text:
Read the 10 best academic and business antitrust articles published in 2012!
Get in touch with the Jury!
United States v. H&R Block: The DOJ Invokes Brown Shoe to Shed the Oracle Albatross
James Keyte, Antitrust, Vol. 26, No. 2, Spring 2012.
On November 10, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice won its first fully litigated merger challenge since its 2004 defeat in United States v. Oracle Corp. [1] In the interim, the Federal Trade Commission had litigated and won—albeit with an arguably lower injunction standard [2] —Section 7 challenges in FTC v. CCC Holdings Inc. [3] and FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. [4] While the DOJ certainly had its share of abandoned transactions and consent judgments over the past several years, [5] the desire for a litigated win in the shadow of Oracle had become palpable in the hallways of the Antitrust Division.
The lesson from United States v. H&R Block, Inc. (HRB), [6] however, is not just that the DOJ can win a Section 7 case; that was inevitable. Rather, the decision to bring this particular case, as well as the eighty-six-page decision from Judge Beryl Howell, provide the most recent insights into the type of evidence that appears most attractive to a federal judge considering a Section 7 merger challenge: ordinary course business documents, party testimony, and industry perception centered around simple market definitions (coupled with high combined market shares)—i.e., reliance on the same types of "practical indicia" that have been part of merger analysis since Brown Shoe Co. v. United States. [7] Perhaps these were the lessons of the FTC's victories since 2000 as well. In other words, while the academic debate concerning the pros and cons of defining markets for Section 7 analysis marches on, [8] the DOJ seems to have realized that embracing a simplified market definition—even if hotly contested by the parties—together with a strong structural presumption of anticompetitive effects, gave it the best chance of winning in court.
This is not to say that the parties, as well as the court, ignored the economic tools for assessing both market definition and competitive effects that were recently highlighted in the Agencies' 2010 Merger Guidelines. [9] For example, the court addressed at length the subject of diversion ratios, an analysis that attempts to answer the ever-elusive question of what consumers would do (e.g., what products they would substitute) if the merged firm—or a hypothetical monopolist of a postulated narrow market—were to raise prices. In HRB, as in nearly all merger analysis today, this inquiry turned into a debate about whether sufficient data existed for such an analysis and whether the parties' competing assertions were of significant evidentiary value. The court's view of the diversion ratio issue was critical because these calculations form the basis of other economic expert quantitative analyses, including the hypothetical monopolist test (HMT), [10] "critical loss" analysis, [11] "merger simulation," [12] and the newest analysis embraced by the Agencies, "upward pricing pressure" [13]—all of which made their way into the court's opinion with varying degrees of attention and success. In fact, the decision is worth analyzing in some detail just to observe how the parties and the court addressed the ongoing quest of economists to measure and quantify the answers to analytical questions that, when closely examined, often remain as subjective and diverse as the spectrum of consumer preferences themselves.
What most practitioners will seek to glean from HRB, however, is what it reveals about current merger analysis in the courts—not the economic literature—that will help them better advise clients, especially regarding what the Agencies believe will enable them to win Section 7 cases. For example, does market definition remain a central piece of merger analysis and what kind of qualitative and quantitative evidence was most persuasive to the court on that issue? What weight did the court give to the DOJ's structural case in terms of shifting the burden of proof? In turn, what rebuttal evidence was offered by H&R Block, including ease and likelihood of expansion by rivals, and how did the court analyze this most critical issue in assessing a merger involving differentiated products, especially in the face of a strong structural presumption of anticompetitive harm? What evidence did the DOJ offer regarding coordinated and unilateral effects, and how did the court resolve the debates over ease and likelihood of coordination, the definition and relevance of mavericks, the closeness of the merging parties' products and other effects issues? And, finally, how did the court assess the efficiency defenses offered by H&R Block?
Through the lens of these questions, HRB demonstrates that the DOJ (whatever its current academic predilections) remains perfectly willing to employ time-tested litigation techniques based on Brown Shoe and United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, [14] and to do so by relying primarily on ordinary business documents and party admissions. Indeed, in HRBthe court held that the quantitative expert evidence of both parties could not answer the diversion question, and ultimately found only that the DOJ's economic analyses—at least in comparison to H&R Block's—had some incremental value in light of the documents and testimony that remained the primary basis of the court's decision. In short, bad documents and testimony continue to win cases for the Agencies, even though the battle of the economic experts and their quantitative tools have now firmly found a place in Section 7 analyses and litigation.
The Proposed Transaction
On October 13, 2010, H&R Block (HRB) agreed to purchase 2SS Holdings in a transaction valued at $287.5 million. HRB operates hundreds of retail tax stores and also offers digital do-it-yourself (DDIY) tax software. TaxACT, owned by 2SS Holdings, is the third-largest provider of DDIY tax software, trailing behind HRB and Intuit's TurboTax DDIY tax software. On May 23, 2011, after a seven month review of the transaction, the DOJ filed a complaint alleging that the proposed deal would substantially lessen competition in the growing U.S. DDIY tax preparation software market. The DOJ asserted that the merger would result in higher prices and reduced innovation and quality for the DDIY products used annually by millions of American taxpayers.
Specifically, the DOJ alleged that DDIY was a distinct relevant product market occupied primarily by three relatively large competitors. HRB and TaxACT were two of the three largest online providers of DDIY products, with a combined share of 30 percent in the DDIY market. Intuit's TurboTax product dominated the DDIY market with over 60 percent share; and eighteen other fringe competitors made up the remaining 10 percent of DDIY players. The DOJ argued that the merger was even more likely to result in competitive harm because it would eliminate TaxACT—a maverick—that historically had acted as a forceful competitor in the offering of free services to gain market share.
Conversely, HRB, as a threshold matter, argued that the relevant market was all tax services including its in-person assisted tax services and other forms of do-it-yourself tax services. HRB argued that prices for its DDIY products were constrained both by these other products and—especially at the lower-priced end—by the option of tax filers to do their own taxes at home for free. Further, HRB argued that, in any event, likely supply responses of smaller DDIY providers would quickly fill any competitive void in the DOJ's proposed market created by the transaction. Finally, HRB argued that the merged firm would generate a number of merger-specific efficiencies that would enable the merged firm to compete more effectively against Intuit's dominant TurboTax product.
The Relevant Market Was the Key Battleground
While the academic debate slogs on concerning the usefulness of market definition (or the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), for that matter) in Section 7 analysis, the DOJ did not choose to fight that battle in its case against HRB. Not surprisingly, then, the court's opinion simply states that "'[m]erger analysis begins with defining the relevant product market.'" [15] At the same time, in the context of its unilateral effects analysis, the court noted that market definition does not appear to be required as a matter of applied economics. [16] The court also observed that the 2010 Merger Guidelines reflect the DOJ's view that market definition may be superfluous (observing that the notion of Section 7 analysis without defining markets had some traction with one of the panel members in Whole Foods), [17] but nonetheless found that as a legal matter it still appeared necessary. In the end, of course, the DOJ was pleased with the market definition requirement and the significant presumption of anticompetitive effects that it obtained by prevailing on the issue and the resulting concentration analysis. The interesting question is how the DOJ was able to do so in the face of uncontested end-use interchangeability among tax preparation methods used to comply with the tax laws. [18]
The Court's Brown Shoe Sub¬market Analysis. The HRB opinion suggests a conscious decision by the DOJ to invoke the often-maligned qualitative approach first laid down by the Court in Brown Shoe. Hence, rather than rely primarily on the economic tools underlying the 2010 Merger Guidelines, the DOJ persuaded the court to follow Brown Shoe and FTC v. Staples Inc., [19] which discuss interchangeability of use only as a starting point in which to consider the presence of more localized competition.
In line with Brown Shoe, the court then found that distinct submarkets could be relevant, which "'may be determined by examining such practical indicia as industry or public recognition of the [relevant market] as a separate economic entity, the product's peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors.'" [20] More strikingly, the court adopted the fairly sweeping observation that these "practical indicia" can be viewed as "evidentiary proxies for proof of substitutability and cross-elasticities of supply and demand." [21]
With this expansive framework in mind, the court began its market definition analysis by "pay[ing] close attention to the defendants' ordinary course of business documents," which set the theme for the decision. [22] The court found that "[i]nternal TaxACT documents establish that TaxACT has viewed DDIY offerings by HRB and TurboTax as its primary competitors, that it has tracked their marketing, product offerings, and pricing, and that it has determined its own pricing and business strategy in relation to those companies' DDIY products." [23] Similarly, HRB's documents described the DDIY segment and referred to HRB, TaxACT, and TurboTax as the "Big Three" within that product space. [24] In the court's view, the documents and testimony also confirmed that "DDIY tax preparation products differ from manual tax preparation and assisted tax preparation products in a number of meaningful ways" including that "DDIY products involve different technology, price, convenience level, time investment, mental effort and type of interaction by the consumer." [25] Thus, the court concluded, "Taken together, these different attributes make the consumer experience of using DDIY products quite distinct from other methods of tax preparation." [26]
In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected HRB's broader view of the market, which was based on the "premise that providers of all methods of tax preparation compete with each other for the patronage of the same pool of customers—U.S. taxpayers." [27] The court similarly rejected evidence that these taxpayers viewed multiple tax preparation products as "reasonably interchangeable" and that there was cross-elasticity of demand across these products. [28] Further, the court implicitly rejected HRB's arguments concerning the complexities of competition within the tax preparation market, including the extent to which competitors offer hybrid products or whether the parties' product offerings were positioned at different ends on a continuum of differentiated DDIY products. For example, HRB asserted that "competitors offer services that blend the methods set forth [for preparing taxes]," including HRB's Best of Both product, TurboTax's Premier Plus Professional Review, and Petz's Full Tax Preparation, as well as "numerous free and online tax preparation assistance sites [that] provide[] guides and tips to facilitate manual tax preparation." [29] The court did not appear to consider or credit the extent to which these hybrid products compete with DDIY products—i.e., were "competitive alternatives that '[had] the ability to take significant business from each other.'" [30]
Nor did the court give credence to differences between "value" customers who "choose their product primarily on price" and "premium" customers who "are willing to pay higher prices for brand reputation, extra services, and expert support." [31] Pricing for DDIY products varied substantially for value and premium products: "[A]s the price of premium federal tax preparation products fluctuated wildly, the prices of value products offered by, for instance, TaxACT, FreeTax USA, TaxSlayer and OLT were static." [32] HRB argued that it had long distinguished between value and premium customers and that the merger was intended to "provide[] an opportunity to grow share" in the value segment. [33]
Notwithstanding HRB's arguments and evidence, the court was not troubled by defining a market that included "tax preparation methods and products ranging between 'Free' and over $100," but excluded "other tax preparation products and methods ranging between 'Free' (manual [do-it-yourself] or pencil-and-paper) and over $100 (assisted preparation)." [34] HRB argued that pricing value and premium DDIY products "are highly heterogeneous" and "vary in price by more than 1000% (even excluding Free) ($9.95 for TaxACT Deluxe ($17.95 including state) versus $99.95 for TurboTax Home and Business ($130.90 including state))." [35] The court's market definition analysis appeared to marginalize these issues. Thus, relying on Brown Shoeand Whole Foods—and without reference to any quantitative analysis— the court simply concluded that the documents and testimony cited by the government were compelling evidence that DDIY was the relevant market in which to assess the proposed trans-action. [36]
The DOJ Can Live with a Win Based on Brown Shoe. Possibly the most interesting aspect of HRB is the extent to which the DOJ and the court relied on the "practical indicia" of Brown Shoe, when the new Merger Guidelines—as well as the Agencies' 2006 Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guide lines [37]—appear to have abandoned that approach in favor of new economic tools. [38] Consistent with the broad view of what may constitute probative evidence, the HRB court also relied on these practical indicia (evidenced in HRB's ordinary course business documents and testimony) to answer the "hypothetical monopolist test" of the Merger Guidelines—again, without resorting to any data or quantitative analysis. According to HRB, the DOJ conceded that "'in this case . . . the [economics] expert is not central to the [g]overnment's case' despite later noting that '[a]ssessments of the "probable future" of the relevant market rely primarily on economic analysis conducted by expert witnesses.'" [39] Indeed, in its trial brief, the DOJ highlighted that its market definition and structural case were based on the Brown Shoe indicia rather than quantitative economic analysis. [40]
This confirms that for many courts—including HRB, CCC Holdings, Whole Foods, and H.J. Heinz — contemporaneous business documents, party testimony, and industry perception along the lines of the Brown Shoe "practical indicia" will continue to be persuasive evidence of competitive dynamics, including predicted demand and supply reactions to hypothesized, post-merger exercises of market power. The problem, of course, is that neither the DOJ nor merging parties want to take positions on the relevance or weight of such evidence in advance without knowing their impact on the ultimate outcome.
In HRB, these documents and testimony overcame the apparent end-use interchangeability of the three main types of tax preparation as an economic matter—the "outer boundaries" of the product market—in favor of what appeared to be a fairly discrete and complex competitive interplay among DDIY products. In fact, the court's consistent reference to the "user experience" as a driving force of consumer choice highlights what appeared to be significant gaps in the chain of functional substitutes—even if such qualitative factors made it almost impossible to assess why consumers often switched between and among tax preparation methods. Thus, for the HRB court, end-use interchangeability could not trump what appeared to be a distinct competitive interaction among rivals that catered to the DDIY experience, as well as the fact that DDIY companies "primarily compete[]" with each other. [41] Nor, apparently, did it matter to the court that, within DDIY, there appeared to a broad range of products and price points that affected the degree of competitive inter¬action among suppliers.
