom's house at 8:30am. They were en route to Katelin's ex step father's house in Partlow, James Branton. James Branton and Katelin's mother Lisa had disappeared a few years before. They had remained friendly up until this time. James had agreed to take his step daughter to the airport that morning because Lisa had to work. Lisa said everything had appeared normal that morning. Katelin had been holding her diploma as she spoke to her ex step father about her plans for cosmetology school. Lisa had to be at work by 10am so she asked Katelin to call her when she arrived at Reagan National Airport, then again when she boarded the plane. Katelin agreed that she would call.
Several hours later Lisa received a text from James Branton saying he had dropped her off at the airport. Lisa asked him how the traffic was on the way there. He had answered her that it wasn't bad. Eight minutes after the text from James, Lisa received another text from Katelin's phone saying "I'm at the airport, battery dying, so won't be able to text for a bit"
Growing up Katelin wanted to be a headstart teacher. She had attended the federal program for low income preschoolers when she was four years old. Lisa, her mom, said that Katelin really loved babies and that kids always liked being with her. Katelin had frizzy blonde hair that she would tame with a straightner. "If she went to bed with wet hair she would wake up looking like a troll doll". her mom said with a laugh. If Lisa joked with Katelin about her hair Katelin would say "I slept good" In elementary and Middle School Katelin would spend hours braiding her hair or styling it with small rubber bands. Katelin and her sister Gabi now 17 loved when their mother would fix their hair. Lisa affectionately describes her daughter as a "very natural blonde" who could be clumsy at times. Katelin loved Hello Kitty products (was allergic to real cats) tattoos and piercings.
Katelin never made that flight back to Arizona. No one has seen her since as far as police know. 48 hours after her disappearance her suitcase was discovered, because of a missing wheel and scuff marks investigators conclude the suitcase was just tossed from a moving vehicle. It was discovered not far from James Branton's home in a drainage ditch off River Road near Mott's Run Reservoir in Spotsylvania. Inside the luggage was Katelin's ID, Cell phone charger, wallet, plane ticket, pair of glasses and credit card. Not among these items were her clothes cell phone or her high school diploma. Many family members would try calling her cell phone it would go straight to voice mail.
James Branton claimed he had dropped Katelin off near the JC Penney at around 1pm. So initially the Sheriff's office reported that Katelyn had been dropped off at the Springfield Town Center and was suppose to take the metro to the airport, this information they attributed to James Branton. Capt Liz Scott has came out and said that investigators now believe Katelin never left the Fredericksburg area. They have gone over footage from JC Penney's security cameras and did not see Katelin Akens, James Branton or his vehicle near JC Penney's that day.
Also strange that when investigators found out where Katelin's cell pinged it was no where near the airport. Remember I said Katelin's step father texted Lisa. When his pings were checked it was like he had never left his home. James Branton declined to turn over the password for his encrypted cell phone and has refused to take a polygraph test. Detectives say they have not spoke to James in two years. Investigators searched his home, taking a variety of guns, electronics, and Branton's DNA but there was nothing that led to Katelin.
As the days and months pass since Katelin's disappearance Lisa and her family mark special occassions by letting balloons go up in the air with messages on them, hoping someone somewhere will find one and remember they might have seen something small that may lead investigators to piece this together and bring Katelin home to her family, where she belongs.
Our prayers go out to Katelin, her family and her friends.
Remember everyone this is my first post for Missing Monday, if it wasn't perfect I promise to keep working at perfecting them so that this vital information is clear and possibly gets to where it needs to be.
If you have any information about this case please call 1-800-928-5822 or 1-540-582-5822 and reference case number 15-109739.
Would you like to read about more missing persons, in hopes, that we may help locate even one ?
Labels: Missing Mondays
Barrie Mac April 30, 2018 at 7:06 AM
How sad. I don't understand why the police can't just consfigate the step father's phone as it seems like he's lying!
Adriana Lately April 30, 2018 at 7:48 PM
Wow, so sad. Sending prayers to the family
Miljana Miladinovic May 1, 2018 at 3:44 AM
I think this is really good idea to help...
Czjai Reyes-Ocampo May 1, 2018 at 3:50 AM
Oh no, I hope she will be found soon and that she's safe and sound wherever she is. This story is simply heartbreaking. :(
Taylor O'Halloran May 1, 2018 at 5:46 AM
This is heartbreaking, I'm sure she'll be found soon. Sending love
Preet May 1, 2018 at 6:30 AM
Oh, I am sorry to hear this news, Hope she will find as soon as possible. Posting this and share would be a great thing to do,
Geraline Batarra May 1, 2018 at 6:52 AM
This is really a sad moment for the family. I hope for Katelin's safety and I hope she will be found soon.
kristy b May 1, 2018 at 9:12 AM
This is so sad! I actually saw this on an episode of "Disappeared" on the ID channel. I hope they find her! This is breaking my heart and I can only imagine what the family is going through.
Elizabeth O May 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM
This is so heartbreaking for the family. I hope this post brings much more awareness and they get answers soon.
Alexi R May 1, 2018 at 2:43 PM
That's really sad to know, I hope she's okay. Let's hope for the positive result. Let's pray for her and for her family as well. Take care Katelin
Alison Rost May 1, 2018 at 8:28 PM
It's possible that the step father had something to do with it especially since her luggage was found near his home. I just hope nothing bad has happened to this lovely young lady. We can only hope for the best at this point.
Twinspirational Parties May 1, 2018 at 10:33 PM
Oh no. We hope they find her soon. Wishing her a safe return back to her family asap.
ShomaPat May 2, 2018 at 6:11 AM
This is so sad. They really need to try and so something more.
Meghan Karaan May 2, 2018 at 8:13 AM
This is so terrible to think that there is someone missing that loved ones are trying to find. My heart breaks whenever I read anything like this because I could not even imagine what the family is going through. I hope that she is found soon!
Jennifer Prince May 3, 2018 at 5:19 AM
Oh goodness! I hate seeing things like this. It's so hard on the family and community. I hope she is found soon, and thanks for raising awareness. <3
Nicole Lindsay May 8, 2018 at 11:48 AM
It's so hard hearing about things such as this. It is great that you are speading awareness for her and her family. I hope she is foound soon!


Brazilian prosecutors have doubled former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's jail sentence following his second corruption and money laundering case. His supporters took to the streets in protest across Brazil Thursday.
Lula, 73, who led Brazil between 2003 and 2010, was convicted on corruption charges in 2017 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He later had the conviction upheld in January 2018 for which he is currently serving a punitively extended 12-year sentence. Now, an additional 12 years and 11 months have been added to his sentence following this latest conviction.
There have been protests in support of and against Lula across Brazil since the corruption scandal broke. Supporters took to the streets again after his jail sentence was doubled on Wednesday.
Since the beginning of the initial case against him, Lula and his legal team have claimed it was an opposition tactic to prevent him from running against the now-President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro tweeted news of the second conviction without comment.
Da Silva, a two-time president who left office in 2011 with a record-high approval rating, was leading in the polls last year to win another term even after he went to jail. But less than a month before the vote, electoral authorities barred him from running because of the corruption conviction.
The case stems from extensive renovations on a beach front property carried out by construction group OAS. Lula denied the house belonged to him, claiming instead that his friend Fernando Bitter was the owner.
"The accused received these unjustified benefits because of his position as president of the republic, of whom exemplary behaviour is demanded," said Judge Gabriela Hardt.
Meanwhile, the leader of Lula's left-wing Worker's Party (PT) Gleisi Hoffmann tweeted"the persecution of Lula continues," in reaction to the latest decision.
In Brazil, those convicted can be released on probation after a minimum of a third of their sentence has been served, meaning now that Lula will not be allowed to leave prison for eight years rather than four. He was not allowed leave to attend his brother's funeral which took place last week.


text:
<?php

class Rootd_Link_Model_Resource_Node_Collection
    extends Mage_Core_Model_Resource_Db_Collection_Abstract
{