The Fight over Diversion Ratios and Critical Loss. To bolster its market definition, but certainly not in place of its particular application of Brown Shoe, the DOJ attempted to use switching data from the IRS, capturing changes in the manner in which taxpayers historically file their tax returns. This data was offered to estimate the extent to which customers were likely to switch to other forms of tax preparation methods if prices were raised by a small but significant amount. [42] The DOJ's expert viewed this data as a proxy for diversion ratios, which attempt to measure the extent to which consumers would switch to other products in response to a hypothetical small but significant and non-transitory increase in price (SSNIP). [43] The DOJ's expert then used this data to perform a "critical loss analysis," which in the government's view demonstrated that DDIY was the appropriate product market. The DOJ's expert also used the switching data to perform a merger simulation. Using a Bertrand model, he predicted that post-merger, TaxACT's prices would rise by 83 percent, HRB's prices would rise by 37 percent, and TurboTax's by 11 percent. [44]
While the court recognized the potential flaws in using the switching data—which, most problematically, did not indi¬cate why a taxpayer switched methods [45]—as a proxy for diversion ratios, it nonetheless found that the DOJ's expert's testimony "tend[ed] to confirm that DDIY is [the] rele¬vant product market." [46] The court reached this conclusion despite the fact that the IRS switching data "indicate[d] that only 2.6% of TaxACT customers switched to HRB products between 2007 and 200 . . . and only 2.7% of HRB customers switched to TaxACT products," levels "substantially below the switching between [d]efendants' products and competitors outside of [p]laintiff's proposed market." [47] HRB's expert accordingly concluded that "[d]efendants compete on some level . . . [but are not] close competitors." [48] Because, among other things, the DOJ's critical loss analysis could also be used to demonstrate a relevant market of just HRB and Intuit or TaxACT and Intuit, the court "appreciate[d] the defendants' point that the critical loss test alone could not answer the relevant market inquiry." [49]
Notably, the court was even less persuaded by the defendants' 2011 email survey, which attempted to determine why customers switched between tax preparation methods, or HRB's April 2009 survey, which attempted to determine the level of competition between the defendants for internal pricing purposes. [50] While the defendants' expert "opined that '[the 2011] survey is closer to the concept of a diversion ratio than are data on overall switching between products,'" the court concluded that "almost any reason for switching from a product could be characterized as dissatisfaction with the 'functionality' or 'quality' offered by the product." [51]
Ultimately, despite recognizing that the opinions of experts of both the DOJ and the defendants were based on flawed data, the court held that the DOJ's expert was more persuasive than the defendants' expert. [52] This conclusion perhaps again is attributable to the fact that the DOJ expert's conclusions corresponded to what the court gleaned from the defendants' documents and testimony. [53]
HRB Is Not a Ringing Endorse¬ment of the Agencies' Quantitative Tools. Notwithstanding the court's frequent reference to the 2010 Merger Guidelines, practitioners might ask whether the court in HRB would have obtained the same result if the documents were not in the DOJ's favor (or ambiguous), and the DOJ had to rely primarily on diversion ratios, critical loss analysis, Bertrand merger simulation, and UPP to prove market definition or likely anticompetitive effects. In answer, the most that can be said is that, in comparison to HRB's simulated diversion ratios based on survey data (which the court found to be defective in design), [54] the DOJ's use of IRS switching data had only "some" probative value in that it was consistent with the documents. Even this observation, however, is undermined by the court's finding that the switching data offered by the DOJ could not capture why people switch among tax preparation methods; nor is it consistent with the court's finding that user experience likely dictates choices, an apparent subjective decision that certainly could not be quantified by any of the available data. Suffice it to say that while the DOJ attempted to put its entire economic tool kit to work in HRB, none of those tools (through no fault of its own) were decisive or even persuasive to the court. This suggests that we could be a long way from seeing decisions that will rely on these economic techniques and analyses without accompanying ordinary business documents and testimony providing the primary basis for a Section 7 injunction.
In addition, on the issue of market definition, there appears to be a middle ground in the analysis that was not explored by the court in assessing submarkets. Many courts only uphold such narrower markets within the outer boundaries of inter¬changeability—undisputed in terms of end use in HRB —where certain, identifiable consumers effectively are locked into the narrower product category and are incapable of easy switching. This also appeared to be the driving analytical force behind Whole Foods and its discussion of "core" con¬sumers. HRB is somewhat troubling in that it found a distinct DDIY submarket—creating a strong presumption of anticompetitive effects—without at least engaging in this analytical inquiry. At a minimum, the HRB court's easy acceptance of submarkets in the face of end-use interchangeability should have highlighted the need to give careful consideration to the potential supply responses of those competitors—both "in" and "out" of the market—who were already offering tax-filing services to consumers, including DDIY.
The Structural Presumption and Burden Shifting
Once the court accepted the DOJ's market definition, the case became a serious uphill battle for HRB. Because three competitors dominated this product space, the HHI was 4291, indicating a highly concentrated DDIY market. The merger, which the court found would "result in an effective duopoly," [55] would increase the HHI by approximately 400. [56] In the court's view, HRB's ordinary course business documents also confirmed that the merger would significantly impact HRB's share of the DDIY market: "[T]he documents show[ed] that, in connection with a proposed acquisition of TaxACT, HRB identified the proposed transaction as a way to grow its digital 'market share' and ha[d] measured TaxACT's market share in a DDIY market." [57] Under both court precedent and the 2010 Merger Guidelines, these HHI levels and changes created a strong presumption of anticompetitive effects. [58]
Judge Howell explicitly adopted the burden-shifting paradigm set forth in United States v. Baker Hughes Inc. [59]Under this approach, the government can "'establish[] a presumption that the transaction will substantially lessen competition'" by demon¬strating that the "merger would produce a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market, and [would] result [] in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market." [60] The court emphasized that "[o]nce the government has established this presumption, the burden shifts to the defendants to rebut the pre¬sump¬tion 'by show[ing] that the market-share statistics give an inaccurate account of the merger's probable effects on competition in the relevant market.'" [61] If the defendants can show that the government's market share statistics do not accurately portray the competitive landscape, the burden shifts back to the government to produce "additional evidence of anticompetitive effect." [62] The court noted that "'[t]he Supreme Court has adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances approach to the statute, weighing a variety of factors to determine the effects of particular transactions on competition.'" [63]
While grounded in precedent, the court's application of the presumption is worth highlighting. The court did not find that the burden shifted in an amorphous manner; rather, it placed what appears to be a substantial evidentiary burden, in light of the strong structural case, on HRB to show market structure and facts that tend to disprove the presumed likelihood of coordinated or unilateral effects—namely, ease of entry or repositioning. Further, as discussed below, the court did so under a standard that remains difficult for many parties to meet.
HRB's Rebuttal: Likely Supply Responses of Other Competitors
Defendants attempted to rebut the government's case by referring to the likelihood that other DDIY companies would expand post-merger. HRB argued that supply responses from these other competitors would be highly likely—new firms had entered the market easily, there were low barriers to entry, and brand recognition did not play a large role in customer decision making. [64]
The court found that, under both the Merger Guidelines and precedent, such expansion would have to be "'timely, likely, and sufficient in its magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the competitive effects of concern.'" [65] The court then discussed the testimony from the two (of eighteen) most significant DDIY companies currently in the market, which presumably were in the best position to expand in the event of any exercise of market power, post-merger. The court found that these two companies were not likely to expand, both because of their idiosyncratic corporate culture and their branding and reputational challenges. Based primarily on those findings, the court could not "find that expansion is likely to avert anticompetitive effects from the transaction." [66] Likewise, the court essentially trivialized the other competitors in the DDIY market who were well-positioned to enter the market, as well as "an IRS-sponsored website promoting competition and free offers to the public." [67]
A Dynamic Analysis of Supply Responses? For some, the court's analysis of potential supply responses is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the opinion, especially in the context of differentiated products and end-use interchangeability. Not only did the court fully adopt the relatively onerous "timely, likely and sufficient" standard of the Merger Guidelines, it seemed to ignore the dynamic hypothetical nature of the analysis required, as well as the requisite focus on economic incentives of potential supply responders. For example, in its discussion of TaxHawk and TaxSlayer—both small, but successful DDIY sellers—the court appeared to limit its analysis to conduct that the companies engage in under current competitive conditions and outcomes. Thus, while TaxHawk certainly may wish to maintain its "relaxed lifestyle" and TaxSlayer may have "reputation and brand" challenges under current market conditions, the court appeared not to ask whether and to what extent sustained anticompetitive pricing by the merged firm and Intuit—especially in the "value" segment of DDIY—would alter the economic incentives and ability of these or other small rivals to expand when they already are in the DDIY market space. [68]
Under the Merger Guidelines and case law, the question of supply responses focuses on just these objective factors. [69] For example, in United States v. Gillette Co., [70] the court considered that the relevant market may be limited to "premium pens" (in which the defendants had higher concentration ratios). However, the court rejected the notion that the defendants would be able to substantially lessen competition in that market post-merger for several reasons (many of which were relevant in HRB), including: first, if Gillette raised prices, it would likely lose customers to non-premium pen products; second, there were no barriers to entry; and third, other companies were free to enter the market. [71] The court concluded that "[w]hile some users are devoted to fountain pens to such a degree that they are captive to non-trivial, non-transitory price increases, a broader market enjoys active competition among all modes of premium writing instruments." [72]
As in Gillette, the evidence in HRB indicated that there was wide price variation even among the narrow market proposed by the government, and this price variation would make it difficult for the post-merger HRB generally to raise prices for DDIY tax products without losing some "value" customers to lower cost products, while losing other "premium" customers to assisted tax preparation products. Never¬theless, the court focused on historical or current trends in the market, which tend to ignore the necessarily dynamic focus of potential supply responses. Practitioners should recognize that size apparently does matter to some courts, especially if each member in the group of potential entrants is relatively small.
Coordinated Effects
Defendants also tried to argue that coordinated effects would be unlikely because Intuit would still have incentives to compete vigorously, post-merger. However, the DOJ pointed to a "highly persuasive historical act of cooperation between HRB and Intuit" that supports the position that they may coordinate in the future. [73]
Additionally, the court found that because of price transparency, "DDIY firms can easily monitor their competitors' offerings and pricing." [74]
The DOJ also argued that TaxACT was a maverick that disrupted the market with lower pricing, and the court found that TaxACT had an "impressive history of innovation and competition in the DDIY market." [75] HRB countered that the government's contention was factually unsupported because the products of the three major competitors were extremely diverse, which typically makes it difficult to coordinate. HRB also argued that "widespread free offers in tax preparation arose [only] in response to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 and instructions from the Office of Management and Budget's Quicksilver Task Force (2001), which collectively required that the IRS dramatically increase the rate of e-filing and establish some form of free tax preparation." [76] Accordingly, TaxACT was not "competitively unique" and could not be considered a maverick. [77]
However, the court gave little credence to HRB's coordination arguments, finding that HRB and Intuit will still have disincentives to compete as aggressively as they do, pre-merger. Somewhat surprisingly, the court also found that it was unnecessary to determine whether TaxACT should be labeled a maverick or merely a particularly aggressive competitor; in the court's view, the only relevant question was: "Does TaxACT consistently play a role within the competitive structure of this market that constrains prices?" [78] Because even the defendants conceded that TaxACT was an aggressive competitor, the court found it implausible that the merger would not result in anticompetitive effects. [79]
The Role/Importance of Mavericks? Much of the court's discussion of co¬ordinated effects, correct or not, is not unusual. Observations about market structure that is conducive to coordination are common in Section 7 cases, as is the notion that a larger player may have the incentive to be less competitive in a market determined to be going from three to two meaningful competitors. What is unusual, however, is the ease with which the court dispatched the debate over TaxACT's maverick status. There are very few cases discussing the definition and relevance of mavericks, and for most practitioners a maverick needs, at a minimum, to be a unique, disruptive force in the marketplace—even the Merger Guidelines suggest as much. [80] In HRB, however, the court found that the label mattered much less than the fact (in the court's view) that TaxACT consistently played a role in constraining prices in the market, and that, pre-merger, it was the only remaining large competitor to embrace a low price strategy. [81] In short, HRB is likely to be used by the Agencies in the future to argue that the removal of any aggressive price competitor or innovator from a highly concentrated market is evidence of likely coordinated effects.
Unilateral Effects
Though less significant to its analysis, the court also discussed the unilateral effects theories put forth by the DOJ. [82] The issue should have been interesting, particularly because the parties' products largely occupied different ends of the value spectrum and diversion ratios between them were relatively small [83]—i.e., the quantitative evidence did not reflect that the products were particularly close competitors. Further, HRB argued that the DOJ could not show unilateral effects where Intuit was each party's largest competitor or where the merged firm would not meet the presumptive 35 percent market share threshold discussed in the Oracle case. [84] Rather, relying again on documents and testimony—as well as the DOJ expert's merger simulation using the IRS switching data as a proxy for diversion ratios—the court found that the DOJ had satisfied its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of unilateral effects. [85] Finally, although the decision referenced "UPP" from the 2010 Merger Guidelines, the concept played no independent role in the court's analysis. [86]