    /**
     * Initialize resource model.
     *
     * @return void
     */
    protected function _construct()
    {
        $this->_init('link/node');
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Rio Roundup: Day 10
0 0 Nisar Khan Tuesday, 16 August 2016 Edit this post
While rain battered the southeast region of Brazil, the Olympic spirit was not drowned.
Instead, it would be better than ever as a young Brazilian realised a once-in-a-lifetime dream, while another left it all on the track to the extent of stumbling over the line. Upsets were pulled off on a 5m long, 10cm wide wooden bar and a legendary horse once again blew spectators away. As the Rio 2016 Olympics hit double digits in the day counts, the tenth instalment to sport's greatest spectacle was one to behold.
Below, we break down the best of day 10.
Anita Włodarczyk obliterated her own world record to take gold in the women's hammer throw, solidifying her as the very best in the sport. Britain's Sophie Hitchon snatched a bronze medal spot as the Pole dominated on the day, throwing a jaw-dropping 82.9m.
Bahrain won their first ever Olympic gold medal thanks to a sensational performance by Ruth Jebet, coming ever so close to the world record in the final of the 3000m steeplechase, going on to win by over 7 seconds.
Some relentless rain in the athletics stadium wreaked havoc for spectators, broadcasters and of course the athletes as the 110m hurdle and pole vault events were delayed. Racers looked bemused as they looked down their lanes to witness a drenched surface, with the organisers making the right move to avoid any injuries.
Image: Getty Images
David Rudisha became the first man to win back-to-back Olympic golds in the 800m as he once again took the prize for Kenya with a well-paced run. Unlike his compatriot, Rudisha kept striding away while Alfred Kipketer broke far too early in the first lap and would pay for it, fading as the Olympic champion burst forward and won the race.
Image: NBC Olympics
Shaunae Miller produced one of the most dramatic finishes in the games so far as she dived over the finishing line after a heroic effort in the final of the women's 400m. The Bahamian worked well to build a lead, but on the final straight she began to fade, as Allyson Felix caught up to put them both neck-and-neck. Miller would stumble over the line in fatigue, but managed to propel herselves forward and was determined champion in a photo finish.
Image: Deadspin
In a delayed pole vault final, Thiago Braz da Silva pulled off one of the best performances of this year's games as he rose to the occasion to topple Renaud Lavillenie with an Olympic record and personal best of 6.03m. The Brazilian was roared on by a home crowd in a truly epic competition, which featured rain but ended with a nail-biting thriller, and one champion who realised a dream.
A national hero. 🇧🇷 https://t.co/ubBLe7deVt #Rio2016 pic.twitter.com/LQZEWnpDmH
— TheSportMatrix (@TheSportMatrix) August 16, 2016
Evgeny Tischenko was crowned Olympic boxing heavyweight champion as the Russian outworked Vassiliy Levit for a unanimous decision and subsequently a gold medal. His reach was crucial in keeping the Kazakh at bay after close action to start.
British boxer Muhammad Ali was eliminated in the preliminaries of the flyweight competition as he was defeated on points by Yoel Segundo Finol of Venezuela, whose movement was far superior and did not allow his counterpart to get into the contest.
As the semi-finals reached their end point, Shakhram Giyasov and Daniyar Yelussinov set themselves up for the final of the welterweight competition, defeating Mohammed Rabii and Souleymane Diop Cissokho who accepted bronze medals as a consolation.
Image: CNN
Italy's Elia Viviani won the men's Omnium Olympic title as he picked up the most points after 6 events over the the prior 3 days. Things would culminate in a dramatic points race, which featured a heavy crash when Mark Cavendish cut in front of another athlete. Viviani was involved in that crash, but would pick himself up and go on to win the gold.The Brit himself finally captured an Olympic medal, taking silver after a strong effort in the sixth event.
Charlotte Dujardin defended her Olympic crown as she took the victory in the individual dressage grand prix, upon horse Valegro as they added yet another championship to their incredibly-decorated collection. An incredible performance scored 93.857, around four points in front of Germany's Isabell Werth, while another German was also on the podium as Kristina Broring-Sprehe took bronze.
Image: talkSPORT
Great Britain booked their spot in the semi-finals of the women's hockey as they defeated Spain 3-1, holding on towards the end and surviving late penalty corners to set up a clash with New Zealand. The Kiwis themselves were ahead from 7 minutes after Anita McLaren and lead onwards to defeat Australia.
Making up the second semi final will be Germany, who edged United States, and Netherlands who defeated Spain.
Eleftherios Petrounias was crowned the new "Lord of the Rings" as he held his nerve - and his posture - to defeat Brazilian and 2012 champion Arthur Zanetti and win the gold medal in the ring competition. Keeping as still as a millpond when suspended in the Maltese cross and ending with a spectacular dismount were the decisive factors in the Greek's glory.
Se Gwang Ri of North Korea secured the men's vault title, ramping up the difficulty with his routines but nailing them to all but wrap things up. Denis Ablyazin took silver as he did 4 years ago, while Kenzo Shirai edged a tiebreaker with Marian Dragulescu for the bronze medal.
Simone Biles suffered a shock defeat in the women's balance beam final, as she lost her balance and needed to stay on by putting her hands on to the apparatus - although the damage was done. Netherlands' Sanne Wevers capitalised with a score of 15.466, beating out Biles' teammate Laurie Hernandez, whose performance got her a silver medal.
Image: Google Olympics
Sharon van Rouwendaal secured the gold medal for Netherlands in the 10km women's open water swim, keeping her cool across the bay of the Copacabana and beyond. Aurelie Muller initially finished in second place, but was disqualified after replays showed her holding down Rachel Bruni to prevent her touching the finishing board. The hosts' Poliana Okimoto added a bronze to their stock.
Image: Trouw
Hosts Brazil were sent crashing out of the quarter-final stage by the United States, who will face Hungary after they narrowly condemned France to a 13-11 defeat.
Russia closely got by Spain, while Italy eased past China to set up the other semi final.
Ruslan Nurudinov of Uzbekistan set an Olympic record to triumph in the 105 kg category, with a clean and jerk of 237 kg helping him tally up a score of 431 in total, way ahead of silver medallist Simon Martirosyan who had a total lift of 417 kg.
Russia continued their monstrous start to the wrestling competition as Davit Chakvetadze locked up the top prize in the men's 85 kg Greco-Roman. A victory over the world champion Zhan Beleniuk was secured with a huge 4-point takedown, putting it out of reach for the Ukranian.
Mijain Lopez Nunez took the title in the 130 kg, defeating Riza Kayaalp 6-0 to get his third straight gold over the last 3 games.
The Rio Roundup is a special daily article series for the Rio 2016 Olympics, providing the latest action after each day of the games. More Rio Roundup articles can be found here.
Rio de Janeiro, State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
SportingMatrix • We Live For Sport: Rio Roundup: Day 10
Rio Roundup: A complete recap and medal standings from day 10 of the Rio 2016 Summer Olympic games
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n5jcNvESFtk/V7TnJ9cWtmI/AAAAAAAADCw/YyMrW_UlIdsbi2ziNMNrzac_vvLkqxOZQCLcB/s1600/DAY%2B10.fw.png
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n5jcNvESFtk/V7TnJ9cWtmI/AAAAAAAADCw/YyMrW_UlIdsbi2ziNMNrzac_vvLkqxOZQCLcB/s72-c/DAY%2B10.fw.png
https://www.thesportmatrix.com/2016/08/olympics-day-10-roundup-medal-standings.html

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Harry Lyn Huff played a program of uncommon interest which made use of the Skinner organ Op. 793 in Appleton Chapel (the chancel of Memorial Church) as well as the C.B Fisk Op. 139 in the balcony of the nave, and both organs simultaneously at the close. The September 18th recital was the second of Mem Church's biweekly fall series highlighting its newly acquired instruments. Huff, formerly associate university organist at The Memorial Church and currently minister of music at New Old South Church, Boston, boasts a résumé which is impressively eclectic, including collaborations with classical singers Jessye Norman and Håkan Hagegård, pop singers Judy Collins and Art Garfunkel, choreographer Bill T. Jones, and performance artist Meredith Monk, among others. His program opened with three staples of the 20th-century French repertoire, progressed to a set of three pieces by American composer Calvin Hampton that were inspired by the French works, and closed with Hampton's The Alexander Variations for two organs.
Playing the French works on the Appleton Chapel organ, Huff commenced with Marcel Dupré's well-beloved Cortège et Litanie from 1923, a display piece for the organ as much as the organist. Listeners could revel in the rich string celestes, smooth diapasons, and diverse flutes and solo reeds, but amidst much sonic "cholesterol," Huff supplied just enough articulation to maintain clarity of textures. It was an elegant performance capped by a thrilling conclusion.
The next two pieces were the work of two of Dupré's students, Olivier Messiaen and Jehan Alain. Messiaen composed his Le Banquet Céleste at the age of 19, but it already has his characteristic sound. Though the composer requested (initially) only a stopped flute and string celeste for the manuals, Huff further enriched the color by adding a discreet vox humana stop. The tempo selected was perhaps a bit too brisk to be celestial, but the detached pedal notes did evoke the "drops of water" specified in the score.
Litanies (1939) is Alain's best-known work, for which he supplied an epigraph: "When the Christian soul in distress can no longer find any new words to implore the mercy of God, it repeats the same invocation over and over again in a blind faith." The obsessive quality of the piece is borne out by repetitions of melodies, chords, and individual pitches as it builds to a frenzied climax (Alain remarked that the left-hand chords near the end are unplayable at the right tempo!). Unfortunately, the very rapid tempo throughout sacrificed clarity as many of the repetitions didn't come across — the tracker (mechanical) key action of the Fisk organ would probably have better served this neoclassical piece.
Huff then moved to the rear gallery of the church to play the remainder of the program on the new Fisk organ. Commissioned by publisher Wayne Leupold, the American composer Calvin Hampton (1938-1984) in 1980 supplied a set of three pieces inspired by the three French works that preceded it on this program. Prayer and Alleluias has a first section that is a "kissin' cousin" to Dupré's Cortège, but Alleluias takes its own path, and Huff had a fine time with its slightly quirky rhythms, ultimately mounting again to an exciting ending. The effect of the second piece, In Paradisum, was a bit more celestial than the Messiaen, though with a considerably larger dynamic range. Also, whereas the earlier piece ends with a pianissimo chord under-girded by a subterranean 32-foot stop, Hampton's last chord sheds its lower pitches one at a time until the highest tones float off into the ether. The obsessive repetitions of the third piece, Pageant, are generally those of rhythms rather than pitches. The rhythmic patterns engage the listener by being unpredictable without becoming chaotic. As with Alain, the work builds to an overpowering culmination. In Huff's gifted hands and feet the jazz influence, added to that of Litanies, was clearly perceptible and enjoyable.
The final piece on the program was the most intriguing, Hampton's The Alexander Variations (1984) for two organs, in which Huff was joined by Christian Lane, his successor as associate university organist. Consisting of an introduction, theme, and 12 variations, this work alternates and combines the two instruments with roughly equal frequency and furnished the uncommon opportunity to hear how well the Fisk and Aeolian-Skinner complement each other, swapping primo and secondo roles from one duet variation to another. The theme itself had the character of a modern trumpet voluntary and was sometimes easily identified in variation, sometimes not. Huff and Lane maintained preternaturally seamless ensemble, given that visual contact between them was not remotely possible. Every variation had a unique personality — my favorites including the sardonic scherzo of No. 5, the colorful canvas ("Erik Satie meets Leo Sowerby") of No. 7, an homage to Messiaen the ornithologist of No. 8ç, and the electrifying coda of the final variation with its rapid antiphonal exchanges. Huff gave the world premiere of this work with David Higgs (Christian Lane's teacher, as it happens) and remarked that of all the venues he has performed it in, The Memorial Church is ideal. One hopes that this superb rendition may inspire future duo-organ performances.


Quack is utterly flummoxed when a big rock plants itself in a very inconsiderate spot. Peep, Quack, and Chirp discover their shadows-then use them to teach Tom (that trouble-making cat!) a lesson. Then, Pato and Elly are arguing over their blocks when Caterpillar and Baby Bird walk past with presents for Pato. Oh no! Pocoyo and Elly have forgotten Pato's birthday.


The Greenest Day in the Desert!
The Parade starts at 10am at 3rd Street and Sheridan and heads south through the streets of Downtown Phoenix. The Parade features a variety of performers, entertainers and floats including marching bands, Irish dancers, and bag pipers.
Following the parade, the 2019 Phoenix St Patrick's Day Faire begins at the Irish Cultural Center at Hance Park. Come enjoy 3 Stages of Irish Music, Irish Stepdancing, Bagpipers, Food & Beverages, Irish Crafts & Merchandise, Genealogy, Irish Clubs, Children's Area, and a VIP Pub hosting Arizona Craft Beers.
Faire Admission is $12.00 for Adults. $10.00 for Senior (55 & over) and Military. Children 12 and under are FREE. Click here to buy tickets online.
Free parking with Purchase of St. Patrick's Day Faire Ticket. The Parking garage is located at 1850 North Central Avenue. There will be a free round-trip shuttle bus from the parking garage to the St. Patrick's Day Faire (9 a.m. to 6 p.m.). Take the light rail to Roosevelt Street Station.
For a full stage schedule for the Faire, click here.
The Arizona Colleen and Rose programs encourage young women to take pride in their Irish heritage and become involved in the Irish community.
© 2017 St. Patrick's Day Parade & Faire. All Rights Reserved.


text:
After picking up my newspapers from the mailbox Saturday, Jan. 28 after the Pro-Life March on Friday Jan. 27 I looked at the front page and I was expecting a headline to read, "Vice-President Mike Pence speaks at Pro-Life rally" and there was nothing on the front page about the rally, not even a staff writer article. I couldn't believe there was nothing about our vice-president speaking at the Pro-Life rally.
When the Pro-Choice Women's March was, for days before and days after, The Journal had big headlines on the front page about the Pro-Choice Women's March that was written by the AP and local staff writers about two women from New Ulm who went to the rally in Washington before the inauguration and after the inauguration, a story about the women when they came back. They also had a picture of the people from Brown County who went to the State rally.
Now, where was the coverage of the Pro-Life rally? Finally I found an AP article on the inside or page two of the Journal and the headline was "Anti-abortion groups hold triumph rally," after Obama years. In Sunday's Journal was a small article, page two written by the AP, "Pence helps bring new energy to anti-abortion rally in Washington." Again nothing on front page about anti-abortion rally.
The more I think about it, the more upset I get. I am becoming a little angry about nothing on the front page about the Pro-Life movement, compared to the coverage of Pro-Choice and Women's March and no coverage of our vice-president and our Pro-Life movement on the front page.
I think our local newspaper is a little biased. We do have Freedom of the Press but Freedom of the Press shouldn't be biased, it should be truthful and fair to both parties. That's my opinion and I am sticking to it. Now not so angry old white guy now that we have a Republican President and a Republican House and Senate.
Harvey Fruhwirth


Stretch out one piece on a table or somewhere flat where it will be able to sit and dry for 12-24 hours.
Draw in a piece of the sun in the corner, as your starting point.
Let dry for about 24 hours.
Tack it up on the ceiling, turn out the lights and enjoy your trip through space!


text:
VUV technology
High Vacuum (HV), Ultra High Vacuum (UHV), gas purge
Light sources in VUV
VUV system: Detector
References - Articles
What are the applications for VUV technology, and why do we need VUV technology?
What environment should I use: High Vacuum (HV), Ultra High Vacuum (UHV) or gas purge?
What are the light sources in VUV?
What detector can be used together with a VUV system?
What's the aberration, and why do we need to correct it?
Fig. 17: Aberration corrected PGM monochromator
An optical aberration is a departure of the performance of an optical system from the predictions of paraxial optics. In the existence of an optical aberration, light from one point of an object does not converge into (or does not diverge from) a single point after transmission through the system. Optical aberrations fall into two classes: monochromatic and chromatic.
Chromatic aberration is a type of distortion in which the lens fails to focus all colors on the same convergence point, due to the dispersion of the lens (different refractive index of the lens for different wavelengths of light).
Monochromatic aberrations are caused by the geometry of the lens and occur both when light is reflected and when it is refracted. Monochromatic aberrations include spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism, and field curvature and image distortion.
Spherical aberration
Fig. 18: Spherical aberrations
Spherically shaped lenses and mirrors share this problem. Parallel light rays that pass through the central region focus farther away than those that pass through the edges. The result is many focal points, which produces a blurry image.
Coma aberration
Fig. 19: Coma aberration
Some aberration affects the images due to off axis rays. The image of a spot looks like several cylinders not centered, like an image of a "comet", where its name comes from.
Astigmatism aberration
Fig. 20: Astigmatism aberration
An optical system with astigmatism is one where rays that propagate in two perpendicular planes have different focal points.
Field Curvature
Fig. 21: Field curvature
Field curvature is the aberration that makes a planar object look curved in the image.
Fig. 22: Distortion aberration
Distortion is the most easily recognized aberration as it deforms the image as whole. It arises from the unequal magnification of the peripheral part of a lens (or a mirror) from that of its central part. In "barrel distortion," image magnification decreases with distance from the optical axis. In "pincushion distortion," image magnification increases with the distance from the optical axis.
Aberration leads to blurring of the image produced by an image-forming optical system. Makers of optical instruments need to correct optical systems to compensate for aberration.
How do we correct the aberration in VUV? How many types of aberration-corrected gratings are there?
In order to limit the number of reflections onto optics, concave gratings are often used as single element in VUV spectrometers.
A Rowland demonstrated that the dispersed spectrum of an illuminated point lying on a circle is focused on this circle, if the following setup is respected (see figure). A lot of VUV monochromators use this design.
Unfortunately, gratings suffer from the aberrations of concave mirrors and others due to their diffraction capabilities. Working in the Rowland conditions definitively limits the imaging quality of the instruments. The major aberration here is astigmatism. This aberration can be tolerated with a monochromator since only horizontal focusing is required to separate the wavelengths of spectrum.
At normal incidence (zero order, λ3), the aberration is minimum and image is straight. But closer the images are from the grating, more stretched and curved are their images. This stretching can be severe, depends on the position of the image on the Rowland circle and hence of the observed wavelength. It results in both loss of signal and loss of resolution, especially in spectrograph mode when CCD detectors are used.
Fig. 23: Grating on Rowland circle
S: Spot source (or slit of the instrument)
λ3: Zero order position
λ1, λ2: Dispersed wavelength positions λ1> λ2
i: incidence angle
r: reflectance angle
Fig. 24: Comparison of the astigmatisms of toroidal mirror and spherical mirror
The spectroscopic images can be improved by using toroidal gratings. A toroidal grating is a form of an elliptic paraboloid with different vertical and horizontal focal distances. It reduces the stretching and the curvature of astigmatism.
Other improvement:
Another important advance is the development of Variable Line Spacing (VLS) gratings.
A VLS grating is one whose grooves, when projected onto the tangent plane, form a set of straight parallel lines whose spacing varies from groove to groove. Varying the groove spacing across the surface of the grating moves the tangential focal curve, while keeping the grooves straight and parallel keeps the sagittal focal curve fixed. It corrects for spherical aberration associated with conventional spherical gratings. The VLS technique can also be applied on toroidal grating for an optimum correction.
What are the most popular optical layouts in VUV system design, and what are the differences?
Fig. 25: Layout instrument of an HORIBA PGM/PGS
Two basic types of spectrographs and monochromators are used in the VUV: normal incidence instruments a better design for 100-400 nm, and grazing incidence instruments for 2-100 nm.
The optimization of the image correction of gratings can be calculated for a better image quality on the optical axis of the instrument (monochromator layout) or on a focal plane (spectrograph layout). In the last case, the optimization enlarges the focal plane, the grating of the spectrograph works in fixed position and the wavelength range selection is achieved by sliding the detector in the focal plane of the instrument. The correction is excellent in both cases.
The realization of a real VUV monograph has to be done without a toroidal grating. The Plane Grating Spectrograph (PGS) configuration is one of the best choices. The PGS layout operates with a toroid mirror and a plane grating working at a grazing angle. It also has the advantage of being more affordable grating as they have a plane design.
HORIBA Scientific offers a series of VUV spectrometers and monochromators:
VHR series monograph in CZ configuration for FUV – IR range in vacuum
UVL series monochromator or monographs: a single aberration corrected spherical or toroidal grating with middle incidence angle, suitable for 50-600 nm spectral range analysis.
TGM series monochromators: a single toroidal grating with grazing incidence, coupled with a single channel detector, suitable for 10-300 nm spectral range analysis.
TGS series spectrographs: a single fixed toroidal grating with grazing incidence, coupled with an array detector, > 40 mm exit flat field.
PGM-PGS monograph: a rotated plane grating with grazing incidence and a fixed toroidal mirror, able to work down to soft X-ray.
Why do we need coatings on gratings and windows, and what coatings are used most often?
The design of VUV instruments suffers from the constraints of VUV optical materials. Transmission through bulk materials is limited to λ < 105 nm, the short wavelength transmission is limited of LiF or λ < 115 nm for MgF2. Reflective configuration is used in a VUV optical layout. However, reflectance from metal surfaces also decreases at short wavelengths. Several coating materials are introduced to increase reflectivity, such as Al, Os, Pt, Au, Rh and Ir. Above 120 nm, the main broadband reflector for VUV wavelengths is Al with MgF2 coating, having a normal incidence reflectivity of up to 90% under certain conditions. Os, Pt, Au, and Ir have a reflectance of about 60% from 5-200 nm in grazing configuration.
What is the difference between a master and replica grating?
A master grating is an original unit recorded as a unique piece. A master grating can be utilized as the "mother" of multiples copies, called replicas.
Most of the time, VUV monochromators are preferred when equipped with master gratings. But unfortunately, such gratings are extremely expensive and have a long delivery time.