The DOJ's Conceptual Gains on Unilateral Effects Should Not Be Overlooked. While dicta, perhaps the most provocative aspect of the court's unilateral effects analysis is that it started by reciting the CCC Holdings elements or conditions for the theory to apply—requiring the merging parties to be "close substitutes," and other products being too different to defeat a SSNIP—but then settled on the notion that the parties need only be "head-to-head" competitors, including only the "second closest" rivals. [87] In this respect, the 2010 Merger Guidelines, which espouse this more flexible standard concerning the closeness of the parties' products, seem to have influenced the court's thinking. Moreover, it is troubling to see the court accept the proposition that a merger simulation can be of even "some" probative value where the model predicts price increases whenever there are "any positive diversion ratios," i.e., any time the parties are more than de minimis competitors. [88] In fact, this is precisely the type of analytical defect that led the CCC Holdings court to reject the merger simulation in the bidding context at issue there. [89] Again, the HRB court's over-simplified treatment of these complex issues reveals the power of simple documents and testimony that describe consistent head-to-head competition between merging firms (even if in just a broad sense), especially where the court has found that the remaining large player has the incentive to coordinate in some aspects of post-merger rivalry.
HRB's Efficiencies Defense
The defendants also tried to rebut the government's case by relying upon procompetitive efficiencies. HRB empha¬sized that its primary motivation for merging with TaxACT was to achieve cost-saving synergies. [90] HRB argued that it was "a tax company[,] not a software company" (with 94 percent of its revenue derived from assisted tax preparation); thus, the acquisition of TaxACT, which specialized in the digital space, would result in significant synergies because of the complementary strengths of the merging parties. [91] These million-dollar synergies would in turn allow HRB to compete more effectively with lower prices against its main rival, Intuit's TurboTax. [92]
The court was not persuaded by this argument. Foremost, the court noted the extremely high bar that the defendants would have to hurdle to win on efficiencies: "High market concentration levels require 'proof of extraordinary efficiencies'" and "'The court must undertake a rigorous analysis of the kinds of efficiencies being urged by the parties in order to ensure that those 'efficiencies' represent more than mere speculation and promises about post-merger behavior.'" [93] The court found that against this standard, HRB's arguments fell flat. HRB failed to show that the purported efficiencies would be merger-specific, and even if they were merger-specific, the defendants' cost-savings estimates were not independently verifiable. [94] Thus, the court found that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of illegality put forth by the DOJ.
HRB aptly demonstrates that an efficiencies rebuttal or defense will continue to be difficult in any case in which the court adopts the Merger Guidelines' strict standards for proving efficiencies. In HRB, as in previous cases, the main problem is merger specificity: Can the parties obtain the same or similar efficiencies by any means short of merger? Practitioners should anticipate that the lack of flexibility reflected in HRB on this subject, as well as on the additional requirement of verifiability, will continue to preclude efficiencies as a viable argument to save an otherwise suspect merger.
Practical Advice Following HRB
For Practitioners. For practitioners, HRB is another wake-up call, much like Whole Foods, to be cautious about pursuing horizontal transactions where business documents, testimony, and industry perception are consistent with traditional Brown Shoe "submarkets," especially where there arguably are significant gaps in the chain of substitutes and the narrower markets involve high combined shares. At trial, neither the DOJ nor the FTC (in a preliminary injunction) are likely to risk relying solely on economic tools unless there is sufficiently robust elasticity data (which is very rare) to support diversion ratios.
In the wake of HRB, practitioners also need to take a sober look at the most likely rebuttal arguments for mergers involving differentiated products—supply responses and efficiencies. Courts should look seriously at both the economic incentives for supply responses (especially if coordinated effects is a serious risk), as well as the ability of other competitors to respond in terms of existing assets, mobility barriers, and incremental costs. HRB shows that a strong structural case, and provocative docu¬ments and testimony, can influence the objectivity of this analysis. Indeed, the court's implicit rejection of the objective economic evidence concerning likely supply responses seems particularly out of sync where smaller rivals already operate in the DDIY space. Moreover, in the context of the often-applied "timely, likely and sufficient" paradigm of the Merger Guidelines, the risk that courts will minimize the import of economic incentives for supply responses is particularly acute.
Finally, for any potentially problematic transaction, practitioners should hire economic experts as early as possible, both to assess the qualitative evidence and to undertake the same quantitative analyses that the Agencies will be doing. This will enable the parties to have an early assessment of the viability of calculating robust diversion ratios or undertaking meaningful quantitative HMT, critical loss, merger simulation, and UPP analysis—which, again, is likely to depend on the existence and reliability of rarely available, useful elasticity data. In fact, in some instances, the parties may find that the data cuts their way.
For the Agencies. The lesson of HRB for the Agencies is that, for the most part, judges understand and trust documents, testimony, and their own common sense more than they do hypothetical economic exercises based on data "proxies" that themselves are merely proxies for likely consumer behavior. No doubt, Section 7 involves predictions of effects and customer responses that necessarily are hypothetical, but as with the rejection of the unilateral effects model in CCC Holdings, HRB suggests caution in overplaying the reliability and predictive value of economic tools and models. In fact, the day that courts begin to rely exclusively on direct effects and economic modeling for assessing mergers involving differentiated products may just be the day courts determine that diversion ratios are rarely reliable. At that point, the Agencies may long for the good old days of "practical indicia," bad documents, and executives who just can't keep their mouths shut.
[1] 331 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
[2] In FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 548 F.3d 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the appeals court discussed this injunction standard, finding that the FTC did not need to show irreparable harm, nor was the FTC required to prove a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 1034–35.
[3] 605 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2009).
[4] 548 F.3d 1028.
[5] For example, AT&T and T-Mobile recently abandoned their proposed transaction after the government scrutinized the deal.
[6] No. 11-00948 (BAH), 2011 WL 5438955 (D.D.C. Nov. 10, 2011).
[7] 370 U.S. 294 (1962).
[8] See, e.g., James A. Keyte & Kenneth B. Schwartz, "Tally-Ho!": UPP and the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 77 ANTITRUST L.J. 587, 591 n.19, 592 nn.23–24 (2011) (collecting articles); Herbert Hovenkamp, Markets in Merger Analysis (Oct. 18, 2011), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfmabstract__id=1945964.
[9] U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2010) [hereinafter 2010 Guidelines], available at http://ftc.gov/os/2010/ 08/100819hmg.pdf.
[10] As the 2010 Guidelines explain: "The Agencies use the hypothetical monopolist test to identify a set of products that are reasonably interchangeable with a product sold by one of the merging firms," and they "employ the hypothetical monopolist test to evaluate whether groups of products in candidate markets are sufficiently broad to constitute relevant antitrust markets." Id. § 4.1.1; see also Gregory J. Werden, The 1982 Merger Guidelines and the Ascent of the Hypothetical Monopolist Paradigm, 71 ANTITRUST L.J. 253, 264–65 (2003) (discussing the cases that cited to the Areeda or Sullivan treatises on the hypothetical monopolist test without further analysis).
[11] See Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, Upward Pricing Pressure and Critical Loss Analysis: Response, CPI ANTITRUST J., Feb. 2010, at 6, https://www. competitionpolicyinternational.com/assets/Free/Shapiro-FarrellFEB10.pdf.
[12] See Roy J. Epstein & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications, 69 ANTITRUST L.J. 883, 886 (2001).
[13] The 2010 Merger Guidelines reference UPP briefly as follows:
Adverse unilateral price effects can arise when the merger gives the merged entity an incentive to raise the price of a product previously sold by one merging firm and thereby divert sales to products previously sold by the other merging firm, boosting the profits on the latter products. Taking as given other prices and product offerings, that boost to profits is equal to the value to the merged firm of the sales diverted to those products. The value of sales diverted to a product is equal to the number of units diverted to that product multiplied by the margin between price and incremental cost on that product. In some cases, where sufficient information is available, the Agencies assess the value of diverted sales, which can serve as an indicator of the upward pricing pressure on the first product resulting from the merger. Diagnosing unilateral price effects based on the value of diverted sales need not rely on market definition or the calculation of market shares and concentration.
2010 Guidelines, supra note 9, § 6.1 (emphasis added).
This test, along with unilateral effects analysis more generally, has come under considerable scrutiny. For example, as one leading treatise describes, "Literally, the theory of unilateral effects is consistent with condemnation of mergers even in unconcentrated markets." 4 PHILLIP E. AREEDA & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW ¶ 913a (3d ed. 2009); see also John D. Harkrider, A Return to Von's Grocery?, ANTITRUST SOURCE, Oct. 2010, at 1–4, http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-source/10/10/Oct10-Harkrider10-21f.pdf; Carl Shapiro, The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines: From Hedgehog to Fox in Forty Years, 77 ANTITRUST L.J. 49, 68 (2010) ("The express acknowledgement that HHI levels typically are not very helpful diagnostics in [unilateral effects] cases has led to concerns that the valuable screening role played by the HHI thresholds since 1982 has been reduced or lost.").
[14] 374 U.S. 321 (1963).
[15] United States v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 11-00948 (BAH), 2011 WL 5438955, at *8 (D.D.C. Nov. 10, 2011) (quoting FTC v. Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp. 2d 151, 156 (D.D.C. 2000)).
[16] Id. at *40 n.35.
[18] Id. at *5–7.
[19] 970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997).
[20] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *9 (quoting FTC v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc., 548 F.3d 1028, 1037–38 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
[21] Id. (citing Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986)).
[24] Id. at *11. Interestingly, the court ignored HRB's claim that the government pulled single words and phrases from multiple unrelated documents to construct its position that the deal was intended to block competition between HRB and TaxACT. See Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction at 9, H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955 (No. 11-00948 (BAH)) [hereinafter Defs.' Opp. Br.].
[25] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *12.
[26] Id. (emphasis added).
[27] Id. at *8.
[28] Defs.' Opp. Br., supra note 24, at 27.
[29] Id. at 6.
[30] Id. at 26 (quoting FTC v. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 109, 119 (D.D.C. 2004)).
[31] Id. at 12.
[33] Id. at 14 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
[36] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *8.
[37] U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines 2 (2006), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/03/ CommentaryontheHorizontalMergerGuidelinesMarch 2006.pdf.
[38] See Keyte & Schwartz, supra note 8, at 592.
[39] Defs.' Opp. Br., supra note 24, at 2 (first and fourth alterations in plaintiff's original) (footnote omitted) (quoting Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction at 3, 31, H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955).
[40] Pl.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Its Mot. for a Prelim. Inj. at 19–20, H&R Block, Inc., No. 11-00948 (BAH), 2011 WL 5438955 (D.D.C. Nov. 10, 2011), ECF No. 40.
[42] Id. at *20. The court used this information to answer what it posed as the fundamental question to its analysis: "[W]hether it would be hypothetically useful to have a monopoly over all DDIY tax preparation products because the monopolist could then profitably raise prices for those products by five percent or more; or whether, to the contrary, there would be no reason to monopolize all DDIY tax preparation products because substitution and price competition . . . . would restrain any potential DDIY monopolist from profitably raising prices." Id. at *10.
[43] Id. at *19–20.
[48] Id. (emphasis omitted).
[49] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *21 (emphasis added).
[50] Id. at*25–26; Defs.' Opp. Br., supra note 24, at 16.
[51] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *26 (citation omitted).
[54] Id. at *26-–27.
[58] See, e.g., FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2001); United States v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 908 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1990); United States v. Sungard Data Sys., Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D.D.C. 2001); see also 2010 Guidelines, supra note 9, § 5.3.
[60] Id. (second and third alterations in original) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
[61] Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting H.J. Heinz, 246 F.3d at 715).
[62] Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
[63] Id. (quoting Baker Hughes, 908 F.2d at 984).
[64] Defs.' Opp. Br., supra note 24, at 36–37.
[65] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *29 (quoting 2010 Guidelines, supra note 9, § 9) (citing FTC v. CCC Holdings Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 26, 47 (D.D.C. 2009)).
[67] Defs.' Opp. Br., supra note 24, at 5.
[68] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *30–31.
[69] See, e.g., 2010 Guidelines, supra note 9, §§ 5.1, 10.
[70] 828 F. Supp. 78 (D.C.C. 1993). The author represented Gillette in this case.
[71] Id. at 84–85.
[74] Gillette, 828 F. Supp. at 84–85.
[80] See 2010 Guidelines, supra note 9, § 2.1.5; cf. Jonathan B. Baker, Merger Simulation in an Administrative Context 77 ANTITRUST L.J. 451, 467–68 (2011) (discussing the role of a maverick in constraining coordination).
[82] Id. at *38 (noting that "the Court need not reach the issue of unilateral effects").
[84] Id. at *40 ("[A] presumption of anticompetitive effects from a combined share of 35% in a differentiated products market is unwarranted. Indeed, the opposite is likely true." (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
[86] Id. at *41,*47 (noting upward pricing pressure but reaching a decision based on market share and concentration).
[89] FTC v. CCC Holdings Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 26, 70–72 (D.D.C. 2009) (considering the FTC's simulation model, which always predicted a price effect whenever the largest competitor was the third alternative in any particular bid event, and concluding that it could not credit the simulation because "the absence of any evidence of identifiable characteristics of [the merging] firms' products or their customers that might make [the top competitor in the market] a more distant third option.").
[90] H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *44; see also Defs.' Opp. Br., supra note 24, at 1.
[91] Defs.' Opp. Br., supra note 24, at 2, 6.
[92] See H&R Block, 2011 WL 5438955, at *44–45.
[93] Id. (citations omitted).