text:
Questioning the value of biodiversity (UPDATEDx3)
Posted on March 5, 2014 by Jeremy Fox
I don't ordinarily plug individual papers in ecology journals, figuring y'all don't need my help finding individual papers to read and deciding what you think of them. But I'm making an exception because this is important.
Writing in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, the always-thoughtful Mark Vellend reviews philosopher Donald Maier's new book What's So Good About Biodiversity? You should click through and read it, because the review (and by the sound of it, the book) are really sobering.
Maier reports being "stunned" that he "could not find a single argument [for the value of biodiversity] that does not have serious logical flaws, crippling qualifications, or indefensible assumptions." And before you write Maier off as just ignorant, or as someone saying outrageous things to try to sell books, be aware that Mark thinks he's got a point. Which doesn't prove the book is right–but does prove it deserves to be taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand. For instance, Mark discusses the argument for biodiversity based on the ecosystem services it provides–and notes that nobody ever talks about all the ecosystem disservices that biodiversity also provides, such as increased disease risk. And how come ecologists never argue for promoting species invasions on the grounds that it would increase biodiversity and thereby enhance ecosystem services? As Mark pointedly remarks, when it comes to valuing biodiversity, ecologists basically started with a conclusion, and then looked around for arguments to support it. It's unsurprising that such a backwards procedure yields unconvincing arguments. It's the same procedure that Scholastic philosophers used to find "proofs" of the existence of God, for instance, and it's the same procedure creationists use to argue against evolution. Now in fairness, post hoc rationalizations have their place, and often they're unavoidable. But if they're really bad rationalizations, and if they're not even recognized as rationalizations, then there's a problem.
Which is something ecologists should talk more about–but we mostly don't, at least in my experience. That's maybe the biggest problem here. Maier concludes that not only have ecologists collectively been the victims of confirmation bias when it comes to valuing biodiversity, but they're not talking about it. Maier concludes that there is "tacit agreement among colleagues not to rock the boat of bad reasoning – perhaps out of fear that there is no other way to defend nature and its value". As Mark says: ouch.
Anyway, consider this another example of why ecologists should read more philosophy.
p.s. I'm a bit late to this, so for previous commentary on Maier's book (and Vellend's review of it), and for commentary on (and links to) a talk by Maier, see here, here, and here.
UPDATE: On Twitter, @frank_burdon asks whether Mark "lacks objectivity" because of his recent PNAS paper showing that local-scale plant biodiversity around the world isn't changing. I'm confess I'm unclear exactly what "objectivity" means here. But if what's meant is something like "a thoughtful, knowledgeable, self-aware person who carefully weighs evidence and arguments in order to come to conclusions he's prepared to defend", then Mark Vellend is one of the most objective people I know.
UPDATE #2: Just to continue the thought from the previous update, and highlight some things I just said in the comment thread. I'm well aware that Maier's views are going to be controversial and unpopular. And I'm well aware that some people didn't like Mark's recent PNAS paper (though personally I'm not sure why, as I didn't see any serious technical flaws or wild overstatements in it myself…). It's for those reasons that I hesitated to post on this; there's a higher than usual risk of the discussion degenerating into an unproductive shouting match. But I decided to post, as the issue is important, and interesting to me. And because in the past we've always been able to trust our commenters to vigorously debate controversial issues without descending into personal attacks, questioning of motives, proof by authority, etc. So let's all make sure we live up to the high standards set by previous comment threads on controversial topics. One of the best uses of blogs is as a forum for vigorous but productive debate.
UPDATE #3: And just in the interests of being up front about my own views here: I think Maier has an excellent point about general, blanket arguments for the value of "biodiversity". Insofar as we're conserving biodiversity in order to achieve some instrumental goal (like maximize the level of some ecosystem service), then I think we're much better off making narrower, case- and context-specific arguments. Arguments like "In order to ensure provision of ecosystem service X in system Y, we ought to conserve high levels of biodiversity, because alternative ways of ensuring provision of high levels of service X would be more expensive, and because doing so will not have any negative side effects." If there are any good general, blanket arguments for conserving biodiversity always and everywhere (or preventing species invasions always and everywhere, or pursuing any particular conservation policy always and everywhere), then I suspect they're based on intrinsic values rather than instrumental values. There's a large philosophical literature on that, of course, but it's not one I know well.
This entry was posted in Issues, New ideas by Jeremy Fox. Bookmark the permalink.
37 thoughts on "Questioning the value of biodiversity (UPDATEDx3)"
Florian Hartig on March 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm said:
I read the book, most of it anyway – I thought it was surprisingly entertaining, the ebook is not expensive either, so I would definitely recommend it.
It did serve my own confirmation bias to see that a moral philosopher finds much of the ES logic wanting. Most of his inquiry doesn't really come as a surprise, and some of it is attacking straw men, but it's interesting to see an outsider from a field that requires strict formal logic working himself up over the published literature. A few points he raised were really interesting, I'm planning to write about that in more detail if I find the time.
Jeremy Fox on March 5, 2014 at 4:35 pm said:
Will be interested to see what you have to say Florian. Jeff below also seems to think he's attacking a bit of a strawman. Which potentially gets into the tricky issue of what's a "strawman". Any attempt to generalize about any complex topic on which many people have opinions necessarily omits some details of some people's opinions. Thereby leaving some scope for everyone to defend themselves by saying "Hey, that's not (exactly) what I said! You're attacking a strawman!" I certainly ran into this with my IDH posts. I critiqued views that are in *textbook* discussions of the IDH and yet was accused of attacking strawmen because supposedly nobody believes the ideas I'm attacking, which aren't even part of the IDH anyway.
I guess there has to be a balance somewhere. If there are some common threads running through many people's opinions, I think it's fair to identify those threads and critique them. But how common do the threads have to be for this to be a fair approach? Obviously, that's going to be a judgement call, on which reasonable people might disagree. For instance, Doug Sheil, David Burslem, and I had a friendly, reasonable disagreement over what ideas are part of the IDH.
Part of what's going on here (and I'm speculating on this) may be that Maier is a philosopher, and so has a professional interest in identifying and critiquing general, exceptionless arguments. Not highly contingent, case-specific arguments of the sort I suggested in one of my updates; those aren't philosophically interesting. So it may be that he's going to have a tendency to read people as making general, exceptionless arguments when a non-philosopher might've read them differently. In which case, it's maybe fair to complain that he's attacking strawmen, or at least being uncharitable in his readings. But on the other hand, if a philosopher (i.e. someone who's trained to make explicit, precise, logical arguments) has tried his best to understand what we're saying, and yet misunderstood us, maybe that's our fault. Maybe that's a sign that we ecologists need to raise our collective game and do a better job spelling out precisely what we do believe and why.
Florian Hartig on March 6, 2014 at 5:25 am said:
Hi Jeremy and all,
with regard to the comment section below, I can only recommend reading the book before discussing in too much detail what Maier allegedly said and why this is right or wrong. I liked the review by Mark Vellend and it was the reason I bought the book, but it necessarily highlights only a small part of the 500 pages and I don't think you can get a sufficient idea about the statements in the book by reading this review only.
I think many of your comments above regarding people saying that this is not actually what they meant by concept X are spot on, I think this is bound to happen if people read the book, and in the least it teaches us that words in ecology are not taken as serious as in philosophy.
Maier takes "biodiversity" literally as "diversity of species, functions and so on", and examines whether it's morally justified to have this diversity as a goal for moral decisions. The book is really not all about the relationship between diversity and ecosystem services. For example, ES aside, he discusses whether it's morally justified to assign value to groups rather than individuals, i.e. to cause deaths of individuals in a common species to protect individuals of a rare species (imagine doing this for human races – and yes, Maier does discuss the relation to affirmative action).
What I meant by straw men is that, unlike Maier, I would say that ecologists use the word "biodiversity" in a much more fuzzy way – its nearly synonymous to "everything that is good and right in an ecosystem", so it really becomes a tautology that biodiversity is good from their point of view. For example, people would say they protect biodiversity by removing non-endemic species. But what they actually mean is that they preserve the historic state of the system.
In parts, I found it a problem of the book that Maier insists on examining the statements in the literature under the assumption that words are used in their precise meaning, instead of interpreting them wider. By that, he shows that ecology is sloppy in wording and logic, but it reduces the possibility to examine in detail whether the things that are actually meant by diversity have any merit.
Jan on March 5, 2014 at 1:41 pm said:
When judging about this book review by Vellend one should consider a recent publication of him "Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time".
I wonder how this book review might compare to a review of, let´s say, B. Cardinale or D. Tilman.
Anyway, I generally appreciate the discussion about "common assumptions" in ecology, such as biodiversity is, per se, valuable.
EDIT FROM JEREMY: Jan's comments here should be read in light of his follow-up comments below, which have now been edited at his request for clarity.
I just updated the post to address your concern here, but let me address it directly. Frankly, I'm not clear why the fact that Brad or Dave might review the book differently is relevant here. I certainly hope you're not trying to engage in proof by authority! Nor am I clear why you think his recent publication in PNAS is relevant; perhaps you can elaborate.
I recognize that Maier's book, and Mark's review, is going to be quite hard for a lot of people to stomach. It's taking an unpopular position, and it's suggesting that the majority view may have arisen from confirmation bias. I'm also aware that there are a lot of people who didn't like Mark's PNAS paper (though personally I'm not sure why; I've read it carefully myself and I don't see any technical mistakes or wildly oversold interpretations…). So I'm aware that there's a higher than usual risk that this thread will get overheated and descend into personal attacks and people questioning one another's motives. It's for that reason that I actually hesitated a bit before posting on this. But I decided that it was an important enough issue, and interesting enough to me personally, that I ought to post. Plus, there was already discussion happening in other forums. And we're fortunate to have a great commenting community whom I've always been able to trust to have a vigorous debate without the debate descending into personal attacks, proof by authority, insinuations that one should "consider the source" of views with which one disagrees…Let's all make sure this thread lives up to the standard set by previous threads on controversial topics.
And just to be clear, I'd have said exactly the same thing if your comment had questioned something by Brad or Dave by insinuating that Mark would have different views.
Dear Jeremy,
thanks for updating your blog post. My concern with a review from Mark Vellend on Maier's book is caused by questioning his objectivity, and I think a reader of both your blog post and the book review should at least know about the possible limitations of objectivity by mentioning the PNAS article of Vellend et al. 2013.
But, this concern might be relaxed by your statement that "he is one of the most objective people" you know. I think that a (likely subjective) review from B. Cardinale or D. Tilman may result in more criticism on some points of Maier's book. EDIT: My point is that M. Vellend likely has a different point of view on Maier's book in comparison with some other ecologists, considering the PNAS article of Vellend et al. 2013. I wonder if a review from e.g. B. Cardinale may result in a review containing more criticism on some points of Maier's book. For example, Vellend could have been mentioning that the highly diverse tropics provide not only a large source of diseases but also a large source for medicine. But I´m not an expert on this.
I may repeate my above statement, but, I appreciate the work of Maier and Vellend as following discussions can improve the work of many ecologists.
So much for the book and the review.
Just one more word on the Vellend PNAS paper: The research group I´m working in (here in Jena, Germany) wrote a Reply on this paper, and I know of some more Replys from other groups. Sadly, non of them has been accepted by the PNAS editorial (at least from what I know) – so much for starting a discussion on this topic. To be clear, I´m not eager to get a PNAS publication by just writing a small Reply; it´s the discussion on the topic I´m interessted in as my work is on BEF stuff.
Thanks, Jeremy, for writing this post despite concerns about personal attacks and so on.
NOTE FROM JEREMY: This comment has been edited at Jan's request, to clarify his point. Jan was writing in his second language, and his original version has a different connotation to native English speakers than the one he intended. A subsequent exchange of comments between Jan, Brian, and myself has been edited and deleted to remove material arising from this misunderstanding. Apologies to Jan for the misunderstanding, I'm glad there are no hard feelings on anyone's part.
Thank you for the clarification Jan. I'm still not clear why the fact that Mark published that PNAS paper would cause one to question his "objectivity", at least as I understand that term. But I'm glad you agree that the discussion should focus on the issues rather than speculation about people's objectivity or motives or whatever.
I suggest that this comment thread isn't a good place to engage in discussion of Vellend's PNAS paper, as that's not the topic of the post. But the example you raise is one instance of the broader issue of how best to conduct post-publication "review". We have a recent post on that, and another one coming up, so if you want to discuss that broad issue please do chime in on those comment threads.
NOTE: Comment edited to remove a bit based on a misunderstanding; see edit to Jan's comment above.
@Jan:
Re: Mark's book review not giving an extensive list of, say, pluses and minuses of biodiversity, it's a one page book review. There are severe space constraints; I'm sure Mark would've liked to say much more but couldn't. Plus, a book review isn't the place for a comprehensive review of a topic. A book review is just supposed to be one person's informed reaction to the book, and that's what Mark's review is.
jeffollerton on March 5, 2014 at 3:17 pm said:
Just to pick up on two points you raise:
"nobody ever talks about all the ecosystem disservices that biodiversity also provides, such as increased disease risk. And how come ecologists never argue for promoting species invasions on the grounds that it would increase biodiversity and thereby enhance ecosystem services?"
Neither of those are true; recent critical reviews of the ES concept have highlighted "ecosystem disservice" – try googling it and you'll see what I mean.
And a number of ecologists have argued that we should embrace the idea of "novel ecosystems", and the services they provide, based largely on invasive species. In fact, the response to our recent letter in TREE about overplaying the role of honey bees as pollinators boiled down to "let's have more of them in all ecosystems as they'll stabilize interaction networks, despite being non-native". Which is nonsense; but it shows that some ecologists are thinking along those lines.
Will have to take a look at the book but I suspect that it will irritate me….
Hi Jeff:
Re: "nobody" ever talking about ecosystem disservices, yeah, fair point–"nobody" is too strong a word. But I do think ecologists as a group talk a lot more about the ecosystem services biodiversity provides than the disservices.
Wasn't aware of that argument about the role of honeybees as pollinators and whether they should be encouraged to spread and increase in abundance. That's interesting.
I get the sense that you'd see Maier as attacking a strawman? That from where you sit, few ecologists actually believe or make the blanket arguments that Maier attacks? Or am I misreading you?
Agreed, we leave it to the medical profession to talk about the disservices 🙂
I'd need to read Maier's book to see what it is he's attacking. But from what you've written it seems that two things are being conflated: the value of "diversity" per se, and the value of "organisms" for providing ecosystem services.
It's perfectly possible to have ecosystem service provision by a low diversity of organisms; a forest of just oaks will sequester as much carbon as a forest containing 10 species of deciduous tree, all things being equal. And most of the crop pollination in the UK is being done by a small (but abundant) fraction of the c. 500 species of wild bees and hoverflies.
But of course the argument is that diversity should help to insure against future losses of species.
Douglas Sheil on March 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm said:
I agree with most points here. Many of these claims about biodiversity are either double sided or weaker than commonly acknowledged. Counter claims are not "politically correct". There are exceptions though: e.g. Ariel Lugo's work on welcoming alien plants and the new forests they generate. And I myself have highlighted how tropical rain forests may be a plausible source of new pharmaceuticals and cures but they are also a major source of novel pathogens (e.g. see in Ghazoul and Sheil 2010 Tropical Rain Forest Ecology, Diversity, and Conservation Oxford University Press).
I wonder though if there is a deeper misunderstanding of the word "value" (hard to judge without seeing the book). Value is not an inherent property of an entity but a measure of a relationship between a clear subject and the object of valuation within a context (time and place, or hypothetical scenario). Normally an economic perspective asks what people are (or given some context or knowledge should be) willing to pay. Justifications can be rational or irrational but the value is still a value. I think most conservationists will acknowledge that we value nature because we think it is important due to simple personal beliefs and ethical reasons … economic arguments drawing on ecology and function may in some cases be mustered to support that and persuade others … but economic arguments are not why we ourselves think it matters or why we value it.
Gunnar on March 5, 2014 at 5:13 pm said:
The argument that biodiversity can cause disease is not persuasive to me, except in the trivial sense that parasites are part of species richness. Virulence theory suggests that pathogens first become dangerous (in evolutionary terms) when the host organism populations become large, dense and uniform; typically the opposite of what is observed in biologically diverse ecosystems. This is directly connected to the ecosystem resilience concept; while an oak monoculture may sequester as much carbon as a forest of 10+ tree species, it takes a single oak-specific disease to wipe it out. This happens much less easy in the 10+ spp forest.
That being said, this is a rather basic argument which probably have been argued better elsewhere, and which Maier is likely to cover. I guess I should obtain the book and read it.
It sounds like you're thinking of specialized diseases that only infect a single host. The argument about host biodiversity and disease prevalence ordinarily focuses on pathogens that can infect multiple hosts. And similarly for evolutionary arguments about the evolution of new diseases (you're not likely to evolve so as to be able to infect a novel host if there's only one host present). But yes, these are very basic, broad-brush considerations, best to take a look at the book to assess the full argument on this point.
Douglas Sheil on March 6, 2014 at 9:32 am said:
Gunnar – My pathogen point concerns human health and the implied +ve value of biodiversity for novel treatments versus the -ve value (taking a people centric view) of novel infections.
Consider the zoonotic species that jump species to impact humans. Many of these have been major health scares, e.g. Yellow fever, SIV/HIV, dengue, Ebola, Sars, Chikugunya, rabies, SARS, Marburg, leishmaniasis (various), trypanosomiasis (various), oropouche … Of course then there are the malarias, the influenzas… and many many arboviruses (I predict we shall see many new diseases emerge from the species rich wet tropics). The reservoir host(s) is/are often uncertain as there are many options.
Living in a forest in Uganda we were super aware of the danger of handling sick bats and primates (e.g. re- Marburg and Ebola).
I think the point is that "biodiversity can cause disease" because there is a huge library of organisms out there some of which can impact us given time. Disrupting forests, hunting, etc. certainly play a big part in the "jump" but the source is biodiversity in a similar way that it is for the pharmacology. If we don't talk about values that is.
See for one nice example:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-879X2001000100002&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en/
Frank Burdon on March 5, 2014 at 6:07 pm said:
Firstly, thanks for posting on this review – I must admit, I have seen previous links to it, but no substantial efforts to really discuss a) the book and b) Mark Vellend's review (but I see the links you've included above the updates). I'm regretful that my initial tweet generated a less measured response because I was not calling into account Mark Vellend's scientific integrity, but more trying to place his comments in context with his recent research. It's important to note that the PNAS paper did upset some people, and took a strongly contrarian view to what could be considered a 'rule' of ecology, or at least an orthodoxy. More importantly though, without reading Maier's book I have to be wary of jumping on him or Mark Vellend's interpretation of the text. I suspect in a debate on a topic as diverse (pun intended) as this no-one is 'right' or 'wrong'. The wonder of the natural world is that rarely things are black and white (unless you're a Zebra).
I will say though, that there is strong body of work pointing to the importance of environmental context (and the multiple interpretations that implies) in modulating the influence of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning. For example, a diverse habitat maybe required for a diverse community to maximize its function. Which raises another point – the distinction between an ecosystem function and an ecosystem service needs to be better highlighted. For example, decomposition (a fundamental ecosystem function) can bring about positive ecosystems services (e.g., nutrient cycling), but also potentially, disservices (e.g., greenhouse gas production). Not exactly revelatory. But the net balance of that and whether one considers biodiversity as a positive influence for human needs comes down to values, indeed suggesting valid contemplation by a philosopher.
In regards to disease dynamics, I have no expertise, but will say that I have the understanding that co-infection can reduce virulence, at least suggesting that the role of biodiversity and pathogens requires greater research. Maier may base his arguments off current knowledge, but there is much we still do not know. We could talk also about sex and genetic diversity, but that might be about something like a red herring.
Vellend in his review points to the 'inconvenient empirical observations' demonstrating that much food production comes from monocultures, or at least low diversity agroecosystems. This is where I might go off the rails (or at least further), and argue that humans have diversified their niche (and the ability to manipulate habitat) to such an extent that they no longer rely on biodiversity (in certain contexts) to provide ecosystem services such as food production (there are numerous examples where humans do rely on biodiversity though, and a diverse habitat!). Humans can hand pollinate plants where pollinators have been lost, and we have machines to plant seeds where dispersers are relegated to roles as vermin. Whether that is 'right' or 'wrong' is a philosophical matter (and perhaps an economic one as well; there is an opportunity cost if humans have to be pollinators as well as everything else). I'm certain there are flaws to this argument, but maybe that's the point of the book: let's start talking about it.
I suspect network theory and computational approaches might be required to really resolve the diverse outcomes of biodiversity, species interactions, and ecosystems. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion you've started, and I know from previous Dynamic Ecology posts that you value the role of the contrarian and diverse views. Just like Hubbell challenged niche theory, Vellend and Maier may be doing the same for the value of biodiversity.
Thanks for your further comments Frank.
Re: your intent to merely Mark's review in "the context of his recent research", sorry, but I still don't follow. And I'm going to pursue this a little bit, not because I'm mad at you (in all honesty, I'm not), but because I do think your passing comment on this actually represents an important mistake. And I have the impression that you're not the only one making this mistake. So I'm going to take the opportunity to talk about what I see as the mistake here. Again, I'm honestly not trying to pick on you or anyone else. It's clear from your comment that you want to focus on substantive issues, which is great. But I do think your passing attempt to provide "context" actually is at best a distraction from talking about substantive issues, in ways that maybe you're not even aware of (?)
My view is this: Like any piece of writing, Mark's book review stands or falls on its own merits. His words in that review mean what they mean. Their meaning doesn't change because of other words Mark has written elsewhere. So far from providing useful 'context', references to what Mark has written elsewhere function *only* as an irrelevant distraction at best.
One of the most common ways for people to fool themselves, to protect themselves from having to engage with evidence and arguments that challenge their current beliefs, is to focus on irrelevancies. Instead of worrying about the evidence and arguments offered by the author, we worry about the motives of the author. Or about how we once disagreed with something else the author wrote. Or about the author's credentials. Or etc. Everyone, *very much including me*, is sorely tempted to fall into this kind of trap all the time, usually *unconsciously*. The only defense (and it's a very imperfect defense) is to consciously bend over backwards *not* to fall into this kind of cognitive trap.
Now in response, you might say, well, I haven't read the book, so I'm not in a position to evaluate Mark's review directly. Therefore I can *only* evaluate it indirectly based on inferences like "I didn't agree with that recent paper of his, so I'll be a little skeptical of his review". Or you might say, maybe some others haven't read the book, so aren't in a position to evaluate Mark's review directly. So I'll help them out by encouraging them to keep in mind that some people didn't agree with one of Mark's papers. To which my response is: don't do that. Don't ever jump to even tentative conclusions based on that kind of indirect "evidence", and don't ever encourage anyone else to do so either. Not when direct evidence is available! After all, if you don't feel able to fully judge Mark's review, or the book itself, because you haven't read the book, the appropriate response surely is to read the book. And until then, to *withhold judgement*. Not to come to even a tentative judgement based on indirect evidence. I mean, why do you *need* to come to even a tentative judgement about Mark's review, or the book itself, before you feel able to do so? Scientists are the last people who should ever jump to conclusions! Even tentative, provisional ones.
The only contexts I can think of where it makes sense to "consider the source" are contexts in which two conditions hold: (i) you don't have and can't easily acquire the information and expertise needed to evaluate the evidence and arguments, *and* (ii) you *have* to come up with an evaluation rather than simply reserving judgement. For instance, there are many important public policy issues where I don't have and can't easily acquire nearly enough information and expertise to come to my own informed opinion on what the best policy is. But yet, I feel like I need to have an opinion, in order to decide how to vote in elections. So I fall back on "considering the source"–I decide who to trust based on considerations like who's paying them, do I agree with other things they've written, etc.
So while it seems like you didn't mean much by your passing reference to the "context" of Mark's PNAS paper and how it was controversial, I hope you can see why even that sort of passing reference worries me. It's just sooooooo easy for people to fool themselves and fall prey to cognitive biases, especially on controversial issues. We have to be ever-vigilant against that.
In response to your substantive comments, I agree with you (and other commenters like Jeff Ollerton) that there actually is ecological work on things like the context dependence of biodiversity effects, whether biodiversity really makes much of a functional difference compared to, say, abiotic conditions, whether positive functional effects of biodiversity saturate at really low levels of biodiversity, etc. I guess the question then becomes whether ecologists collectively have paid sufficient attention to that sort of work and given it sufficient weight, especially in their more public pronouncements. I do think there are reasons to worry on that score.
Also worth noting here that these issues have been raised before. For instance (and this is just one example from memory), I believe Diane Srivastava (?) and colleagues had a review in AREES back in the 1990s questioning suggestions that conserving biodiversity or ecosystem function was all that important for many conservation purposes.
I should also note that I'm probably among the guilty parties when it comes to overselling the benefits of biodiversity. I have some papers on biodiversity and ecosystem function. Which I wrote to address what I thought were some interesting fundamental/conceptual issues. But in the introductions of those papers, you'll find the usual boilerplate about how we're losing biodiversity and that's a bad thing because it might degrade key ecosystem functions on which life depends. I confess I didn't think much about that boilerplate, it was just the sort of thing everybody routinely said in order to motivate their biodiversity-related research. At some level I was of course well aware of the flaws and limitations of that argument–but you'd never be able to tell that just from reading the introductions to my papers.
Ben on March 5, 2014 at 6:31 pm said:
Not having read his book, I gather that Maier is mostly arguing against the perspective that biodiversity is always good, in all contexts.