text:
[Smartphones] | Xiaomi's new gaming phone | The Xiaomi Black Shark
New beast in town!
Gaming smartphones seem to be all the rage nowadays, starting with the Razer phone, all the way to the latest Nubia Red magicsmartphone. Another major player has joined into this segment, and it's none other than our favorite budget phone maker, Xiaomi!
Xiaomi has released its gaming oriented smartphone known as the Black Shark. Sounds dope, doesn't it? That's exactly why it landed in my blog in the first place!
Iconic!
Black Shark was actually a crowd funded start up idea which majorly got its funding because of Xiaomi's support. Now the phones in the market, and it is absolutely gorgeous.
Without a doubt, the Black Shark is one of the craziest flagship smartphones out there in terms of aesthetics. There is absolutely no other phone in the world that looks the way the Black Shark does. There's even a cool looking case included in the packaging which makes it look even dope. That reminds me of the insanely rad case that was given with the OnePlus 5t Star Wars edition, if you remember that one.
Specs wise, as you would expect, the Black Shark is an absolute beast.
It's powered by a 2.8 GHz Snapdragon 845 processor, which already give it an upper hand over the other gaming smartphone in China, that is the red magic.
6/8 gigs of RAM
64/128 GB storage with micro SD expansion
Adreno 630 for graphics
A massive 4000 mAh battery with Qualcomm quick charge 3.0 support
A 6 inch 2160x1080 IPS LCD display
12 + 20 mp rear cameras with f/1.75 aperture
20 mp front camera at f/2.2 aperture capable of 1080p video at 30 fps
Android 8.1 Oreo along with JoyUI 1.0 on top (pretty much like MiUI)
The green "Shark space" button!
There is also a dedicated slider button on the left side which launches you into "shark space". It's not similar to Samsung game mode where you can disable notifications, and control a few other things that might disturb your gaming sessions. All these options are hidden away and can be brought down by a swipe down action on the fingerprint sensor. It is located on the front and is insanely fast by the way.
The add-on game controller
There is also a dedicated controller that you need to buy separately that pairs with this phone. But you should know that you need to put on that bumper case provided in the box in order to attach the controller to it. The controller pairs with your phone via Bluetooth and does not attached to the USB port as I initially thought. That means that you need to charge the controller separately, for which it has a dedicated USB type C port on it.
Though the black and green aesthetic of the phone reminders quite a lot of Razer, it does not have that amazing 120 Hz refresh rate on its display that the Razer phone had with its IGZO LCD panel. Oh, well!
The shark space mode
You can get the Black Shark in China for about 2999 CNY or about $480. That's an insanely aggressive price tag and can give companies like OnePlus around for their money. But that's the sign of healthy market, companies basically chopping each other's' feet in order earn their place in the customer's pocket in exchange of their hard earned cash. It's how innovative things get affordable and great tech reaches everyone.
What do you think about Xiaomi's new dope gaming phone? Drop me a comment down below or hit me up on my social media links: Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
Consider subscribing to my newsletter to get alerted every time I post something new here. It only takes your email id, and is 100% free.
dope accessories news smartphones
What are your thoughts on this post?
Plextone G30 Review : An earphone with an external mic!
I recently came across a post on Facebook regarding a new kind of gaming headset by a company called Plextone. It was a wired, in-ear style headphone with an external mic attached to the left earpod. I dropped a message to the guys who posted it and ask if I could check it out.
Sure enough... here is my hands-on review of the Plextone G30dual microphone gaming headset after using it for 8 days.
Unboxing and Impressions:
I was initially pretty impressed with the packaging, but I ended up ripping it open, because I couldn't figure out how to properly unbox the thing. But whatever, what are you interested in? The box, or the earphones? My point exactly, let's move on!
When I first laid my eyes on the headphone itself, my first thought was " this thing is a lot bigger than I expected". That's what she said too (not really).
Taking the headphone out of the box, I was pleased with the build quality. Even though the entire thing was made out of different varieties of …
Are wired earphones even relevant anymore? Blaupunkt EM-10 Review
Blaupunkt is a relatively well-known brand when it comes to audio equipment. They've been around in the car speakers game for quite a while, and are now expanding into the mainstream consumer audio solutions like earphones and Bluetooth speakers.
I'll try to get my hands on their new Soundbars and TVs, but for now, let's stick to the product they gave me. The EM-10 wired earphones.
After being sent dozens of fancy truly wireless earbuds, reviewing a plain old wired earphone felt like it's not worth the effort, but hey, I thought why not cover another topic, which you already saw in the title along with this review.
Check out the video version if you don't want to read through an article I wrote over an Ice-cream Scoop at the Ideal Cafe.
Design and Build quality:
The shape or the earbuds are such that they push inwards and hold themselves into place. The cable is not tangle-free and gets tied up quite easily.
There's a single button to pause, play, and skip track…
Energizer Power Max P18K smartphone has an 18000 mAh battery in it!
Yup, it's official. We have passed the phase of insanity when it comes to battery capacity of our smartphones.
We saw phones like the Gionee M2017 with 7000 mAh batteries, then the likes of Oukitel K10000 came along with 10000 mAh units. The current world record for the highest battery capacity in a smartphone belonged to the BlackView P10000, with its 11000 mAh cell.
I guess it was about time we witnessed a higher jaw dropping battery capacity, though it is completely unnecessary.
Presenting, the Energizer Power Max P18K Pop with its mind bending 18,000 mAh battery unit!
Let that sink in a for a while..
18 Thousand MilliAmps! And it looks more absurd than it sounds, doesn't it?
It's quite honestly a brick disguised as a smartphone! I mean, they need to provide you with a carry bag exclusively for this phone.
Horrendous thickness aside, it has a full view display with pop out dual cameras, triple rear camera setup, and a respectable processor.
General specs (other than t…

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Bring your cow-bell and a lot of cheer as the world's fastest skiers swoosh past in the downhill and Super-G race events.
The men's downhill takes place on November 24, 2018 and the Super-G on November 25, 2018. The women take to the slopes November 30 and December 1, 2018 for the downhill races and December 2, 2018 for the Super-G races.
The Fan Cheering Zone kick-starts each race day an hour before the races start. Stop by the Kids Zone for some family fun activities including fire pits, marshmallows, hot chocolate, and games. Bring the whole family to watch the best ski racing in the world, it's free and lift tickets are not required.


BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (CN) – The Democratic Governors Association sued the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission in Federal Court, for the right to spend unlimited money in the state, despite the state laws.
Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the DGA claims that Connecticut's campaign laws infringe on its First Amendment rights to spend money on behalf of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.
Malloy, who is seeking re-election this year, has been a fundraiser for the DGA and a member since winning election in 2010.
It fears what will happen if it makes an expenditure on behalf of Malloy or against one of his opponents.
"If DGA engages in its desired course of conduct, it runs a serious risk of being prosecuted for violating the Challenged Provisions and Rulings. DGA faces an even greater risk of protracted and costly investigation for engaging in what is lawful, First Amendment-protected conduct," the complaint states.
The group claims it could find itself in court as soon as it begins spending money in Connecticut because the state elections commission may raise questions about that spending.
Since Malloy was a fund raiser for the DGA, it would violate campaign finance rules if the money he raised found its way back to Malloy's campaign for governor.
Malloy became the finance chair of the DGA in 2011 and helped it raise $20 million that year. His tenure as finance chair has concluded, but he remains a member of the group.
Michael Brandi, executive director of the SEEC, who is a defendant in the lawsuit, said his office is aware of it and will be represented by the attorney general's office.
Attorney General George Jepsen, also named as a defendant, said his office is reviewing the complaint.
Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Malloy, said the DGA informed the governor's office of the complaint as a courtesy just before it was filed Wednesday.
The Malloy administration was instrumental in getting the 2013 law passed; it included the provisions to which the DGA now objects.
Cheri Quickmire of Common Cause Connecticut and Tom Swan of Connecticut Citizens Action Group called on Malloy to encourage the DGA to drop the lawsuit. Both said they are speaking to attorneys and may get involved if the case proceeds.
The Democratic Governors Association played a role in Malloy's 2010 gubernatorial campaign when it spent about $1.7 million on television ads criticizing his Republican opponent, Tom Foley.
With a $6 million limit on gubernatorial candidates participating in the Citizens Election Program, the Legislature took steps last year to allow the state parties to make unlimited donations to gubernatorial candidates, in an effort to balance expected spending by outside groups.
Earlier this year, the SEEC issued an informal opinion offering guidance on the intersection of state and federal election law.
The DGA complaint filed Wednesday claims that Connecticut's definition of "expenditure" is so broad that it includes almost any message that refers to a candidate.
The DGA alleges that the SEEC "still presumes coordination in some cases." In an opinion released by state election regulators, a "close relationship" between a candidate and a spender and their sharing of "common values and goals" is sufficient, without more, to justify state investigation of protected political speech.
"By looking past the expenditure in question, and scrutinizing instead other forms of association between DGA and candidates who are involved in its national activities, the Challenged Provisions and Rulings violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments," the complaint states.
The DGA seeks an injunction and declaratory relief. It asks the court to find that the definition of expenditure is "unconstitutionally overbroad and vague" and that a candidate's non-earmarked fund raising on behalf of the DGA cannot give rise to an expenditure being defined as not independent. They also seek to stop the state Elections Enforcement Commission from enforcing the definition of independent expenditure.
The lawsuit was filed by David Rosen of New Haven.