I wonder, though, whether he views biodiversity as a site-specific metric. When ecologists discuss biodiversity, don't we typically mean something site-specific, such as "declines in biodiversity at Site A are bad and increases (or recoveries) of biodiversity at Site B are good (e.g. for ecosystem service X)?"
Then the arguments mainly become about what suitable baselines are, whether newly-arrived species affect whatever metrics we care about (ecosystem services, site biodiversity ec), and whether eliminating species impacts the metrics we care about. This leads to a lot more context-dependency of how & when biodiversity is to be valued (and also when it may not be related to a given metric).
Regardless, the point that taking a pro-biodiversity stance and then arguing for it using ecosystem services language may be misconceived is well-taken. E.g. see "Selling out on nature" — Nature 443, 27-28 (7 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/443027a.
ATM on March 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm said:
This reminds me of a lunch seminar/discussion that Brian 'hosted' recently. I hope he'll chime in with his research into biodiversity trends.
I'd say that, from a Conservation Biology perspective, there isn't that much focus on conserving biodiversity per se. A lot of the reserve design work is focused more on representation and redundancy. I'm wary of efforts to target biodiversity by itself for conservation because I've seen it used in very questionable ways (i.e. to show biodiversity increases after timber harvest). On the plus side, biodiversity is used as short-hand for conservation of organisms that often get ignored like inverts.
I guess I'm a bit on the side of 'biodiversity is the most important thing' as a straw-man argument. Maybe ecologists are just lagging behind conservation biologists?
Philip Martin on March 6, 2014 at 9:15 am said:
What do you mean by biodiversity? This is one of the big problems with research into biodiversity, everything gets lumped under one term.
From my perspective biodiversity can generally be measured richness, evenness, distinctiveness etc and can be measured at a huge variety of scales from genes, to populations, communities, entire ecosystems… I think when we talk about changes to biodiversity we need to be explicit about what we mean. For example 'deforestation leads to declines in biodiversity' is a little nonsensical, whereas 'deforestation leads to declines in species richness' is a lot clearer.
When we are looking to link biodiversity to function and services we also need to be clear about what we are talking about and shouldn't muddy the water by just lumping everything as 'biodiversity.'
Christopher Lean on March 7, 2014 at 12:34 am said:
This I strongly agree with. Many of the replies assume that biodiversity is just ecosystem services (is this what you mean Jeremy?). Another view is that ecosystem services are a product of biodiversity so biodiversity is justified because is provides ecosystem services. Further, there appears to be problems with describing biodiversity as "richness, evenness, distinctiveness etc and can be measured at a huge variety of scales from genes, to populations, communities, entire ecosystems" as biodiversity becomes basically a bi-word for all of biology. Then any hypothesis that mentions biodiversity such as ecosystem services increase with biodiversity becomes ecosystem services increase with some feature in biology.
Paul Klawinski on March 5, 2014 at 7:17 pm said:
On the issue of ecologists championing invasive/exotic species as important components of species diversity, Ariel Lugo is fairly well-known in tropical biology circles as a champion of this. He is also co-author on a widely discussed paper attempting to get us to view introduced species in a broader and less critical light (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/abs/474153a.html).
Mark Vellend on March 5, 2014 at 9:28 pm said:
Interesting thoughts from everyone here – much appreciated. It was quite a challenge to boil my thoughts on Maier's book down to one page. One of the reason's I found the book so compelling was based on a growing discomfort with my own thoughts on the issue, as much as anyone else's. As a card-carrying nature lover, I would love to be able to argue with great certainty that greater native biodiversity is always the best thing for human well-being, and in the past I was ready with family and friends to trot out the standard arguments. But the more I scrutinized the actual science behind such arguments, the more I got worried that my conclusions had preceded full and dispassionate consideration of evidence. Maier calls us out for this in no uncertain terms. There's no question that humans often trash nature to our own detriment, but whether or not biodiversity per se is "good" in any particular conservation or management situation depends greatly on the objective (e.g., optimization of a particular ecosystem service), and the answer runs counter to conventional wisdom surprisingly often. As scientists, we have much to contribute to the question of how best to achieve certain conservation and management goals. But we also have lots of personal preferences about what those objectives should be (via the inner nature lover), and to maintain credibility we should probably be very careful to prevent such preferences from influencing the scientific conclusions we draw.
Andre de Roos on March 6, 2014 at 6:19 am said:
I think this post and the comments it inspired are very interesting and intriguing. Personally, the most intriguing part is the frequent occurrence of words like "good", "value", "pluses and minuses" , because I wonder to what extent they should be a part of a scientific discussion at all. Douglas already touches on this issue by discussing that value is not an inherent property of an object and Mark in his last post also hints at these issues. However, they do not go as far as asking whether we should discuss these issues at all.
As a scientist I am very comfortable with making statements that X leads to Y, but I shy away from stating whether that is "good" or "bad". I consider that a personal judgement rather than a scientific judgement. I have been regularly involved in discussions about over-fishing, in which case I have always made it perfectly clear that I will not provide a scientific opinion whether a certain management action is good or bad: If it is suggested to eradicate all tuna from the oceans (I guess we are trying hard), as a scientist I feel I can only line out as clearly as possible the consequences of such an action. As a person I might be infuriated by this idea, but when asked for my scientific opinion I will suppress expressing my personal opinion simply to avoid any confusion between scientific and personal arguments.
The discussion about biodiversity is in my opinion also muddled because of this mixing of scientific and personal opinions (In that respect even the title of Maier's book is fascinating, because it contains already a notion of "value"). Stating that biodiversity increases ecosystem functions or services is not a solution to the problem either, because that only raises the question why ecosystem functioning or services are so "good". Why is maximising total biomass or total productivity in a system "good"?
As a science, ecology is quite full of these kind of "value" judgments and I have the feeling their presence is increasing (consider for a moment the focus on "Earth Stewardship" by our largest representative body ESA). But I seriously wonder to what extent they should be part of our science at all and whether the fact that we do not separate between scientific statements and such "value"-based judgements adds to the sentiment that science is just another opinion.
I'm quite keen to learn what others have to say about this. I guess my opinion is clear from the above: we should very clearly distinguish between scientific statements and "value" judgements and preferably not express the latter when we are asked for our scientific opinion. Otherwise, I fear it is in the long run going to hurt our scientific credibility.
Good point Andre, with which I agree. Though I suspect others won't–the point you make has vexed ecologists for a long time. I'm thinking of how the Nature Conservancy was founded by ecologists who split from the ESA because ESA wanted to remain a purely scientific organization, much as you describe.
Tom Webb (@tomjwebb) on March 6, 2014 at 10:03 am said:
Nice post Jeremy. From what I've read so far of Maier's book (only the first couple of chapters, admittedly), I would really recommend people read it before dismissing his arguments. OK, he seems inordinately pleased with his own cleverness, and has a philosopher's inclination to choose many long words instead of few short whenever possible; but I really think he has a point. The concepts of both 'biodiversity' and 'value' are too often vaguely defined in the biodiversity / ecosystem services literature, and a moral philosopher's perspective is really useful – as he asks, "Is biodiversity similar… to other human beings with regard to its moral implications? Or might biodiversity be more like my old computer – something that has served some set of particular human needs well enough, but that is entirely dispensable when better alternatives present themselves or when my needs and desires change?" These are tough questions, and while it may turn out that Maier is wrong, I think our field will be stronger for having grappled with them. At the moment, I do tend to agree with him that "it is hard to avoid the impression that so many studies investigate biodiversity as an independent variable in 'objective' ecological relationships precisely in order to bolster its credibility as the basis for 'the good' at which conservation and restoration work then aims." In other words, we all *know* that biodiversity is valuable, our challenge is to demonstrate this to policy makers, the public, or whoever. But what if we're wrong…?!
Via email, a correspondent alerts me to this slightly playful 2010 Biotropica essay by Sheil and Meijaard, on psychological and judgmental biases in tropical conservation biology:
jeffollerton on March 7, 2014 at 10:39 am said:
This is getting off the original topic, but it's an interesting discussion: Philip & Christopher's comments above imply that there is a single, "right" definition of the term "biodiversity" and that it can only be used in one way. I disagree with this, and I don't think it the term was ever meant to be used in that sense. My understanding is that it was always meant to be an umbrella term that captured a lot of different aspects of research and practice going on in ecology, biology, nature conservation, etc. Certainly that's how the early publications used it.
Personally I'm comfortable with it being widely applied. In fact, when I was promoted to a personal chair I chose the title "Professor of Biodiversity" precisely for that reason: it captures the breadth of what I do professionally in a way that "Professor of Ecology" or "Professor of Pollination Biology" (other possibilities I considered) never could.
I do, however agree that we need to be precise in defining the way in which we use "biodiversity", even if (or because) it has a multiplicity of uses. So to take Philip's example above:
'deforestation leads to declines in biodiversity' is a little nonsensical, whereas 'deforestation leads to declines in species richness'
Agreed, but I would have phrased it as:
'deforestation leads to changes in biodiversity'
Because actually all kinds of parameters change when areas are deforested, including (sometimes) an increase in species richness (even if it's the species we don't want!)
Philip Martin on March 10, 2014 at 1:09 pm said:
Hi Jeff.
I didn't quite mean that I think there is a correct way to define biodiversity. It means different things to different people. Which is why I thought when we are setting hypotheses or describing results we should be explicit about which bit of biodiversity we are interested in.
jeffollerton on March 10, 2014 at 8:40 pm said:
OK, sorry if I misunderstood. Yes, clearly I agree.
Brad Cardinale on March 12, 2014 at 2:41 am said:
Before I weigh in on this discussion, let me say that I've been a skeptic of the field of biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research from its inception. I have repeatedly called out ecologists for making claims about biodiversity's role in providing goods and services that can't be substantiated by data. I have been critical of those who extrapolate from small-scale, unrealistic experiments using random species assemblages. And I have also pointed out that biodiversity can, in some instances, be a 'dis-service' … reducing goods and services to society. So like Maier and Vellend, I am not adverse to criticizing the field or point out flaws.
Having said that, I must also say that I find the criticisms levied in Maier's book, and the criticisms outlined in many of Vellend's papers and reviews to be extreme and unconstructive. I think both of these individuals repeatedly fail to consider several important points:
(a) While it is true that many claims about biodiversity are unsubstantiated, there are now >15 meta-analyses of more than 1,700 published papers that shows biodiversity does, in fact, influence the functioning of ecosystems as well as many (not all, but many) of the goods and services they provide to society. Vellend and Maier seem to consistently ignore all of the evidence that shows a role of biodiversity simply because there are some data that show the contrary, or more often, a lack of data to support claims. What kind of logic is that? It strikes me as somewhat illogical to ignore vast amounts of existing data simply because you can find exceptions and incomplete datasets.
(b) Furthermore, Vellend and Maier will repeatedly point out flaws in the observational and experimental science that lead them to be skeptical of the conclusions. For example, Mark will repeatedly tell you the 500+ experimental manipulations of biodiversity are all 'too small scale', 'too short term', or 'too unrealistic' to draw meaningful inferences about the role of biodiversity. Though I agree with some of his criticisms, I also think it is illogical to ignore vast amount of data simply because you feel the data could have been collected in a better way. One doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the baby isn't perfect.
(c) I also find it unsettling that Vellend and Maier rarely, if ever, acknowledge the results of studies that are addressing some of our concerns and working to overcome limitations. They don't acknowledge studies that have shown biodiversity effects grow stronger as studies run longer. They don't acknowledge studies that have shown biodiversity effects grow stronger for studies performed at larger spatial scales. They don't acknowledge studies showing that non-random extinctions often reveal greater impacts than random scenarios of extinction. In my view, it is not constructive to criticize an entire field of research, and then fail to update one's perspective as new studies emerge and the field matures.
In sum, I am not a fan of how Vellend or Maier characterize the balance of evidence in the field of biodiversity research, as I don't see much 'balance' in their perspectives at all.
Pingback: Friday links: animals jumping badly, the recency of publish-or-perish, mythologizing wolves, and more | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Friday links: what's flipped learning anyway?, bad null models, peer reviewers vs. lightbulbs, and more | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Thursday links: bird papers > insect papers, the genealogy of theoretical ecology, and more | Dynamic Ecology
Mina on November 7, 2017 at 12:47 pm said:
I just read the recent Undark article on the science on biodiversity as related to human disease (https://undark.org/article/biodiversity-disease-human-health/#comments). I thought this facet of the biodiversity argument would be well-treated by you all at Dynamic Ecology, and it looks like you and Brian McGill have already broached the subject of how the biodiversity concept is potentially oversold and not well-justified as a one-size fits all solution in many cases. Although, it's such a nice, easy-to-understand package to promote conservation.
Jeremy Fox on November 7, 2017 at 1:17 pm said:
Thanks for sharing that article, interesting.
Pingback: Soils under corn and tallgrass prairie; research to challenge our assumptions | CSANR | Washington State University