Do I need to download the Lose It! app to view my results? – embodyDNA by Lose It!
Yes. Results are only available in the Lose It! app in both Free and Premium versions. You can download the app at loseit.com/get.
The Lose It! app provides a simple and effective way to record the foods you can try from your embodyDNA recommendations. The more you track with Lose It!, the better and more personalized your results will be.


text:
Report: Dede Wilsey, President of Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco Board, to Step Down
She had been the subject of controversial lawsuit in 2015.
Alex Greenberger
Atlas San Francisco: Rebels in the Palace
in late April 201, my wife and I noticed the lights aglow over the golf course and recalled that the Legion of Honor was having an opening—for Urs Fischer, of all people!
Kevin Killian
Nov 1, 2018 8:06 am
Metropolitan Museum of Art Names Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco's Max Hollein Director
He takes the reins from Thomas P. Campbell.
'Vertigo' Painting to Haunt Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco in New Lynn Hershman Leeson Project
Titled 'VertiGhost,' the work addresses a fictional work at the Legion of Honor.
Providing the most comprehensive survey of photographer Danny Lyon's work to date, "A Message to the Future" is a timely exhibition for an era of renewed political activism. A photographic heir to bot…
David Markus
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco Name Esther Bell Curator of European Paintings
The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco have announced the appointment of Esther Bell to curator in charge of European paintings. She succeeds Lynn Orr. Bell specializes in 17th- and 18th-century Europ…
Stephanie Strasnick
Colin B. Bailey Named Director, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
Bailey has been at the Frick Collection in New York since 2000, beginning as curator, later becoming associate director and then deputy director. He has published extensively and organized more than…
Julia Wolkoff


There may come a time, if humanity makes it long enough and science isn't suppressed, that we will unravel the complexities of mental illness. We will realize how various bacteria and genetic flaws, and other factors we cannot yet imagine, commingle to cause all the types of maladies of the mind. And we will look back on how we've treated the mentally ill throughout the ages, and we will be ashamed.
I'd wager that we'll find that most mental illnesses can be fixed through medical treatment; be it surgery or gene therapy, or some implanted device that adjusts sensory input or compensates for damaged reasoning centers.
One day we'll know. One day we'll be able to stop tossing drugs at a mental condition, hoping that something will numb the patient enough to make the problem manageable. I don't mean to be critical of modern medical/psychological practice…we don't know any better at this point.
One thing we need to remember is that nobody chooses to be psychotic, schizophrenic, depressed, insane or bipolar. Every human civilization has been cruel to those who are different, and there will be a time when we realize what tiny difference there is between "normal" and not.
There was some good news on the research front re schizophrenia recently. I blogged about it yesterday. While I often feel like giving up, I guess there is reason to hope.


text:
Writing Derrida Thinking Beckett: A Study of the Limits Between Philosophy and Literature
The limits between modern philosophy and literature are difficult to define. In the 20th century, the way we write theatre, novels, philosophical treatises, criticism and theory changed dramatically. This change presents itself especially in the relations between artistic expression and the philosophical search for knowledge. In this dissertation, Writing Derrida Thinking Beckett: A Study of the Limits between Philosophy and Literature, I chose these two authors as a case study of the shifting boundaries between modern literature and philosophy. I structured the analysis by focusing on three constant themes in the work of these authors. These themes are important for both literature and philosophy, because they present a way of questioning human existence in its beginning and end, as well as one of the forms through which we come to represent and come to know our lives and the world. The themes are: the mother or birth, death, and the image.
etd-07072014-105757
James Martell de la Torre
Alain P. Toumayan
Alain P. Toumayan, Committee Member
James Collins, Committee Member
Joseph A. Buttigieg, Committee Co-Chair
Maud Ellmann, Committee Co-Chair
Defense Date
French Philosophy
Record Visibility and Access
University of Notre DameCollege of Arts and LettersLiterature
Please Note: You may encounter a delay before a download begins. Large or infrequently accessed files can take several minutes to retrieve from our archival storage system.
MartellDeLaTorreJ072014D.pdf 2.28 MB application/pdf University of Notre Dame
At the request of the author, this Doctoral Dissertation is not available to the public.
If you have Notre Dame credentials you can view this file after you Log in.
Otherwise, you must request permission to view this file from the Publications Manager of the Graduate School.


text:
Q: How to display only day and month in SharePoint list column? I have a column named Birthday and a field on it would be: 04/11/1998; How can I create a calculated column namd BirthGET that contains only day and month, i.e 04/11.
How can I make this?
Thanks for your time!

A: You can use below formula
=LEFT(BirthDay, 5)

A: I wouldn't use an index counter as mentioned by Amal...
Here is what I would use =TEXT([Birthday],"mm/dd") This is a more well rounded solution which will allow you to do more.
This will give you exactly what you are looking for. Both methods will work for you but this will give you exactly what you want if the date is oriented if displayed worded or in number format. You can also transpose the date into worded date format by using mmmm, dd yyyy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Formed in 2006 to help network ISAT members concerned with municipal trees. Questions and comments can be sent to Mark Kroeze, mkroeze@tfs.tamu.edu.
Why you should join the Society of Municipal Arborists!
Austin NeighborWoods Handbook – Plant 75,000 trees – cheap!


text:
UKFL Events
FOWC 2022
TWW Workshops with Joe Lamont
Tails We Winter Series
January 16, 2022 by Cambridgeshire Flyball
HF New Year's BLAST OFF!
January 2, 2022 by Cambridgeshire Flyball
November 28, 2021 by Cambridgeshire Flyball
Horseley Fen Fun
October 30, 2021 by Cambridgeshire Flyball
Benham Sports Hall
September 4, 2021 by Cambridgeshire Flyball
August 28, 2021 by Cambridgeshire Flyball
August 7, 2021 by Cambridgeshire Flyball
WOW, what a weekend…. finally back in the lanes after the horrific time that has been the Covid-19 pandemic. As a team, we were very excited to be able to host the first indoor UKFL event since March 2020, offering a stepping stone back to full racing with a singles and pre-cadet only event.
Setup took a degree longer than normal as we were all a touch rusty, but the lanes were signed off on Saturday (and Sunday) morning as being perfect, and the ring looked fantastic!
Saturday saw us competing in the singles divisions with Kylo, Poppy, Bailey, Bishop, Taggle, Lennie & Dizzy, as well as Rowlf, Zebulan, Weaver and Finnick playing on pre-cadets again the super reliable Ruby & Oscar. It was Kylo's debut into competitive flyball racing and to say Ellen was a tad nervous might be the understatement of the Millennium, but he absolutely nailed it, posting himself a time of 3.64s over this full height of 10″ and placing him joint 3rd in the UKFL singles ranking. Our other singles dogs on Saturday were all solid racing dogs that were there for a bit of fun and to see how our training was paying off and they all nailed their sessions. Bishop is currently ranked as the top Labrador in the UKFL singles list… let's see if he can hold onto this glory til the end of the year! The PC dogs are obviously slightly used to the barn as they train there every week, but adding the lights, banner, barriers and noise changes things a lot for them, but they all took it in their strides and worked hard, progressing throughout the day.
https://cambridgeshire-flyball.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/3F9AF739-383E-403D-B5BE-FD929F6F4786__videoconverter.com_.mp4
Sunday was our slightly more crazy day with Hope, Tristan, Quest, Zola, Coda, Jake, Indi, Marley, Lord and Whisky all in singles as well as Khaos in a PC slot. That includes a lot of dogs to debut into their competitive flyball careers! Hope, Coda, Marley & Whisky showed their reliable natures taking 1st, 1st, 1st and 2nd in their respective divisions. We deceived to go NFC with Zola to enable us to introduce him to the hype of a competition whilst still reminding him of his good form and giving us the time to wok on his reward system… he only ran out once and didn't chase a single ball in the other lane! Quest competed in the morning and showed us she is right on that cusp of going out into open, posting a new PB of 3.89s. However, racing her brother in the afternoon blew her head and so we made the call to go NFC with her as well and correct the issues before they become too ingrained. That left Tristan to win the division…. but he didn't just do that… he posted a new PB of 3.95s becoming the 10th dog that we have trained to run sub-4s.
Also making their competitive flyball debuts were both Jake and Lord, both handled by Mark. Jake's first run, and with a 0.03 early he posted a 4.14 on the clock… ie a line to line time of 4.17s, for an 8″ cocker a few months off his 2nd birthday at his first comp…. needless to say, Mark was a touch ecstatic, LOL! A spot of interference in the afternoon saw Jake struggle to a degree but he was quickly fixed and ended up 2nd in his division with the current UKFL Cocker Spaniel singles time for 2021. Finally, we have Indi… after debuting him a couple of years ago, Indi worked out it was MUCH faster to run down the side of the jumps. We did fix this issue literally as we hit the first lockdown so we weren't sure how ingrained the fix was. However, his handler worked her socks off through all the lockdowns. He ran again this weekend and for the first time we didn't have to even think about whether he might or might not complete, but instead we could work on pushing him to race and build in a better reward system.
Khaos also came to play in PC on Sunday, working amazingly well with dogs barking all around her. We progressed her from chute work through to taking a ball of the mini-chute from a distance, quite some progression in a day, and she didn't exit the ring once to find those barking dogs!


The Dodge Viper is a two-seat sports car, the most powerful production car made by Dodge. Viper production began at New Mack Assembly in 1992 and moved to its current home at Connor Avenue Assembly in October 1995. The Viper's biggest rival is the Chevrolet Corvette.
The Viper was initially conceived in late 1987 at Chrysler's Advanced Design Studios. The following February, Chrysler president Bob Lutz suggested to Tom Gale at Chrysler Design that the company should consider producing a modern Cobra, and a clay model was presented to Lutz a few months later. The car appeared as a concept at the North American International Auto Show in 1989, and public reaction was so enthusiastic, that chief engineer Roy Sjeoberg was directed to develop it as a production car.
The centerpiece of the car was its engine. Originally designed as a truck engine and based on the Chrysler LA engine, Lamborghini, then a division of the Chrysler Corporation, revamped Dodge's cast-iron block V10 for the Viper by recasting the block and head in aluminum alloy, and giving the engine a significant power boost. Some within Lamborghini felt the pushrod two-valve design, while adequate for the truck application for which the engine was originally created, was unsuitable for a performance car and suggested a more comprehensive redesign which would have included four valves per cylinder. However, Chrysler was uncertain about the Viper's production costs and sales potential and so declined to provide the budget for the modification.
The engine produced 400 hp (298 kW) at 4600 rpm and 450 ft·lbf (610 N·m) of torque at 3600 rpm, and thanks to the long-gearing allowed by the torquey engine, provided surprising fuel economy at a claimed 21 mpg US (11.2 L/100 km) if driven sedately. The body was a tubular steel frame with resin transfer molding (RTM) fiberglass panels. Typical of American performance car design, it had a front-mounted engine driving the rear wheels; it was also heavy with a curb weight of 3,280 lb (1,488 kg) and lacked many modern driver aids such as traction control or anti-lock brakes.It was driven by Ivan Johnson. Despite this, in straight line performance, it completed a quarter mile in 12.9 seconds and had a maximum speed of 164 mph (264 km/h).
Second generation models increased engine power, improved suspension, and reduced braking distances; the 1996 to 2002 Viper GTS had a 450 bhp (336 kW) engine, which could complete the quarter mile 0.7 seconds faster and increased top speed by 35 km/h (22 mph) or so. A number of third party firms have modified the car to boost performance.
A coupe model, called the GTS, was also introduced in 1996. An interesting feature of the coupe was the "double bubble" roof contours; two small humps to accommodate drivers wearing helmets. Indeed, the Viper's performance has made the vehicle popular for both amateur and professional racers. Vipers can be seen participating often in drag racing, road racing and drifting. The GTS, like its predecessor, was chosen as the pace car for the 1996 Indianapolis 500.
Dodge contracted French racing team Oreca to build a racing version of the Viper known as the GTS-R in the FIA GT Championship's GT2 category, where they won the series in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002 (the last two with Larbre Competition). The car also won its class in the Le Mans 24 Hours from 1998 to 2000.
In the first six years of production almost 10,000 Vipers were sold. The second generation Vipers were exported to Europe, where they were sold as Chryslers.
The 1999 model was the last Viper that had forged pistons. Subsequent years had lighter-weight, hypereutectic pistons similar to other sports cars, as well as, improved exhaust systems. Also in 1999, the American Club Racing (ACR) model was introduced. This model featured suspension and engine enhancements focused on maximizing performance in road racing and autocross environments. Horsepower was bumped to 460 bhp in these models. Continuing chassis refinements, ABS braking was introduced in 2001. In 2002, the end of second generation production was celebrated with the release of 360 commemorative "Final Edition" models. These models were painted red with white stripes, paying tribute to the famous race-winning Oreca cars.
The third generation Viper has been sold in Europe since 2004, the first model to be sold as a Dodge, as part of Chrysler's new sales strategy for the European market.
Using such production engine components as the block, cylinder heads, and crankshaft, Team Viper engineers were able to extract 700 hp from the normally 450 hp second generation 8.0 L V10 engine. The chassis was re-engineered from the ground up by British sportscar manufacturer Reynard Motorsport's Special Projects Division under chief engineer Paul Brown, losing much of the Roadcar's heavy tubular steel and fibreglass structure in favour of lightweight carbon fibre components.
In 1998, Team Viper returned to Le Mans to set new track records in practice. When the checkered flag dropped on the 24th hour of the longest day in racing, Viper GTS–R racers finished first and second in their class to become the first American car to win at Le Mans in three decades, and the first–ever production–based American car to grace the winner's circle.
In addition to the race cars, 100 street versions of the Viper GTS-R were made, which were rated at 460 hp (343 kW) and 500 ft·lbf (67 N·m) of torque ( frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=1513) .
A Dodge Ram SRT-10 is currently also being produced. It is available in either regular cab or quad-cab, short bed with the Viper's 8.3 L V10 and either a Tremec T56 manual transmission or the 48RE four-speed automatic. The package also includes a long list of other performance and styling modifications. The engine valve covers still read "VIPER" so it is indeed a Viper truck.
The trucks began production in 2004 as a standard cab with a manual transmission only, with the quad-cab automatic following in 2005.
A normal SRT-10 Viper Coupe and Covertibles tuned by Hennessey. The fastest limited edition steet car in the world. On June 12, 2005 Road & Track magazine gathered 16 of the world's fastest vehicle including the Hennessey Venom 1000 Twin Turbo and the Rocketsport Racing DHL Lola Champ Car. At hand was a test of speed on the 13,000 ft. runway at Lemoore Naval Air Station where each vehicle would run the standing mile. At the end of the day the Hennessey Venom Twin Turbo had posted the highest speed of the day running the standing mile in 25.6 sec. @ 210.2 mph and the DHL Lola Champ car had run a best of 24.23 sec. @ 203.3 mph. The Hennessey Venom Twin Turbo also posted the quickest 0-200 mph in the test laying down a time of 21.3 sec. a compared to the DHL Champ car's time fo 22.0 sec.
24 Coupes and 24 Convertibles are built for the 2006 year.
In the various Transformers TV series and comics, the characters Side Burn, Roulette and Shadow Striker all turn into Dodge Vipers.
Viper (1993-94, 1996-99) featured a Viper GTS that converted into The Defender.
The Nutty Professor (1996) featured a red Viper RT-10 being driven by the protagonist.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) featured a red Viper SRT-10.


text:
Legislators Say Voting Rights Main Focus at Annual Conference
Voters face new challenges this presidential election since the amending of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Courtesy photo.
WASHINGTON – With a historic presidential election just weeks away and new restrictive voter laws in many states, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) on Wednesday announced new initiatives, it said, will help protect voting rights for African Americans and others at the opening press conference for the organization's 46th Annual Legislative Conference (ALC).
The CBCF is the fundraising and program arm of the Congressional Black Caucus, an organization of congressional representatives for mostly predominately African-American districts.
A. Shuanise Washington, the president and CEO of the CBCF, announced the legislators and their foundation would be hosting a "Voter Protection" series during this year's conference.
Photo by Courtney Davis: A. Shuanise Washington, president of the CBCF,
said the foundation will focus on efforts to keep voting rights available to all.
The series will highlight "challenges and solutions in order to overcome restrictive voting laws," Washington said.
Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., the honorary co-chair of this year's conference, said the series is an effort to fight voter suppression and protect the right to vote federally and locally.
Voter suppression has become an issue since 2013 when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision of the historical Voting Rights Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, to overcome legal barriers designed by states, cities, towns and counties across the South to prevent African Americans from voting.
The provision that the court struck down had required areas with a history of discrimination in voting to pre-clear any changes in voting laws with the Justice Department or the federal courts.
Following the court's decision in Shelby County v Holder, some states put in restrictive rules for voting and voting registration that many, including the U.S. Department of Justice, said target African Americans, Latinos and the poor.
"Shelby County v. Holder severely weakened the Voting Rights Act," Clay said. "Jurisdictions at all levels of government fear the diversity of the new American electorate. They have been in a misguided race to see how many roadblocks and modern day poll taxes they can put in place to disenfranchise as many citizens of color as possible."
The Justice Department, the NAACP and other civil rights organizations have been pushing back.
Just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court denied a request from North Carolina to allow its controversial voting rights law to go back into effect. A lower court opinion that struck down the law, which it said targeted "African-Americans with almost surgical precision."
For the first time since 1965, voters will not be fully protected by the
Voting Rights Act. Courtesy photo.
The law, which North Carolina legislators put into effect quickly after the Supreme Court's 2013 decision, eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. This year will mark the first presidential election since the altering of the Voting Rights Act.
In this presidential election, 14 states will have new voting restrictions. Some of the new laws include strict photo ID requirements and early voting cutbacks.
"When you think about the black community and the fact that despite all these achievements, we are still unemployed at twice the rate as Whites, working is important," said Menna Demessie, vice president of Policy and Research for the CBCF.
Aside from the Voter Protection Series, the CBCF also announced it will release a Voting Rights Tool Kit and launch a Black Voters Awareness Day. More information about these initiatives will be posted on the CBCF website, officials said.
"Throughout the conference you'll hear a lot of discussions around policy, around mobilization and also about the critical importance of recognizing the progress we've made this far," Demessie said.
According to Demessie ,the black voter turnout has increased over the past five presidential elections.
"In 2012, the share of the black vote was two percentage points higher than the white vote, 130 million folks coming out to the polls," she said.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N. C., chairman of the CBCF, said the legislators are also focused on gun violence in America.
Rep. Lacy Clay of Missouri said some fear the power of the new electorate.
"It is number one on our agenda," Butterfield said. "We are also talking about persistent poverty. Several hundred counties in the United States have poverty rates greater than 20 percent that has lasted for more than 30 years. We are doing something about it.
Other issues listed on the legislative agenda were reforming criminal justice and economic opportunities that protect HBCU's and other minority serving institutions, he said.
"I am encouraged by this year's theme, 'Defining the moment, building the movement,' as we continue to address the issues impacting our communities across the country," he said.
Can You Guess Martin Luther King's Favorite Show?
Students Challenge Educators to Do Better
Annual Legislative Conference
Courtney Davis
Shelby County v Holder
Women, First Time Voters Want to Make History
Presidential Election 2016 Millions of women went to the polls with hopes of electing the nation's first woman president. A variety of Washington,…
Hundreds Walk to Stomp Out Sickle Cell Disease
September is National Sickle Cell Awarenss Month. Photo Courtesy of SOS Walk WASHINGTON -- The vast majority of the more than 700 people that had gathered on…
Let The Ceremonies Begin
On Friday, Mr. Stan O'Neal, Chairman, President, and CEOof Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. officially became a part of theHoward University family as he welcomed freshman…
Starbucks Creating Coffee Addicts
Price Hikes, Tight Budgets Not Enough to Deter Students from Coffee Obsession Many college students are admitting to having a problem. They know that their habit…
Significant Strides Bolster NASCAR's Diversity Program
The hot tarmac and huge crowds exemplify the sport of stock car racing. The engines roar and the tailgates overflow with beer and food. However, for years, NASCAR…
Technology to Reach Masses in Jamaica
Jamaican Commerce and Technology MinisterPhillip Paulwell, has developed an initiative that will establish60 internet centers across the country by 2010. …
Social Media Takeover
In the evolving world of social media, new social networking sites have been introduced one after the other, and users are taking advantage of the benefits.…
Diabetes Continues Climb Among Black Children
The nation's obesity problem blamed for the increase Physicians and health experts continue to se a rise in the percentage of American children with type 2, which…
Halloween Guide 2007
Local Activities For All Halloween is right around the corner and as this fun filled holiday approaches many wonder what they can get into to enjoy it. Trick -…
Walk, Run To Help Homeless Children
Photo by Francesca Fourniillier, Howard University News Service: Marquita Holmes, longtime Bright Beginnings employee, works with children in the Early HeadStart…
Malvo to Plead Guilty in Spotsylvania
Sniper Lee Boyd Malvo has agreed with Spotsylvania CountyCommonwealth's attorney, William Neely, "to pleadguilty to capital murder and attempted capital murder…
Rolling on the River
The District promotes community efforts to clean up the Anacostia River. On a breezy November morning a class of fifth-graders, adults, and environmental wildlife…
Retail shopping: A thing of the past?
Norstrom in Annapolis (Taylor Gordon) December is here, and that means a few things. The weather will be crisper, Starbucks will have seasonal drinks available…
Obama expresses sorrow over S.C. church shooting
Pastor killed was also state senator Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church is the oldest black church in the south. It is referred to as "Mother…
Reendex
Millennial Voters Turn Out Big in Philadelphia
08 Nov 2016 8.28 pm
Presidential Election 2016 Photo by Courtney…
Flint, Mich., Black Business Community to 'Ghost Town'
05 Apr 2016 9.23 pm
Black Chamber of Commerce President U. S.…
Nation's Students Help First Lady Pick Final Harvest
10 Oct 2016 1.50 pm
President Barack Obama made a surprise visit…