text:
ASU supports DACA students
ALAMOSA — Adams State University President Beverlee J. McClure said the university strongly supports continuation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which the White House ended September 5, with a six-month delay to allow Congress to devise an alternate plan.
"As Colorado's first four-year Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), we disagree with this decision. Adams State is proud of our diverse student body and lives up to our core values, the first and foremost of which is providing educational opportunity and access for all," McClure said.
DACA has given some 800,000 undocumented immigrants a chance to attend college, work, and build lives in the United States without fear of immediate deportation. Those participating in DACA, so-called Dreamers, were brought to the U.S. as children, attended U.S. high schools, and have no criminal record. Their DACA deferral from deportation has allowed them to attend college and legally hold a job in the U.S.
"To rescind DACA now would be cruel and unfair to these students who have spent most of their lives in this country. Our nation would also suffer negative economic impacts and lose the talent and potential these Dreamers bring to our communities," McClure added.
During a special meeting on May 12, the Adams State University Board of Trustees adopted a resolution to uphold principles of equity which includes a commitment to publicly support the continuation of the DACA program and the Colorado Advancing Students for a Stronger Economy Tomorrow (ASSET) Program, which offers in-state tuition to Colorado's undocumented students.
McClure was one of more than 600 college and university presidents who signed the "Statement in Support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program and our Undocumented Immigrant Students."
That statement reads in part: "To our country's leaders, we say that DACA should be upheld, continued, and expanded. . . This is both a moral imperative and a national necessity. America needs talent – and these students, who have been raised and educated in the United States, are already part of our national community. They represent what is best about America, and as scholars and leaders they are essential to the future."
McClure emphasized, "We want all of our students to know that our campus will remain a safe and supportive environment where they can pursue their dreams. For nearly 100 years, Adams State has been unequivocally committed to providing a safe haven for learning, growing, and expanding."
Adams State's undergraduate student body is the most ethnically diverse of Colorado's four-year institutions, with total minority enrollment of 45 percent. Hispanics make up 35 percent of the undergraduate student body.
ASU students are not specifically tracked by DACA status, according to Ken Marquez, Vice President for Student Services.
Adams State University President Beverlee J. McClure said the university strongly supports continuation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which the White House ended September 5, with a six-month delay to allow Congress to devise an alternate plan.


text:
Урвенна () — село, входит в Урвенский сельский совет Здолбуновского района Ровненской области Украины.

Население по переписи 2001 года составляло 478 человек. Почтовый индекс — 35715. Телефонный код — 3652. Код КОАТУУ — 5622687601.

Местный совет
35715, Ровненская обл., Здолбуновский р-н, с. Гильча Вторая, ул. Первомайская, 65а.

Ссылки
 Урвенна на сайте Верховной рады Украины

Населённые пункты Здолбуновского района

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
$50m upgrade for Oceania trio
Home/Cruise News, Cruise Ships/$50m upgrade for Oceania trio
Oceania Cruises is to spend $50 million upgrading its original three ships – Regatta, Insignia and Nautica – and to add features which were introduced on the newer Marina and Riviera.
The work will be carried out in dry dock at Marseille and Vancouver between April and June next year.
The three ships were originally launched in 1998 by the now-defunct Renaissance Cruises, and are almost identical in design to P&O's Adonia and Azamara's Journey and Quest. Each carries up to 684 passengers
The upgrades include the refurbishment of suites, staterooms and some public rooms. The ships' top accommodations, the Owner's and Vista suites, will receive new bathrooms including the addition of oversized showers and new vanities. Original artwork, in-line with the celebrated collection on Marina and Riviera, will be commissioned for all suites and staterooms.
The ships' Terrace Cafés will be completely refurbished and gain a grill to prepare dinner specialities such as lobster tails, steaks and lamb chops. Barista coffee bars will be installed, serving complimentary espressos, cappuchinos and lattes as well as croissants, biscotti and finger sandwiches throughout the day.
Horizons, the observation lounge, will also be refurbished with a new colour scheme and décor. In addition, the company will completely enclose the ships' only indoor smoking area, located in Horizons, with glass and install a state-of-the-art air filtration system.
The Grand Dining Rooms and Toscana, the Italian restaurant will be expanded with more tables for two. Finally, the ships' show lounges will be refurbished, Martinis will be outfitted with new furniture and the Canyon Ranch SpaClub® will receive new steam and changing rooms.
"This refurbishment programme is an incredible undertaking but we are excited by the opportunity to bring some of the best features of our O-Class ships to Regatta, Insignia and Nautica," said Kunal S. Kamlani, president of Oceania Cruises.
"We will preserve the personality, elegance and comfort of these vessels while furnishing certain areas with the updated décor and amenities that are found on Marina and Riviera. This will ensure a consistent experience across the fleet that we know our guests will love and appreciate."
The dry docks are scheduled from April 24 to June 6, 2014 with Insignia and Nautica being refurbished in Marseilles, France and Regatta in Vancouver, BC.
The renovated Insignia will debut on May 8, 2014 in Barcelona for her 7-day Jewels of Europe cruise. This will be Insignia's first cruise after her two-year charter to Hapag-Lloyd Cruises as Columbus 2. Nautica will debut on May 16, 2014 in Civitavecchia for her 10-day Cliffs & Coves cruise and Regatta on June 7, 2014 in Vancouver for her 10-day Majesty of Alaska cruise.
By John Honeywell| 2017-06-15T15:59:30+00:00 6 August 2013|Cruise News, Cruise Ships|0 Comments


text:
Q: In Rust how can I define or import a C struct from a third party library? The Rust FFI guide (http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/guide-ffi.html) nicely demonstrates how to import C functions that use standard C types that are wrapped by the Rust std::lib library, such as size_t.  But how do I bring C data structures defined in third party libraries into a Rust program?
I'm working with libmemcached, which has the following function:
memcached_st* memcached_create(memcached_st *ptr)

which is typically invoked like so in a C program (to kick things off):
#include <libmemcached/memcached.h>
// ...
memcached_st *memc;
memc = memcached_create(NULL);

The memcached_st is an opaque C struct - how do I declare and use that in a Rust program?  Here are my failed attempts so far:
use std::libc::*;
use ptr;

#[link(name = "memcached")]
extern {
    struct memcached_st;  // error: unexpected token: `struct`
    memcached_st* memcached_create(memcached_st *ptr);
}

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        let memc = memcached_create(ptr:null());
        println!("{:?}", memc);
    }
}

and
use std::libc::*;
use ptr;

#[link(name = "memcached")]
extern {
    // error: unexpected token: `memcached_st`
    memcached_st* memcached_create(memcached_st *ptr);
}

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        let memc = memcached_create(ptr:null());
        println!("{:?}", memc);
    }
}

A: Using empty structure is a valid approach. You almost got it, you just don't need to put the struct definition in extern block. Also you can't use C code inside Rust sources - extern definitions have to follow standard Rust syntax.
use std::ptr;

struct memcached_st;

#[link(name = "memcached")]
extern {
    fn memcached_create(ptr: *memcached_st) -> *memcached_st;
}

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        let memc = memcached_create(ptr::null());
        println!("{:?}", memc);
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Linden Farm Riding and Trekking Centre is a horse Riding School/equestrian centre in Holywell, Clwyd offering horse-riding lessons and/or other equine facilities, stables, dressage, saddlery or livery.
Please mention Riding-Schools.com when phoning or contacting Linden Farm Riding and Trekking Centre. We'd appreciate it!
Sorry, we don't have any photos of Linden Farm Riding and Trekking Centrehorse Riding School/equestrian centre just yet.
'Fabulous value for money Pink or Red Pony Headcollars A high quality nylon headcollar with heavy duty satin finish fittings, adjustable nose & headpiece and a clip throat lash.
'A fabulous little mitt that should appear in every grooming kit.
'- Great if you want to improve yourself or your pony's jumping - Lots of great diagrams to show you how to lay out grids - Turn your pony into a jumping gymnast When you go for your riding lesson, do you sometimes wonder how your instructor knows what distance the jumps should be apart? This book unveils all the answers to help your set up your own grids to practise with.