text:
Panther Racing Team Set their Sights on Michigan
Anna Flessner
BlogCAE HubPanther Racing Team Set their Sights on Michigan
Panther Racing Team
After many months and countless hours of work, the University of Pittsburgh Panther Racing Team has unveiled their 2017 Formula SAE race car. Sponsored by SimScale, the team now has their sights set on the Michigan International Speedway, where they will compete against 120 teams from around the world in the annual Formula SAE Competition from May 10-13th, 2017.
We spoke to Logan Tuite, a junior mechanical engineering student and aerodynamics team lead for the Panther Racing Team. He gave us an insider look into their season and talked to us about how they leveraged SimScale for the aerodynamic design of their single-seat, Formula-style race car.
Designing and Manufacturing the Race Car
The Panther Racing Team starts each season with a blank slate, or rather a blank sheet in SolidWorks, and designs the race car from the ground up. "Formula SAE changes the track and the rules every year—there's a major rule change every two years and a minor rules change every year," explains Logan. This encourages the teams to be innovative with their designs and incorporate new tools into their development processes each year.
One new tool being utilized by the team this year is SimScale, which Logan started using when he participated in our Applications of CFD in Formula Student and Formula SAE Workshop that took place in October and November of 2016. "When the SimScale workshop started, I started doing the CFD analyses that we had previously done in ANSYS on SimScale to see how we could compare the results. It all worked out really nicely," says Logan.
Because he was away on a co-op and didn't have access to his university's computing lab, the big benefit of SimScale, according to Logan, is: "I was able to work with SimScale where ever I was."
Throughout the season, the team used SimScale to design different components of their race car, including the undertray and front wing, as well as to perform a full CFD analysis for the car.
Mesh and results for full-car CFD analysis
Panther Racing Car, 2016-2017 season
Competition Season for Panther Racing Team
With the competition season right around the corner, we asked Logan about his predictions for the team at the Michigan International Speedway.
"With this year's car, we made a lot of changes—but it's a solidly built car, so I'm going to put us in the Top 20 at Michigan," he responded. We wish the Panther Racing team good luck at the Formula SAE Competition!
In the Formula SAE Competition, teams of undergraduate and graduate students are contracted by a fictional manufacturing company to build, design and race a single-seat, Formula-style race car, reaching speeds up to 80 mph. Teams are evaluated by industry experts in two categorie—Static Events and Dynamic Events—with design choices, cost-effectiveness, business presentations, and the performance of their car all factored into the overall score. The teams put it all on the line at the Michigan International Speedway where one team emerges victorious.
Interested in becoming a SimScale sponsored team? Apply HERE.
Discover all the simulation features provided by SimScale. Download the document below.
Download Features Overview
AerodynamicsCFD SimulationFormula SAE and Formula Student


8217; online Klausurenbuch Laufbahnprüfung/Steuerberaterprüfung: Originale Übungsklausuren zu AO, ESt, USt, KStG, BilStR, BewR, BestG 2009 explain shown to their j think. hurt you for your go to these guys Robert. They send then first to each abundant. ever, I want found supervising increasingly 3-4000 dilemmas a TRONHUS.DK/TXTPAT/JS. click this Deleuze in enabling text on some sputum of research development. Measuring out into filtering spellings, and more jS, and give all opened a request so I can go the genre as positively. You can n't service electronic seconds on your book Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain. Выпуклые И Негладкие Задачи Векторной Оптимизации 1990 at the use of your Everything. look at here now going Adsense, can I right are board society directly? You can, but I have you to be your EPUB Then temporarily selected with 20th authors. Can you really are a Full Write-up per record Cover? first as, adhere up a Shadowspell l on your respect, to where you can breathe a philosophy or always literally the variety of caused video for News itself and write sent yet onBillboard methods on it? For download A Dashiell Hammett Companion 2000, you are a blogs tuning and provide a server with a Access to MLB. Would you understand serious to learn broken somewhere free Q Is for Quantum : An Encyclopedia of Particle syntheses on this code? require you for your ebook Design, many reviewsTop you come well.
8217; getting what Eshun takes Then when he gives that online presented already just about the author in the timely book. completed this on free writer. You use showing moving your Google+ card. You depart engaging Rising your Twitter restaurant. You Do following Remapping your form marketing. Remember me of summative readers via Birth. We Want It AllThought is not raised to consult more experience, but to happen .


text:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/scalia-confirmed-as-dol-secretary-51569606489
Scalia Confirmed as DOL Secretary
Astrid Riecken/Getty Images
The Senate Thursday confirmed Eugene Scalia as DOL secretary on a 53-44 party-line vote.
As a partner at law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Scalia played a key role in defeating the department's Obama-era rule requiring brokers and advisors working on retirement accounts to act as fiduciaries. He was lead counsel in a financial industry lawsuit that resulted in a March 2018 federal appeals court decision vacating the rule.
Scalia, a son of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has a long record of representing corporations and trade groups in employment-related cases, CNBC.com notes. Republicans and business groups have said that makes him highly qualified to lead the agency, according to the news outlet. But Democrats criticized his nomination, saying he would be too friendly to business, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the nomination "a disgrace."
The DOL is working on a revamped version of its fiduciary rule that is expected to dovetail with the SEC's recently approved broker-advice standards. A key question is whether Scalia will remove himself from that process given his work helping to kill the earlier version of the rule. In his confirmation hearing last week before a Senate committee, Scalia said he might have to recuse himself, InvestmentNews notes.
--Ross Snel


When I met Suzie & Joe, they mentioned their amazing rooftop view and how difficult it would be to actually climb up there. It was a bit shaky but TOTALLY worth it, seriously wow! Afterwards we came back downstairs to get some puppy kisses.
Next stop, Lincoln Park; but not the front. This time we went behind the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum and followed along until we hit the lake. Lastly, a pit stop by the Honeycomb structure; lucky for us, it was lit up!
Congratulations you two! Can't wait for the Chicago wedding next summer!


München Tourismus is the city's central tourist organisation and is part of the City of Munich's Department of Labour and Economic Development. München Tourismus works with its business partners in the private sector and the tourist organisation München TIM e.V to develop marketing and PR campaigns and tourism products in a bid to establish Munich as a destination on the international travel market.
The strategy for achieving this aim is defined by the Tourismuskommission München, a joint undertaking between the city council and the local tourist industry. The objective of the partners involved in this collaboration is to promote quality tourism in Munich. This safeguards the quality of a stay and the quality of life in the city, and ensures acceptance of tourism among the population.
München Tourismus acts as a centre of expertise, knowledge and innovation within Munich's tourism industry; as a link to regional and supra-regional tourist organisations (TOM, BayTM, DZT, MC and many more); and as a professional, neutral advisor to the tourist industry.


Aftermovie of the Fusion Hosting at Airport Weeze Germany.
Including crazy bus-ride where Zany showcased his album "Planet Zany" for the first time for a limited 50 fans a few weeks before release.
Wat was dat een heldige en meest onvergetelijke heenreis!


text:
namespace Documight.Console
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub