text:
Aims and thematic scope of the RIELF
Ethics & GDPR
RIELF issues
Instructions for examiners
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip exea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum.
Home 2 › Ethics
For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to establish the standards of expected ethical behaviour. The ethics statements for the Revue Internationale des Economistes de Langue Française (RIELF) are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board as well as by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when appropriate.
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances, the editorial board members, as and when appropriate.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues
The editor will be guided by COPE's Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the Revue Internationale des Economistes de Langue Française.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express, written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should abstain (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected with the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors should maintain the integrity of the publication by including corrections and retractions when needed and investigating suspected or alleged misconduct in the research and publication. An editor should take reasonable appropriate action when ethical complaints are presented concerning a manuscript or published paper submitted to RIELF.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except when authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously mentioned should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Author Responsibilities
Reporting standards
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written an entirely original work and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal's editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Publisher's Confirmation
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the work in question.
Starting in 2016, the review (RIELF) is the journal of the International Association of French Language Economists (AIELF). It is produced as part of a cooperation between AIELF, USGEP, Poznan and Bernardo O'Higgins University, Santiago of Chile.
Navigation language
Prof. Krzysztof Malaga
Dyrektor Instytutu Informatyki i Ekonomii Ilościowej
Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu
Director of the Institute of Informatics and Quantitative Economics
Poznań University of Economics and Business
al. Niepodległości 10 | 61-875 Poznań
tel. + 48 69-471-79-93
krzysztof.malaga@ue.poznan.pl
www.ue.poznan.pl
Copryright © 2020, RIELF, By Optimus IT Soft | All rights reserved.


text:
Sensus Life
Smart Gas
About Jill Cartwright
Jill Cartwright is the Marketing Communications Manager for Smart Gas at Sensus. With 15 years of BTB marketing experience, Jill has spent her career building product portfolios and brands for start-ups as well as Fortune 500 companies. Prior to joining Sensus, Jill led Global Marketing Communications for Wolfspeed, the industry's largest producer of silicon carbide semiconductor materials and devices.
Articles Written by Jill Cartwright
How AMI Fills The Gap In Customer Experience For Co-ops
There's been a lot of buzz about Customer Experience (CX) in recent years, especially with so many interactions shifting to digital in the wake of…
Jill Cartwright
Why Every Gas Utility Needs to Consider 425 Class Ultrasonic Meters
Natural gas utilities are always striving to do more with less. That's what makes the Sonix IQ™ ultrasonic residential meter an ideal solution for utilities…
Gas AMI Customer Series: One Muni's Journey in Deploying AMI
Gas AMI Customer Series Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) holds a lot of potential for municipalities, but it can be difficult for utilities to know what…
Top 5 Resources for Educating Your Customers about Renewable Natural Gas (RNG)
As communities like Berkeley, CA and Denver, CO move to limit the use of natural gas in new building construction, it's more relevant than ever…
The Three "R's" of a Sustainable Energy Future
Sustainable energy is among the top news headlines every day. While coverage of the topic is expanding, what constitutes a sustainable energy future is growing…
You've Decided to Deploy Gas AMI. What's Next?
Congratulations! You've made the business case, run the gauntlet of internal debates, and finally have the approval to deploy an AMI solution for your gas…
Sensus.com
Subscribe to our blog to receive notifications of new articles.
© 2021 Sensus, a Xylem brand. All rights reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Any orthopaedic treatment, whether conservative or operative is only ever as good as the rehabilitation received by the patient. Therefore the field of physiotherapy is important in the treatment of orthopaedic disorders, and our orthopaedic teams work in unison with the Division of Physiotherapy & Orthopaedic Rehabilitation to provide a patient with the best results.
The division comprises of a well-endowed team of more than 40 physiotherapists trained in various disciplines of orthopaedics like Trauma, Arthroplasty, Upper Limb, Spine and Sports Injuries. The team also includes experts in fields outside orthopaedics like Critical Care, Pulmonology and Neurology, etc.
The rehabilitation team not only caters to our in-patients but also has their out-patient department and provide home therapy for patients who have been discharged.


The Inaugural Meeting for the SSHRC Partnership Grant, 'Learning Partnership for Community Development and Mino Bimaadizwin', took place July 12, 2017 at the Carleton Room at the Victoria Inn, Winnipeg. Invitations were extended to the SSHRC Partnership Grant (The Partnership) co-applicants, collaborators, and various supporters of the initiative including the Honourable Robert Falcon-Ouellette and the Honourable Judy Klassen. The Partnership Secretariat coordinated the administrative support for the event; the meeting was co-chaired by Dr. Shirley Thompson, Principal Investigator of The Partnership and Pepper Pritty, prospective PhD student for the project.


It's been three years since Lexicon Books opened its doors in picturesque Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, a town best known for its tall ships and colonial architecture. Through trial and error, Lexicon's co-owners – poet Alice Burdick, children's illustrator Anne-Marie Sheppard, and author Jo Treggiari – have found a winning formula that balances the book-buying needs of local residents with those of the town's thriving tourism industry. Burdick spoke to Q&Q about running a small-town bookshop.
How do you make decisions about what to stock? Jo and I mostly determine that because we're physically in the store the most. It definitely depends on the time of year. We tend to get one or two copies of a title and try to keep ordering low as we have a tiny space. I'm sure there are smaller spaces, but it's 500 square feet without storage.
We try to keep it eclectic. There will be some bestsellers, but I really enjoy getting in books that are unique. Anik See's Saudade from Coach House Books is this wonderful, tiny book, and one of my favourites. I've sold so many of them. When we have a special interest in a book, we'll bring it in and we can sell it because we're so enthusiastic, even if it's not a so-called hot title.
We try to keep a nice balance of Canadian small presses, American presses, and the larger publishers. We discovered that we don't have to have books we really don't want in the store – we'll order those titles in for someone, but usually they can find them at Costco or the grocery store, and at a margin we can't afford to sell them for.
Have there been any surprise bestsellers? We barely had a local-interest section when we opened because you can find local titles pretty much anywhere, at any small-town gift shop. But we realized that when we do have them in, they sell constantly, so it's become a larger proportion of our stock. That includes guides to local flora and fauna, travel stuff, a lot of local history and biographies. Little waterproof guides to things like local mushrooms do really well.
What doesn't sell? We experienced the flip side of the colouring book craze. We really wanted to avoid colouring books, but people kept asking for them. And then we were stuck with copies, which was so annoying because we didn't want them there in the first place. We learned not to order too many "non-book" books.
What else have you learned? When we opened we only had fiction and non-fiction sections. But as we got more titles, we refined it to include other categories like genre fiction. Our science and nature and mathematics sections have grown a lot; so has music. Memoirs have shrunk. There are a lot of variations and we try to move with it as best we can.
I think we have a solid understanding of what people want, but we pay attention to trends and phases and seasonal interests. We have a really good system to see what books are selling and adjust as we go. People come in and say they love the bookstore's curation. They are happy browsing and discovering titles they haven't found elsewhere, or new things they haven't seen yet, so I feel like we're making some solid choices.


text:
Title: Nathan A. Weston Papers, 1875-79, 1883-1933
Series Number: 9/5/23
Acquired: 6/14/66; 4/26/72; 5/72
Weston, Nathan A. (1868-1933)
Faculty Papers
146 Library, 1408 W. Gregory Drive (Prior Request Preferred) 1-2
Description: Papers of Nathan A. Weston '89, ML '98 (1868-1933), professor of economics (1903-33) and first dean of the College of Commerce and Business Administration (1915-1919), including book lists, bibliographies of new texts and reserve books relating to economics courses (1925-31), economics course examinations (1921-33), manuscripts on "Education for Business," "The Principles of Preservation, or the Right of Property," and three untitled items, published articles on "The Cost of Production of Corn and Oats in Illinois in 1896" (1898), "The Studies of the National Monetary Commission" (1922) and "Ricardian Epoch in American Economics" (1933) and student notes compiled as a student at the University of Wisconsin (1897-98). One bound volume titled "The Scope and Method of Political Economy" relates to a professor's analysis of a course taught by Thorstein Veblen at the University of Chicago. The series includes report cards (1975-79), diplomas (1883-1914), matriculation certificates (1883, 1885), Sophographs (1885, 1887), photographs, University events programs (1885-1901, 1913-14) and financial records (1883-86, 1891-1903) of Angelina Gayman Weston '87 and Nathan A. Weston.
On-line Images / Records
Images (browse thumbnails)


Fico lambasted the media, opposition, civic activists and President Andrej Kiska in his speech.
The Smer party is dynamic, evident from the fact that it has managed to overcome many crises and come back on the scene, former prime minister and party chairman, Robert Fico, said at the party's working congress in Častá-Papiernička, close to Modra, on April 26.
After the fall of preferences from 26 to 20 percent and the distrust of a large portion of people who gathered several times at protest rallies across Slovakia, Fico did not admit any significant mistakes on the side of Smer, the senior ruling coalition party. Similarly, after the murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his partner, Martina Kušnírová, he lambasted the media, opposition, civic activists and President Andrej Kiska.
"I reject a situation with three activists attempting to dictate nominations for interior minister to the strongest party," said Fico, as cited by the TASR newswire, further slamming Kiska for what he viewed as the latter's undue interference with the creation of Pellegrini's government.
In March, Kiska refused to appoint Pellegrini's first nomination for interior minister, Jozef Ráž Jr. He later accepted the nomination of Tomas Drucker, a hitherto health minister, who stepped down as interior minister one month later and was recently replaced by former minister Robert Kaliňák's associate, Denisa Saková. Kaliňák resigned along with Fico during the government crisis following mass rallies in March.
Smer changed its statutes at its working congress to narrow its presidium to 15 members. Originally, it had 35 members.
The presidium members are as follows: party chairman (and former three-time prime minister) Robert Fico, vice-chairs Robert Kaliňák (former interior minister), MP Juraj Blanár, Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini, Finance Minister Peter Kažimír, Economy Minister Peter Žiga, Deputy Prime Minister for Informatisation and Investment, Richard Raši, and Party General Manager Viktor Stromček.
New members elected on Thursday are Trenčín regional governor Jaroslav Baška, Parliamentary Vice-chairman Martin Glváč, MP Ladislav Kamenický, MP Ľubomír Petrák, Interior Minister Denisa Saková, Defence Ministry State Secretary Marián Saloň and MP Miroslav Číž.
Political scientist Grigorij Mesežnikov sees the narrowing of Smer's presidium as "oligarchisation".
"A smaller number of people will decide how narrow the space for other opinions will be," he said, as cited by the Sme daily.


Steel Patio Covers for Doublewide Mobile Homes -… 26 Feb 2016 . Steel Patio Covers for Doublewide Mobile Homes . It only takes 1 day to install most patio covers on mobile homes, trailer houses and double wide mobile homes. . Design of a roof addition over an existing concrete patio in.
Double-Wide Deck Ideas | Home Guides | SF… A deck adds valuable living space to a double-wide mobile home. In warm weather, a cozy deck can function as an outdoor living room, letting people relax or.
Room Additions for Manufactured Homes - Patio… 14 Jul 2013 . Learn how easy it is to add living space to your manufactured home with a sunroom . Contact us today for a free in-home design consultation.
Hammock 59 Cotton Double Wide Solid Outdoor Patio… #4 Best Selling product in Patio & Garden Furniture. Hammock 59 Cotton Double Wide Solid Outdoor Patio Yard Garden Net Wood Spreader. Be the first to write.
1000+ ideas about Manufactured Home Porch on… See more about Mobile home porch, Manufactured home decorating and . home porch adds such nice outdoor living space possibilities. front-porch-ideas.
Front Porch Ideas And More Designs For Mobile… Front Porch Ideas And More Designs For Mobile Homes Html. . Explore Porch Patio Ideas, Porch Decks, and more! Explore related topics.
Double Wide Patio Door Design Ideas & Remodel… To improve the family room's indoor-outdoor flow, the designers added a Jeld-Wen sliding door; each central panel slides to the side, creating a 6-foot-wide.
Double Wide - 124 Photos & 156 Reviews - Dive Bars - 3510… (214) 887-6510 · 3510 Commerce St Dallas, TX 75295 . Double Wide ... Definitely check out the cool murals on the patio while you sit on a porcelain throne .. We surveyed the handsome boys under grafittied walls with the idea we should.
Pictures Photos and Videos of Manufactured Homes and… Enjoy pictures and video tours of Palm Harbor Homes's modular homes, manufactured . Each picture also includes a link to the manufactured home floor plan.
Double Wide Grill back to serving dogs - Pittsburgh… 18 Apr 2013 . Mindy Kellar Double Wide Grill server Mindy Kellar takes an order from Sara . would he agree, but admit that's kind of the idea at the Double Wide Grill. . variance to allow dogs on the premises of its expansive front patio.
Antique Decor Mobile Home - Mobile Home Decorating… 21 Jul 2014 . Country Living takes a tour of this elegant, salvage-style double-wide home.
Hammock 59" Cotton Double Wide Solid Wood Spreader… Buy Hammock 59" Cotton Double Wide Solid Wood Spreader Outdoor Patio Yard Hammock at Walmart. . very affordable, great design and comfy. 8/22/.
great idea to add character to a plain double wide |… Interior Designer Remodels Double Wide (part 2) - Mobile Home Living ... Traditional Home outdoor patio Design Ideas, Pictures, Remodel and Decor.
Best Choice Products Hammock 59" Cotton Double Wide… . Cotton Double Wide Solid Wood Spreader Outdoor Patio Yard Hammock : Patio, . Of these stand designs, we offer a Hammock C-Stand, Steel Stand, and Arc.
9 Beautiful Manufactured Home Porch Ideas -… See 9 different manufactured home porch ideas. . front porch being built onto double wide - belindajowrites com .. Just purchased manufactured home that has overhang in back of the house that I call patio and kitchen door that leads out it.
Mobile & Manufactured Home Parts at Menards? Menards? offers everything you need to update your mobile or manufactured home. Take advantage of our selection of mobile and manufactured home exterior.
45 Great Manufactured Home Porch Designs - Mobile… See 45 great manufactured home porch designs (and decks) plus learn about . onto your manufactured is a smart investment because it adds outdoor living.
Porch Designs for Mobile Homes - Front Porch Ideas… Use our porch designs for mobile homes to find the right one for your home. . Front porches for mobile homes will help you extend your outdoor time. . not only curb appeal but also the value and comfort of your mobile or manufactured home.
1000+ ideas about Mobile Home Porch on Pinterest |… See more about Double wide home, Double wide trailer and Manufactured home porch. . Decks+And+Patios+Ideas | Patio deck ideas Design Ideas, Pictures,.
Ana White | Simple Modern Outdoor Double Lounger - DIY… 19 May 2010 . The Simple Modern Outdoor Collection is quickly becoming one of my favorite collections. Many readers have had success with the plans I.


From Los Angeles to New York, Priyanka Chopra now flies to Italy for the filming of Quantico Season 3. It has been said that the 35-year-old star is going to be with Jake McLaughlin as their television characters Alex Parrish and Ryan Booth need to hide in the European country after President Henry Roarke's (Dennis Boutsikaris) death.
The Indian actress is taking her fans with her and she is definitely having fun as seen on her Instagram posts. She even visited some heritage sites in Rome before she started shooting. She shared her photo in Vatican, in Castel Sant'Angelo, in Colosseum, and in Pantheon. After being out and about, she posted a picture of the drama thriller series' shooting in Tuscany, Italy. "Under the Tuscan sun… #quantico3 begins…" she captioned the photo.
TV Line reported that Quantico Season 3's first episode will be shot in Italy. Alex and Ryan are branded as fugitives by the United States and will be hiding in the country after they run away from the government. There is now an ongoing worldwide manhunt to find these two former FBI agents.
They are being blamed for the death of President Roarke while the truth is he committed suicide. The ex-POTUS shot himself after being involved in a scandal about the Federal Security Service giving brainpower to revise the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Thus, Alex and Ryan are running for their lives as every federal organization is after them in Quantico Season 3. In fact, even the CIA is looking for the two ex-officers. These institutes will do everything to find them and make them pay for a crime they didn't do.
To recall, the former top recruit at Quantico took a big risk when she exposed the connection of President Roarke in the U.S. classified intelligence to the public at the Constitutional Convention in the previous season. She was issued with Red Notice by the INTERPOL and left the country with her significant other.
Quantico Season 3 is set to return in 2018 on ABC. However, it will be shorter than usual with only 13 episodes. Its first two seasons had 22 chapters each.


Being a philanthropist is about giving back to the community and its people. This not only helps them but makes you feel good. Often people think of someone wealthy when they think of a philanthropist, but anyone can give back regardless of income bracket.... Philanthropy definition, altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes. See more.
Philanthropy definition, altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes. See more.... Philanthropy definition, altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes. See more.
I have been struggling for years trying to make ends meet. I work a full time job, but just recently found out I make less than everybody in my department, including the 'new hires'.... Wheelton Philanthropy has been involved with Life Education for over 15 years, see the work we have done.
Youth Activity: Participants identify and begin to integrate the meaning of the word philanthropy and associated philanthropic acts. This activity assumes that the young people have had prior discussions about philanthropy.
Philanthropy is a much broader concept that looks to get to the root of the problem and find solutions. Philanthropy is based on carefully thought out plans, built on previous successes and focused on the community. It benefits many people with results, outcomes, and impact.
Use this guide as a quick reference to find important information on nonprofit groups from the forms they�re required to file with the Internal Revenue Service.
Being a philanthropist is about giving back to the community and its people. This not only helps them but makes you feel good. Often people think of someone wealthy when they think of a philanthropist, but anyone can give back regardless of income bracket.


text:
PMR61 Audio Recorder
Customers & Endorsements
Meeting Recording Systems
Music Recording Systems
Mics | Cables | Stands
Accessories | Speakers
Where To Buy PMR61
PSD450mkII CD Recorder
Where to Buy PSD450mkII
Elevation Music Software
Elevation Software
Free Demo Downloads
Bundles & Accessories
Where to Buy Elevation
Superscope Service & Support
Other Brands Audio Service
Projector & Video Service
Service & Repairs FAQs
Superscope Owners Manuals
Superscope eBay Store
Nearly New Store
Visit Superscope
Digital Recorders → PMR61 Digital Audio Recorder
PMR61 Digital Audio Recorder
PMR61 Superscope Professional Audio Recorder
Audio recording of meetings and conferences, and events such as music performances, has been a constant in the professional world for decades. Regardless of the purpose of these recordings, everyone benefits from a reliable, accurate, clear recording that is easily referenced, distributed, and transcribed.
Enter the Superscope PMR61. A brand synonymous with professional audio recording, Superscope has created professional audio devices for more than five decades. The PMR61 is the next generation, and possibly the world's smartest digital audio recorder.
Simple Design and Operation
The PMR61 is clearly a different type of recorder. Its uncluttered, non-technical design is comfortable in any meeting, interview or conference room, while still compact enough to fit in a briefcase or backpack. However, easy operation is the key to the PMR61 design. With a simple top panel layout consisting of only four buttons, all critical setup functions are included in the touch screen menu, which not only gives immediate status during recording, but also allows for easy setup, navigation, and operation. Built-in 16GB of internal memory for hours of uninterrupted recordings. Also available in 32GB version (PMR61-32).
Record Check and Auto Input Detect
Superscope's revolutionary design automatically detects input sources and determines appropriate level settings prior to recording. "Record Check" is an automated process that determines the setup for you. During Record Check, a process lasting for 15 seconds, the PMR61 selects the appropriate sensitivity, attenuation, input levels and record level to provide a professional recording setup. Afterwards, just touch to listen to the test results and you are ready to record.
Simultaneous Recording
The PMR61 utilizes a combination of internal solid-state memory as well as a grab and go format like USB. With the side mounted, USB 2.0 port, simply plug in a readily available USB flash drive and have recordings ready to go, instantly upon finish. Both the Internal and USB media can be recorded to simultaneously, providing file redundancy and a failsafe archive for every important event.
USB Media Check
USB Media has become the most common and accepted removable media for use globally and the PMR61 digital audio recorder has the ability to conveniently record directly to it. However, while USB drives looks very similar, their performance for real-time digital audio recording is not all the same. PMR61's USB Media Check feature is designed to help identify USB compatibility with PMR61. Recommended USB Media
Battery and AC Operation
For many applications, the PMR61 may have a permanent home at a meeting table or on a desk. In these instances, the included DC power adapter can be utilized to power the unit. The PMR61 can also operate on four off-the-shelf AA alkaline or Nickel Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) rechargeable batteries. The low-cost rechargeable technology will power the PMR61 for over 4 hours, and the PMR61 will automatically recharge Ni-MH batteries when plugged in. Most important, when the PMR61 is operating on AC power, and if power is interrupted, the batteries will seamlessly take over, ensuring critical recording continues.
Recorder Settings (settings.dat.file)
The PMR61's smart and simple design manages 50 recorder settings that come preset from the factory. But since recording applications and environments can vary, changing any of these settings can be performed easily on the PMR61 to adapt to each specific recording situation. The PMR61 allows you to manage all of these settings as a group by creating what is referred to as a settings.dat file. The DAT file (short for data file) created by the PMR61, was designed to easily save and archive your settings.
Selecting proper settings for your specific recording application is a critical first step in the recording process and securing those settings with a PIN helps to minimize operational errors. PMR61's settings.dat file provides an easy way to save and archive settings and also provides large organizations a convenient and reliable setup for multiple PMR61 for delivering consistent operation and results.
Audio File Management
PMR61's advanced file naming method makes it very simple for operators to identify recorded files. By setting the Date and Time in the PMR's internal clock, each PMR recording is automatically Date and Time stamped and written into the file name. The recorded files are displayed and listed according to the Date and Time when the Record button is pressed.
PMR61 file names can also include up to 2-User Defined Areas providing additional information stamped into the file name. Once the user areas are defined, this information, along with the Date and Time, will be automatically written into the file name. PMR61's smart and simple method for file naming, and the ability to restrict access with a PIN, provides professional operators and organizations a secure, easy and intuitive process for identifying and managing recorded files.
There are millions of business meetings, lectures, conferences, seminars, legal proceedings, music performances, and much more taking place every day requiring audio recording. These one-shot recordings can fail dramatically due to poor record settings, improper setup, or simply by not pushing the Record button. Superscope designed the PMR61 to help prevent failed recordings, and to provide an ease of setup and operation never before realized in a stand-alone audio recorder.
The all-new Superscope PMR61 audio recorder...smart and simple.
Privacy Polices
Superscope LLC 1508 Batavia Avenue, Geneva, IL 60134T: 800.374.4118 F: 630.232.8905


We have a small but enthusiastic youth group, who meet together on Sunday mornings and for occasional evening events. Our desire is to provide an inspiring and challenging environment for our young people where they can grow in faith and maturity, and also be supported at a time of life that has many pressures.
If you want to know more about our youth environment please contact the Church office.


text:
è un videogioco a piattaforme sviluppato e pubblicato da Hudson Soft in Giappone e da Nintendo nel Nord America ed in Europa per la console portatile Game Boy nel 1997 e successivamente come uno dei titoli di lancio per Game Boy Color nel 1998.

Trama
Molto tempo addietro il Sole fu avvolto da una nuvola oscura e sinistra. Una vecchia leggenda sostiene che quella nube era il risultato di un potente mostro che aveva lanciato una maledizione sulla "Spada del Sole" sigillando il suo potere. L'unica speranza rimasta per far tornare la luce sulla terra è quella di raccogliere le cinque Pietre del Potere, sorvegliate dai mostri malvagi di Evil Mountain. Solo le Pietre del Potere hanno la forza necessaria per rompere definitivamente la maledizione della spada e far tornare le cose alla normalità.

Modalità di gioco
Al contrario della maggior parte dei capitoli della serie Bomberman, Pocket Bomberman presenta uno stile di gioco tipico dei titoli a piattaforme a scorrimento laterale, a cui si vanno aggiungere gli elementi classici del franchise. Il personaggio giocabile è Bomberman il quale dovrà farsi strada lungo svariati livelli sconfiggendo tutti i nemici presenti sul suo cammino mediante l'utilizzo delle bombe. Il gioco presenta un totale di cinque mondi divisi in venticinque livelli. Ogni mondo presenta un tema diverso che può essere una foresta, un'ambientazione sott'acqua, sulle nuvole ed un oscuro mondo sotterraneo. Al termine di ogni mondo sarà presente un boss che andrà sconfitto.

Modalità Jump
Oltre all'avventura principale è presente un minigioco chiamato Jump (Salto) nel quale il giocatore deve scegliere tra tre diverse difficoltà: facile, medio e difficile, dopo tale scelta dovrà guidare Bomberman in un percorso in salita dove bisognerà far saltare il personaggio fra una piattaforma ed un'altra eliminando i blocchi con le bombe ed acquisendo dei potenziamenti per arrivare alla cima.

Funzione GB Kiss
Nella versione originale giapponese fu incluso il supporto per il servizio GB Kiss della Hudson Soft, il quale permetteva di accedere ad altri minigiochi aggiuntivi ed a livelli personalizzati da altri giocatori che potevano essere trasferiti nella memoria di backup del gioco tramite una porta a infrarossi incorporata nella cartuccia. Questa caratteristica fu rimossa dalla versione internazionale.

Note

Collegamenti esterni

Bomberman

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


as a san francisco giants fan who spent years suffering through the steroid-soaked douchery of barry bonds, i can completely emphasize with your dilemma.
The fact that the Steelers have won the most Super Bowls and are about to tie for the most Super Bowl appearances EVAR makes Pittsburgh the new team to hate. That's just what happens to winning franchises. But the fact that Rapelisberger is still at the QB helm after two sexual assault incidents makes the hateration more legit. Brace yourself for the fallout.
it's enough to make one root for the packers. feh.
@Jen, spoken like a true Cowboy fan.
I am all Steelers, all the time, and those bastards have forced me to boycott Superbowl this year. We're about to find out how well a Terrible Towel absorbs tears.
@Mr Lady just peeped your blog. i think i love you!


I believe this glitch is from birthday viz feature which would send a pm saying I got 5000 viz. I am unable to view the pm or delete it and it has been saying I got new message for months now and can't get rid of it.
Should be a somewhat easy fix.


text:
Vector Bundles On Algebraic Curves
to get instant updates about 'Vector Bundles On Algebraic Curves' on your MyPage. Meet other similar minded people. Its Free!
In mathematics, vector bundles on algebraic curves may be studied as holomorphic vector bundles on compact Riemann surfaces. which is the classical approach, or as locally free sheaves on algebraic curves C in a more general, algebraic setting (which can for example admit singular points).
Some foundational results on classification were known in the 1950s. The result of Alexander Grothendieck, that holomorphic vector bundles on the Riemann sphere are sums of line bundles, is now often called the Birkhoff–Grothendieck theorem, since it is implicit in much earlier work of G. D. Birkhoff on the Riemann–Hilbert problem.
Michael Atiyah gave the classification of vector bundles on elliptic curves.
The Riemann–Roch theorem for vector bundles was proved in 1938 by André Weil, before the 'vector bundle' concept had really any official status. In fact, though, associated ruled surfaces were classical objects. See Hirzebruch–Riemann–Roch theorem for his result. He was in fact seeking a generalization of the Jacobian variety, by passing from holomorphic line bundles to higher rank. This idea would prove fruitful, in terms of moduli spaces of vector bundles. following on the work in the 1960s on geometric invariant theory.
A. Grothendieck, Sur la classification des fibrés holomorphes sur la sphère de Riemann, Amer. J. Math., 79 (1957), 121–138
M. Atiyah, Vector bundles over an elliptic curve, Proc. London Math. Soc. VII (1957), 414–52, in Collected Works......
No feeds found
Posting your question. Please wait!...
Type your question here
Answered questions | Questions
No updates available.
No messages found
"); document.getElementById('ajaxnav').src = org_domain+"/mockpage?hash="+windowlocator.getHash(); } function showEditPage(url) { if(loggedin==false) signin(); else plotLightBoxShareThisOnMypage(url); } window.onscroll = function(){pageScrolled();}
Tell your friends >
for companies, colleges, celebrities or anything you like.Get updates on MyPage.
Find friends on MyPage from
- Rediffmail
- Orkut & Gmail
- Yahoo


A recent email from individuals at James Madison University is soliciting information for a Lyme study.
The study descriptor uses the name of the "Lyme Disease Association" in the "Benefits" section, making it appear that the Lyme Disease Association (LDA) is associated with and/or supports the study. To the contrary, the LDA knows nothing about the study, its principles, or its purpose and therefore, has not taken a position on the study and is not endorsing or supporting it. The LDA has requested University officials to remove its name from the study announcement multiple times, and this request has been denied. The LDA is sorry about any confusion this has caused patients who have been inquiring about the study.


FIRE > Freedom of Speech & Expression > Content Neutrality > BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM v. SCOTT HAROLD SOUTHWORTH, et al.
Whether a mandatory fee system at a state university subverts First Amendment rights of students who oppose supporting financially speech they dislike.
Citing its 1995 decision in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the court found that if a university has decided its mission is to encourage and facilitate speech on campus then it is entitled to institute a mandatory student fee system. But that fee system must be viewpoint neutral in the allocation of student funding. In Rosenberger, the court found that University of Virginia could not constitutionally withhold funds from a Christian student publication. When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints over others, the court ruled.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT*218 *219 Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Stevens and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 236.Susan K. Ullman, Assistant Attorney General of Wisconsin, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were James E. Doyle, Attorney General, and Peter C. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General.
*220 Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
For the second time in recent years we consider constitutional questions arising from a program designed to facilitate *221 extracurricular student speech at a public university. Respondents are a group of students at the University of Wisconsin (hereinafter University). They brought a First Amendment challenge to a mandatory student activity fee imposed by petitioner Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and used in part by the University to support student organizations engaging in political or ideological speech. Respondents object to the speech and expression of some of the student organizations. Relying upon our precedents which protect members of unions and bar associations from being required to pay fees used for speech the members find objectionable, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals invalidated the University's student fee program. The University contends that its mandatory student activity fee and the speech which it supports are appropriate to further its educational mission.
We reverse. The First Amendment permits a public university to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate extracurricular student speech if the program is viewpoint neutral. We do not sustain, however, the student referendum mechanism of the University's program, which appears to permit the exaction of fees in violation of the viewpoint neutrality principle. As to that aspect of the program, we remand for further proceedings.
The University of Wisconsin is a public corporation of the State of Wisconsin. See Wis. Stat. § 36.07(1) (1993-1994). State law defines the University's mission in broad terms: "to develop human resources, to discover and disseminate knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses and to serve and stimulate society by developing in students heightened intellectual, cultural and humane sensitivities . . . and a sense of purpose." the Rutherford Institute by John W. Whitehead and Steven H. Aden; and for Owen Brennan Rounds et al. by Thomas H. Nelson. *222 § 36.01(2). Some 30,000 undergraduate students and 10,000 graduate and professional students attend the University's Madison campus, ranking it among the Nation's largest institutions of higher learning. Students come to the renowned University from all 50 States and from 72 foreign countries. Last year marked its 150th anniversary; and to celebrate its distinguished history, the University sponsored a series of research initiatives, campus forums and workshops, historical exhibits, and public lectures, all reaffirming its commitment to explore the universe of knowledge and ideas.
The responsibility for governing the University of Wisconsin System is vested by law with the board of regents. § 36.09(1). The same law empowers the students to share in aspects of the University's governance. One of those functions is to administer the student activities fee program. By statute the "[s]tudents in consultation with the chancellor and subject to the final confirmation of the board [of regents] shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities." § 36.09(5). The students do so, in large measure, through their student government, called the Associated Students of Madison (ASM), and various ASM subcommittees. The program the University maintains to support the extracurricular activities undertaken by many of its student organizations is the subject of the present controversy.
It seems that since its founding the University has required full-time students enrolled at its Madison campus to pay a nonrefundable activity fee. App. 154. For the 19951996 academic year, when this suit was commenced, the activity fee amounted to $331.50 per year. The fee is segregated from the University's tuition charge. Once collected, the activity fees are deposited by the University into the accounts of the State of Wisconsin. Id., at 9. The fees are drawn upon by the University to support various campus services and extracurricular student activities. In the University's *223 view, the activity fees "enhance the educational experience" of its students by "promot[ing] extracurricular activities," "stimulating advocacy and debate on diverse points of view," enabling "participa[tion] in political activity," "promot[ing] student participa[tion] in campus administrative activity," and providing "opportunities to develop social skills," all consistent with the University's mission. Id., at 154-155.
The allocable portion of the fee supports extracurricular endeavors pursued by the University's registered student organizations or RSO's. To qualify for RSO status students must organize as a not-for-profit group, limit membership primarily to students, and agree to undertake activities related to student life on campus. Id., at 15. During the 1995-1996 school year, 623 groups had RSO status on the Madison campus. Id., at 255. To name but a few, RSO's included the Future Financial Gurus of America; the International Socialist Organization; the College Democrats; the College Republicans; and the American Civil Liberties Union Campus Chapter. As one would expect, the expressive activities undertaken by RSO's are diverse in range and content, from displaying posters and circulating newsletters throughout the campus, to hosting campus debates and guest speakers, and to what can best be described as political lobbying.
RSO's may obtain a portion of the allocable fees in one of three ways. Most do so by seeking funding from the Student Government Activity Fund (SGAF), administered *224 by the ASM. SGAF moneys may be issued to support an RSO's operations and events, as well as travel expenses "central to the purpose of the organization." Id., at 18. As an alternative, an RSO can apply for funding from the General Student Services Fund (GSSF), administered through the ASM's finance committee. During the 1995-1996 academic year, 15 RSO's received GSSF funding. These RSO's included a campus tutoring center, the student radio station, a student environmental group, a gay and bisexual student center, a community legal office, an AIDS support network, a campus women's center, and the Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG). Id., at 16-17. The University acknowledges that, in addition to providing campus services (e. g., tutoring and counseling), the GSSF-funded RSO's engage in political and ideological expression. Brief for Petitioner 10.
The GSSF, as well as the SGAF, consists of moneys originating in the allocable portion of the mandatory fee. The parties have stipulated that, with respect to SGAF and GSSF funding, "[t]he process for reviewing and approving allocations for funding is administered in a viewpoint-neutral fashion," id., at 14-15, and that the University does not use the fee program for "advocating a particular point of view." Id., at 39.
A student referendum provides a third means for an RSO to obtain funding. Id., at 16. While the record is sparse on this feature of the University's program, the parties inform us that the student body can vote either to approve or to disapprove an assessment for a particular RSO. One referendum resulted in an allocation of $45,000 to WISPIRG during the 1995-1996 academic year. At oral argument, counsel for the University acknowledged that a referendum could also operate to defund an RSO or to veto a funding decision of the ASM. In October 1996, for example, the student body voted to terminate funding to a national student organization to which the University belonged. Id., at 215. Both parties *225 confirmed at oral argument that their stipulation regarding the program's viewpoint neutrality does not extend to the referendum process. Tr. of Oral Arg. 19, 29.
With respect to GSSF and SGAF funding, the ASM or its finance committee makes initial funding decisions. App. 14-15. The ASM does so in an open session, and interested students may attend meetings when RSO funding is discussed. Id., at 14. It also appears that the ASM must approve the results of a student referendum. Approval appears pro forma, however, as counsel for the University advised us that the student government "voluntarily views th[e] referendum as binding." Tr. of Oral Arg. 15. Once the ASM approves an RSO's funding application, it forwards its decision to the chancellor and to the board of regents for their review and approval. App. 18, 19. Approximately 30% of the University's RSO's received funding during the 1995-1996 academic year.
RSO's, as a general rule, do not receive lump-sum cash distributions. Rather, RSO's obtain funding support on a reimbursement basis by submitting receipts or invoices to the University. Guidelines identify expenses appropriate for reimbursement. Permitted expenditures include, in the main, costs for printing, postage, office supplies, and use of University facilities and equipment. Materials printed with student fees must contain a disclaimer that the views expressed are not those of the ASM. The University also reimburses RSO's for fees arising from membership in "other related and non-profit organizations." Id., at 251.
The University's policy establishes purposes for which fees may not be expended. RSO's may not receive reimbursement for "[g]ifts, donations, and contributions," the costs of legal services, or for "[a]ctivities which are politically partisan or religious in nature." Id., at 251-252. (The policy does not give examples of the prohibited expenditures.) A separate policy statement on GSSF funding states that an RSO can receive funding if it "does not have a primarily *226 political orientation (i. e. is not a registered political group)." Id., at 238. The same policy adds that an RSO "shall not use [student fees] for any lobbying purposes." Ibid. At one point in their brief respondents suggest that the prohibition against expenditures for "politically partisan" purposes renders the program not viewpoint neutral. Brief for Respondents 31. In view of the fact that both parties entered a stipulation to the contrary at the outset of this litigation, which was again reiterated during oral argument in this Court, we do not consider respondents' challenge to this aspect of the University's program.
The University's Student Organization Handbook has guidelines for regulating the conduct and activities of RSO's. In addition to obligating RSO's to adhere to the fee program's rules and regulations, the guidelines establish procedures authorizing any student to complain to the University that an RSO is in noncompliance. An extensive investigative process is in place to evaluate and remedy violations. The University's policy includes a range of sanctions for noncompliance, including probation, suspension, or termination of RSO status.
In March 1996, respondents, each of whom attended or still attend the University's Madison campus, filed suit in the *227 United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against members of the board of regents. Respondents alleged, inter alia, that imposition of the segregated fee violated their rights of free speech, free association, and free exercise under the First Amendment. They contended the University must grant them the choice not to fund those RSO's that engage in political and ideological expression offensive to their personal beliefs. Respondents requested both injunctive and declaratory relief. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in their favor, declaring the University's segregated fee program invalid under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), and Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1 (1990). The District Court decided the fee program compelled students "to support political and ideological activity with which they disagree" in violation of respondents' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. App. to Pet. for Cert. 98a. The court did not reach respondents' free exercise claim. The District Court's order enjoined the board of regents from using segregated fees to fund any RSO engaging in political or ideological speech.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. Southworth v. Grebe, 151 F. 3d 717 (1998). As the District Court had done, the Court of Appeals found our compelled speech precedents controlling. After examining the University's fee program under the three-part test outlined in Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507 (1991), it concluded that the program was not germane to the University's mission, did not further a vital policy of the University, and imposed too much of a burden on respondents' free speech rights. "[L]ike the objecting union members in Abood," the Court of Appeals reasoned, the students here have a First Amendment interest in not being compelled to contribute to an organization whose expressive activities conflict with their own personal beliefs. 151 F. 3d, at 731. It added that *228 protecting the objecting students' free speech rights was "of heightened concern" following our decision in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995), because "[i]f the university cannot discriminate in the disbursement of funds, it is imperative that students not be compelled to fund organizations which engage in political and ideological activities—that is the only way to protect the individual's rights." 151 F. 3d, at 730, n. 11. The Court of Appeals extended the District Court's order and enjoined the board of regents from requiring objecting students to pay that portion of the fee used to fund RSO's engaged in political or ideological expression. Id., at 735.
Three members of the Court of Appeals dissented from the denial of the University's motion for rehearing en banc. In their view, the panel opinion overlooked the "crucial difference between a requirement to pay money to an organization that explicitly aims to subsidize one viewpoint to the exclusion of other viewpoints, as in Abood and Keller, and a requirement to pay a fee to a group that creates a viewpoint-neutral forum, as is true of the student activity fee here." Southworth v. Grebe, 157 F. 3d 1124, 1129 (CA7 1998) (D. Wood, J., dissenting).
Other courts addressing First Amendment challenges to similar student fee programs have reached conflicting results. Compare Rounds v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Ed., 166 F. 3d 1032, 1038-1040 (CA9 1999); Hays County Guardian v. Supple, 969 F. 2d 111, 123 (CA5 1992), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 1087 (1993); Kania v. Fordham, 702 F. 2d 475, 480 (CA4 1983); Good v. Associated Students of Univ. of Wash., 86 Wash. 2d 94, 105, 542 P. 2d 762, 769 (1975) (en banc), with Smith v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 4 Cal. 4th 843, 862-863, 844 P. 2d 500, 513-514, cert. denied, 510 U. S. 863 (1993). These conflicts, together with the importance of the issue presented, led us to grant certiorari. 526 U. S. 1038 (1999). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is inevitable that government will adopt and pursue programs and policies within its constitutional powers but which nevertheless are contrary to the profound beliefs and sincere convictions of some of its citizens. The government, as a general rule, may support valid programs and policies by taxes or other exactions binding on protesting parties. Within this broader principle it seems inevitable that funds raised by the government will be spent for speech and other expression to advocate and defend its own policies. See, e. g., Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991); Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540, 548-549 (1983). The case we decide here, however, does not raise the issue of the government's right, or, to be more specific, the state-controlled University's right, to use its own funds to advance a particular message. The University's whole justification for fostering the challenged expression is that it springs from the initiative of the students, who alone give it purpose and content in the course of their extracurricular endeavors.
The University of Wisconsin exacts the fee at issue for the sole purpose of facilitating the free and open exchange of ideas by, and among, its students. We conclude the objecting students may insist upon certain safeguards with respect to the expressive activities which they are required to support. Our public forum cases are instructive here by close *230 analogy. This is true even though the student activities fund is not a public forum in the traditional sense of the term and despite the circumstance that those cases most often involve a demand for access, not a claim to be exempt from supporting speech. See, e. g., Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263 (1981). The standard of viewpoint neutrality found in the public forum cases provides the standard we find controlling. We decide that the viewpoint neutrality requirement of the University program is in general sufficient to protect the rights of the objecting students. The student referendum aspect of the program for funding speech and expressive activities, however, appears to be inconsistent with the viewpoint neutrality requirement.
We must begin by recognizing that the complaining students are being required to pay fees which are subsidies for speech they find objectionable, even offensive. The Abood and Keller cases, then, provide the beginning point for our analysis. Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977); Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1 (1990). While those precedents identify the interests of the protesting students, the means of implementing First Amendment protections adopted in those decisions are neither applicable nor workable in the context of extracurricular student speech at a university.
In Abood, some nonunion public school teachers challenged an agreement requiring them, as a condition of their employment, to pay a service fee equal in amount to union dues. 431 U. S., at 211-212. The objecting teachers alleged that the union's use of their fees to engage in political speech violated their freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Id., at 213. The Court agreed and held that any objecting teacher could "prevent the Union's spending a part of their required service fees to contribute to political candidates and to express political views unrelated to its duties as exclusive bargaining representative." *231 Id., at 234. The principles outlined in Abood provided the foundation for our later decision in Keller. There we held that lawyers admitted to practice in California could be required to join a state bar association and to fund activities "germane" to the association's mission of "regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services." 496 U. S., at 13-14. The lawyers could not, however, be required to fund the bar association's own political expression. Id., at 16.
The proposition that students who attend the University cannot be required to pay subsidies for the speech of other students without some First Amendment protection follows from the Abood and Keller cases. Students enroll in public universities to seek fulfillment of their personal aspirations and of their own potential. If the University conditions the opportunity to receive a college education, an opportunity comparable in importance to joining a labor union or bar association, on an agreement to support objectionable, extracurricular expression by other students, the rights acknowledged in Abood and Keller become implicated. It infringes on the speech and beliefs of the individual to be required, by this mandatory student activity fee program, to pay subsidies for the objectionable speech of others without any recognition of the State's corresponding duty to him or her. Yet recognition must be given as well to the important and substantial purposes of the University, which seeks to facilitate a wide range of speech.
In Abood and Keller, the constitutional rule took the form of limiting the required subsidy to speech germane to the purposes of the union or bar association. The standard of germane speech as applied to student speech at a university is unworkable, however, and gives insufficient protection both to the objecting students and to the University program itself. Even in the context of a labor union, whose functions are, or so we might have thought, well known and understood by the law and the courts after a long history of government *232 regulation and judicial involvement, we have encountered difficulties in deciding what is germane and what is not. The difficulty manifested itself in our decision in Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507 (1991), where different Members of the Court reached varying conclusions regarding what expressive activity was or was not germane to the mission of the association. If it is difficult to define germane speech with ease or precision where a union or bar association is the party, the standard becomes all the more unmanageable in the public university setting, particularly where the State undertakes to stimulate the whole universe of speech and ideas.
Just as the vast extent of permitted expression makes the test of germane speech inappropriate for intervention, so too does it underscore the high potential for intrusion on the First Amendment rights of the objecting students. It is all but inevitable that the fees will result in subsidies to speech which some students find objectionable and offensive to their personal beliefs. If the standard of germane speech is inapplicable, then, it might be argued the remedy is to allow each student to list those causes which he or she will or will not support. If a university decided that its students' First Amendment interests were better protected by some type of optional or refund system it would be free to do so. We decline to impose a system of that sort as a constitutional requirement, however. The restriction could be so disruptive and expensive that the program to support extracurricular speech would be ineffective. The First Amendment does not require the University to put the program at risk.
*233 The University may determine that its mission is well served if students have the means to engage in dynamic discussions of philosophical, religious, scientific, social, and political subjects in their extracurricular campus life outside the lecture hall. If the University reaches this conclusion, it is entitled to impose a mandatory fee to sustain an open dialogue to these ends.
The University must provide some protection to its students' First Amendment interests, however. The proper measure, and the principal standard of protection for objecting students, we conclude, is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of funding support. Viewpoint neutrality was the obligation to which we gave substance in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995). There the University of Virginia feared that any association with a student newspaper advancing religious viewpoints would violate the Establishment Clause. We rejected the argument, holding that the school's adherence to a rule of viewpoint neutrality in administering its student fee program would prevent "any mistaken impression that the student newspapers speak for the University." Id., at 841. While Rosenberger was concerned with the rights a student has to use an extracurricular speech program already in place, today's case considers the antecedent question, acknowledged but unresolved in Rosenberger: whether a public university may require its students to pay a fee which creates the mechanism for the extracurricular speech in the first instance. When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others. There is symmetry then in our holding here and in Rosenberger: Viewpoint neutrality is the justification for requiring the student to pay the fee in the first instance and for ensuring the integrity of the program's operation once the funds have been collected. We conclude that the University of Wisconsin may sustain *234 the extracurricular dimensions of its programs by using mandatory student fees with viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle.
The parties have stipulated that the program the University has developed to stimulate extracurricular student expression respects the principle of viewpoint neutrality. If the stipulation is to continue to control the case, the University's program in its basic structure must be found consistent with the First Amendment.
We make no distinction between campus activities and the off-campus expressive activities of objectionable RSO's. Those activities, respondents tell us, often bear no relationship to the University's reason for imposing the segregated fee in the first instance, to foster vibrant campus debate among students. If the University shares those concerns, it is free to enact viewpoint neutral rules restricting offcampus travel or other expenditures by RSO's, for it may create what is tantamount to a limited public forum if the principles of viewpoint neutrality are respected. Cf. id., at 829-830. We find no principled way, however, to impose upon the University, as a constitutional matter, a requirement to adopt geographic or spatial restrictions as a condition for RSOs' entitlement to reimbursement. Universities possess significant interests in encouraging students to take advantage of the social, civic, cultural, and religious opportunities available in surrounding communities and throughout the country. Universities, like all of society, are finding that traditional conceptions of territorial boundaries are difficult to insist upon in an age marked by revolutionary changes in communications, information transfer, and the means of discourse. If the rule of viewpoint neutrality is respected, our holding affords the University latitude to adjust its extracurricular student speech program to accommodate these advances and opportunities.
Our decision ought not to be taken to imply that in other instances the University, its agents or employees, or—of *235 particular importance—its faculty, are subject to the First Amendment analysis which controls in this case. Where the University speaks, either in its own name through its regents or officers, or in myriad other ways through its diverse faculties, the analysis likely would be altogether different. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991); Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983). The Court has not held, or suggested, that when the government speaks the rules we have discussed come into play.
It remains to discuss the referendum aspect of the University's program. While the record is not well developed on the point, it appears that by majority vote of the student body a given RSO may be funded or defunded. It is unclear to us what protection, if any, there is for viewpoint neutrality in this part of the process. To the extent the referendum substitutes majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality it would undermine the constitutional protection the program requires. The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated with the same respect as are majority views. Access to a public forum, for instance, does not depend upon majoritarian consent. That principle is controlling here. A remand is necessary and appropriate to *236 resolve this point; and the case in all events must be reexamined in light of the principles we have discussed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In this Court, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Justice Souter, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer join, concurring in the judgment.
The majority today validates the University's student activity fee after recognizing a new category of First Amendment interests and a new standard of viewpoint neutrality protection. I agree that the University's scheme is permissible, but do not believe that the Court should take the occasion to impose a cast-iron viewpoint neutrality requirement to uphold it. See ante, at 233-234. Instead, I would hold that the First Amendment interest claimed by the student respondents (hereinafter Southworth) here is simply insufficient to merit protection by anything more than the viewpoint neutrality already accorded by the University, and I would go no further.
The parties have stipulated that the grant scheme is administered on a viewpoint neutral basis, and like the majority I take the case on that assumption. The question before us is thus properly cast not as whether viewpoint neutrality is required, but whether Southworth has a claim to relief from this specific viewpoint neutral scheme. Two sources of law might be considered in answering this question.
"`It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail "the four essential freedoms" of a university—to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.' " Id., at 263 (citations omitted).
These broad statements on academic freedom do not dispose of the case here, however. Ewing addressed not the relationship between academic freedom and First Amendment burdens imposed by a university, but a due process challenge to a university's academic decisions, while as to them the case stopped short of recognizing absolute autonomy. Ewing, supra, at 226, and n. 12. And Justice Frankfurter's discussion in Sweezy, though not rejected, was not adopted by the full Court, Sweezy, supra, at 263 (opinion concurring in result). Our other cases on academic freedom thus far have dealt with more limited subjects, and do not compel the conclusion that the objecting university student is without a First Amendment claim here. While we have spoken in terms of a wide protection for the academic freedom *239 and autonomy that bars legislatures (and courts) from imposing conditions on the spectrum of subjects taught and viewpoints expressed in college teaching (as the majority recognizes, ante, at 232), we have never held that universities lie entirely beyond the reach of students' First Amendment rights. Thus our prior cases do not go so far as to control the result in this one, and going beyond those cases would be out of order, simply because the University has not litigated on grounds of academic freedom. As to that freedom and university autonomy, then, it is enough to say that protecting a university's discretion to shape its educational mission may prove to be an important consideration in First Amendment analysis of objections to student fees. Sweezy, supra, at 262-264 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result); Ewing, supra, at 226, n. 12.
The second avenue for addressing Southworth's claim to a pro rata refund or the total abolition of the student activity fee is to see how closely the circumstances here resemble instances of governmental speech mandates found to require relief. As a threshold matter, it is plain that this case falls far afield of those involving compelled or controlled speech, apart from subsidy schemes. Indirectly transmitting a fraction of a student activity fee to an organization with an offensive message is in no sense equivalent to restricting or modifying the message a student wishes to express. Cf. Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572-574 (1995). Nor does it require an individual to bear an offensive statement personally, as in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 707 (1977), let alone to affirm a moral or political commitment, as in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 626-629 (1943). In each of these cases, the government was imposing far more directly and offensively on an objecting individual than collecting *240 the fee that indirectly funds the jumble of other speakers' messages in this case.
Next, I agree with the majority that the Abood and Keller line of cases does not control the remedy here, the situation of the students being significantly different from that of union or bar association members. Ante, at 230; see Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977); Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1 (1990). First, the relationship between the fee payer and the ultimately objectionable expression is far more attenuated. In the union and bar association cases, an individual was required to join or at least drop money in the coffers of the very organization promoting messages subject to objection. Abood, supra, at 211-213, 215; Keller, supra, at 13-14. The connection between the forced contributor and the ultimate message was as direct as the unmediated contribution to the organization doing the speaking. The student contributor, however, has to fund only a distributing agency having itself no social, political, or ideological character and itself engaging (as all parties agree) in no expression of any distinct message. App. 14-15, 34, 39, 41. Indeed, the disbursements, varying from year to year, are as likely as not to fund an organization that disputes the very message an individual student finds exceptionable. Id., at 39. Thus, the clear connection between fee payer and offensive speech that loomed large in our decisions in the union and bar cases is simply not evident here.
"[The program] is a congressional effort, not to abridge, restrict, or censor speech, but rather to use public money to facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a self-governing people. Thus, [the program] furthers, not abridges, pertinent First Amendment values." Id., at 92-93 (footnotes omitted).
*242 And we have recognized the same principle outside of the sphere of government spending as well. In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980), we rejected a shopping mall owner's blanket claim that "a private property owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others." Id., at 85 (footnote omitted). We then upheld the right of individuals to exercise state-protected rights of expression on a shopping mall owner's property, noting among other things that there was no danger that such a requirement would "`dampe[n] the vigor and limi[t] the variety of public debate.'" Id., at 87, 88 (quoting Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 257 (1974) (alteration in original)). The same consideration goes against the fee payer's speech objection to the scheme here.
Third, our prior compelled speech and compelled funding cases are distinguishable on the basis of the legitimacy of governmental interest. No one disputes the University's assertion that some educational value is derived from the activities supported by the fee, ante, at 232-233; supra, at 237, whereas there was no governmental interest in mandating union or bar association support beyond supporting the collective bargaining and professional regulatory functions of those organizations, see Abood, supra, at 223-224; Keller, supra, at 13-14. Nor was there any legitimate governmental interest in requiring the publication or affirmation of propositions with which the bearer or speaker did not agree.Wooley, 430 U. S., at 716-717; Barnette, 319 U. S., at 640-642.
Finally, the weakness of Southworth's claim is underscored by its setting within a university, whose students are inevitably required to support the expression of personally *243 offensive viewpoints in ways that cannot be thought constitutionally objectionable unless one is prepared to deny the University its choice over what to teach. No one disputes that some fraction of students' tuition payments may be used for course offerings that are ideologically offensive to some students, and for paying professors who say things in the university forum that are radically at odds with the politics of particular students. Least of all does anyone claim that the University is somehow required to offer a spectrum of courses to satisfy a viewpoint neutrality requirement. See Rosenberger, supra, at 892-893, and nn. 11-12 (Souter, J., dissenting). The University need not provide junior years abroad in North Korea as well as France, instruct in the theory of plutocracy as well as democracy, or teach Nietzsche as well as St. Thomas. Since uses of tuition payments (not optional for anyone who wishes to stay in college) may fund offensive speech far more obviously than the student activity fee does, it is difficult to see how the activity fee could present a stronger argument for a refund.
In sum, I see no basis to provide relief from the scheme being administered, would go no further, and respectfully concur in the judgment.
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of New York et al. by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York, Preeta D. Bansal, Solicitor General, Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General, Laura Etlinger, Assistant Attorney General, and Mark B. Rotenberg, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Thurbert E. Baker of Georgia, Thomas R. Keller of Hawaii, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, and Paul G. Summers of Tennessee; for the State of Oregon by Hardy Myers, Attorney General, David Schuman, Deputy Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Jon G. Furlow, Steven R. Shapiro, Elliot M. Mincberg, and Judith E. Schaeffer; for the American Council on Education et al. by Stephen S. Dunham, Leonard M. Niehoff, and Sheldon E. Steinbach; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Jonathan P. Hiatt, James B. Coppess, and Laurence Gold; for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law by Scott D. Makar, Robert Bergen, Michael J. Frevola, and Burt Neuborne; for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Campus Center at UWMadison et al. by Patricia M. Logue and Ruth E. Harlow; for the National Legal Aid Defenders Association, Student Legal Services Section, by Ned R. Jaeckle and Kathleen A. Cushing; for the National Education Association by Robert H. Chanin, Andrew D. Roth, and Michael D. Simpson; for the New York Public Interest Research Group by Alexander R. Sussman; for the Student Press Law Center et al. by Lucy A. Dalglish; for Student Rights Law Center, Inc., by Mitchel D. Grotch; for the United States Student Association et al. by David C. Vladeck and Alan B. Morrison; for United Council of University of Wisconsin Students, Inc., by Mark B. Hazelbaker; for the University of California Student Association by Michael S. Sorgen and Amy R. Levine; and for the Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group et al. by Daniel H. Squire, Craig Goldblatt, and Francisco Medina.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Atlantic Legal Foundation by Martin S. Kaufman and Edwin L. Lewis III; for the American Center for Law and Justice by Jay Alan Sekulow, Mark Nathan Troobnick, and James Matthew Henderson, Sr.; for the Christian Legal Society by Steven T. McFarland, Samuel B. Casey, and Thomas C. Berg; for the Family Research Institute by Roy H. Nelson; for Liberty Counsel by Mathew D. Staver; for the National Legal Foundation by Barry C. Hodge; for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., by Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr.; for the National Smokers Alliance by Renee Giachino; for the Pacific Legal Foundation et al. by Deborah J. La Fetra; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Daniel E. Troy, Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar.
 I limit my examination of the case solely to the general disbursement scheme; I agree with the majority that the referendum issue was not adequately addressed in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, see ante, at 235 and this page, and I would say nothing more on that subject.
 Under its own reasoning, the majority need not reach the question whether viewpoint neutrality is required to decide this case. The University program required viewpoint neutrality, and both parties have stipulated that the funds are disbursed accordingly. Stipulation 12, App. 1415. If viewpoint neutrality is a sufficient condition, the majority could uphold the scheme here on that limited ground without deciding whether it is a necessary one.
 We have long recognized the constitutional importance of academic freedom. See Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 195 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250 (1957) (plurality opinion); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 487 (1960); Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967).
 Our university cases have dealt with restrictions imposed from outside the academy on individual teachers' speech or associations, id., at 591-592; Shelton v. Tucker, supra, at 487; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, supra, at 236; Wieman v. Updegraff, supra, at 184-185, and cases dealing with the right of teaching institutions to limit expressive freedom of students have been confined to high schools, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 262 (1988); Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 677 (1986); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 504 (1969), whose students and their schools' relation to them are different and at least arguably distinguishable from their counterparts in college education.
 Indeed, acceptance of the most general statement of academic freedom (as in the South African manifesto quoted by Justice Frankfurter) might be thought even to sanction student speech codes in public universities.
 I have noted in other contexts that the act of funding itself may have a communicative element, see Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 892-893, n. 11 (1995) (dissenting opinion); National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U. S. 569, 611, n. 6 (1998) (dissenting opinion), but there is no allegation that such general expression is objectionable here, nor is it clear that such a claim necessarily raises substantial First Amendment concerns in light of the speech promoting and educational aspects of this expression. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 92-93 (1976) (per curiam). See also infra this page and 241-243.
 True, one does not have to go to college, but one does not have to own real estate or receive a dividend.
 Unlike the majority, I would not hold that the mere fact that the University disclaims speech as its own expression takes it out of the scope of our jurisprudence on government directed speech. We have never generally questioned a university's "spacious discretion" to allocate public funds. See Rosenberger, supra, at 892 (Souter, J., dissenting) (citing Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991), and Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983)).
 Of course, I believe that even a government program that promotes a broad range of expression is subject to the specific prohibition on government funding to promote religion, imposed by the Establishment Clause. See Rosenberger, supra, at 882 (Souter, J., dissenting).
 The legitimacy of the governmental objective here distinguishes the case in my view from one brought by a university student who objected to supporting religious evangelism. See Rosenberger, supra, at 868-871 (Souter, J., dissenting).


text:
The Chinese Invasion, Sevilla Will Win the Europa League Again and more from #FootballThisPastWeek
by Rotimi "Papi the Great" Daramola - February 20, 2016 0
It's been a football-full week. Every day had one game or the other, one name or the other that made headlines. Bologna surprisingly holding Juventus to a goalless draw, Valencia and Gary Neville tearing their opponents apart, Barcelona and Messi. It was the week Mikel – of all people – scored a Champions League goal for Chelsea and CR7 stormed out of the press conference room.
Dramatic right? But there's more:
The Chinese Football Invasion!
No one knows exactly what's going on – I'm at least sure I don't – but China is the new go-to country for all things football. Forget England and Spain. Forget Man. City and PSG, the Chinese league and its clubs are splashing the cash effortlessly. It's like they're poaching European football. They're literally buying any player in sight!
The weird part? The players are responding! They're moving effortlessly. Some years back, it would have been weird for any player plying their trade in England or Germany to talk about finishing off in the Chinese league. It was either America's MLS or Australia's A-League (the Indian I league joined the fray too). All of a sudden, some players and their move to the home of the 'Great Wall' is now a "dream come true." Well, money does play an important role in making dreams come true right?
The UEFA Champions League is Back!
Good times are here again! Erm, I should have said instead, "Real football just started in Europe." It's the business-end of the UEFA Champions League. It's "go big or go home" time. Here the boys are seperated from the men and a goal is counted as two goals.
Weird right? But awesome too! And the stand-out clash – and obviously the stand-out game – was PSG vs Chelsea. It was a show of total domination by the Parisiens as they won 2 – 1. Why not? They were playing at home and had a certain Di Maria and Veratti in their arsenal which they utilized effectively. Di Maria especially. And then talk about Thiago Silva and David Luiz snuffing life out of Diego Costa but letting Mikel score. I'm sure Luiź wasn't expecting it. Before I forget, Cristiano Ronaldo must love to do his talking with his legs more than with his mouth. Why else do you storm out of a conference room and go on to score?
Sevilla WILL Win the Europa league, again!
Like the Champions League, the Europa League resumed action too. Yeah, that "very stressful" league. And guess who was back competiting for the trophy? You're right. They played against Molde and in all honesty, it felt like a mis-match in every sense of the word. Okay. Maybe it wasn't that bad. Maybe that was me exaggerating. Then again, maybe not.
The 'Moldeans' – what else do you call Molde players? – seemed to move fast. They seemed to be up to the task until Sevilla started knocking them around and doing what they do best in this league: press, press and press. To be more elaborate, they dictated the pace at which their opponents chased the game. If they wanted the Molde players to run faster, they passed the ball around faster. If they wanted their opponents to catch their breaths, the boys from Spain kicked the ball around less faster. From start to finish, Unai Emery's Sevilla had that competitive, always-fighting-for-the-ball-possession edge. By the 72nd minute, they were already 3 up. So much for being in your comfort zone. The Europa League is back and Sevilla will win it, again! No disrespect to the remaining 31 teams.
Worthy mentions
Can we give Barcelona the La Liga title now?
Cheers to a great weekend of football!!
Rotimi is a football lover whose love for the game translates into writing about the beautiful game, talking about the game and some times getting into 'profitable' arguments. You can engage him on Twitter @rotdav
Tagged Barcelona Chelsea Chinese football league Cristiano Ronaldo Europa League Mikel PSG UEFA Champions League
Man. Utd Fans Hate van Gaal, Charlie Austin is Special and more from the Man. Utd vs Southampton Game
Liverpool vs Manchester City: The Carling Cup Final Story


Re: Cans.....Whats on your head?
The cx300 are better than you get with the stock iPod buds no question.I used them for a month to try out as a loaner and found them very mid orientated,lows were bloated.as well,when walking,I could hear plenty of ambient noise around me,wind,traffic,etc..Cables very thin and prone to break.
There are much better than those out there.
In the world of headphones and amplifiers,there are so many out there and so many small manufactures that it can hard to keep up.sound is very subjective and synergy is important between components. One headphone amp may or may not sound good with a specific headphone and vice versa.
Pete,I think the etymotic is incredibly detailed but not for everyone. Note that I have several and all have different tones,I tend to enjoy a slightly darker warmer sound,therefore the sennheiser hd 600 and westone um2.I tried those shures and they were not for me.
In hifi,you generally fall into the grado or sennheiser camp sound signature.
Iem universal- Shure or westone.
But again so many out there,dozens and most on the higher end are all good.
Nice cans out there - I have a number gathered over a period of time.
I have a small philips behind headset for monitoring when making field recordings.
I use these. They're cheap and available in a wide variey of sizes but do sound rather tinny.
My backup cans are AKG-240s.
I use to use those but they hurt my ears when I would listen to music while sleeping.
Wow, nice upgrade, Headonist!!! Have a breathtaking journey!!!
you must post some pics when you get it all together. They sound like they might be amazing.
Sure thing, Seren. The Grados looks good too I must say.
The Grado's sound brilliant too. I'm hearing sounds in my own music i had not heard before.
and the stereo imaging is fantastic. on my other headphones things are imaged 'sort of here' and 'sort of there' but these are really precise. There's a Kodo track where one of the drummers walks around the others and you can really see and hear him do it.
Interesting how the audiophile take on Headphones seems to be changing.
Pete, I havn't read that review. But then I don't read much reviews at all. I mostly hang around on forums like head-fi and a few local (swedish) ones. Thanks anyway! I'll just go ahead and read it right now.
The parcel contains three smaller packages and also a bag with cables.
A close-up on Meier-Audio Corda Classic (headphone-amplifier).
A close-up on Meier-Audio Corda StageDAC (DAC).
Installed on my desktop. Yes, I use the computer as source.
A close-up on everything when it is installed.
Wow, I have gear lust like I haven't had in a long time. I have some nice mid-range headphones but nothing high-end like these T1s. Lovely!
Love the unpacking photos! thank you!


text:
4/23/2010 - WIAA Executive Board, Representative Assembly Meet
4/19/2010 - High School State Music Competition This Weekend
4/14/2010 - WIAA Executive Board Meets: Notes From the March 2010 Meeting
WIAA Executive Board, Representative Assembly Meet
Annual Meeting to Discuss Proposed Amendments
RENTON, WA (Friday, April 23, 2010) – The WIAA Executive Board concluded its April meeting today, Friday, April 23, 2010.
The Executive Board voted to restructure the state basketball tournament format beginning with the 2010-11 school year. Under the new format, 16 teams from each classification will compete in the first round at regional sites February 25-26. From this round, eight teams will advance to a state site for the second, third and fourth rounds of the tournament March 3-5. There will be three state championship sites, with two classifications at each site. Sites and classification distribution have yet to be determined. The second, third and fourth rounds will be a modified double elimination format.
The Executive Board minutes, summary and agenda from the April meeting will be available on the WIAA Web site.
Five proposed amendments were approved by the WIAA Representative Assembly at its annual meeting on Friday, April 23, 2010 at the Spirit of Washington Event Center in Renton. The Assembly, comprised of school personnel from around the state, meets annually for the purpose of voting on proposed amendments to the WIAA Handbook. An amendment must receive a 60% majority approval to be ratified.
While there was a healthy discussion on adding lacrosse as a sanctioned sport, the financial impact on the member schools dissuaded voters and the amendment did not pass.
Below is a summary of the approved amendments that take effect beginning with the fall 2010 season.
# RULE SUMMARY
HS #5 17.5.0 August 1 out-of-season date will automatically be waived in specific situations
ML #7 52.64.1* ML basketball players may play two ML games a day, four times in a season
ML/HS #8 52.7.0* Requires a running clock if a 40-point differential rule is reached in basketball
HS #9 53.3.1 5 Baker games is the same as 1 regular game (bowling)
HS #10 57.4.5 Freshmen who play in 3 quarters or less may play in a fifth quarter
*New article
(ML=Middle Level; HS=High School)
Full text of the approved amendments and the minutes from the 2010 Representative Assembly will be available on the WIAA Web site.
The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association exists to assist member schools in operating student programs that foster achievement, respect, equity, enthusiasm and excellence in a safe and organized environment.


Go au naturale....with your deodorant that is!
I have been on the search for a chemical/aluminum free deodorant (that ACTUALLY works) for forever! I have tried probably every brand that Whole Foods offers and the results were....TERRIFYING! I smelled like a 13 year old boy by the end of the day. GROSS!! After tons of research and reading endless reviews I came across LAVANILA. It has rave reviews...as in almost no bad reviews at all. I immediately ordered 2 from Sephora (vanilla lavender and vanilla blackberry) and was sooo excited to try them out. Well, the reviews are correct - this stuff ACTUALLY works! Yay!!! It's a miracle!
Click here to order your LAVANILA now!
Ughhhh. I just took back some sea salt deodorant that did NOT work and made me itch like crazy - and I just ordered a bunch from sephora like 2 days ago. Looks like I'll be making a trip to the city!


below will be targeted at your experience and sense of design. Use tips from experts and letter format envelope apartment. Each resume template features a matching job cover letter template. Simply choose your best and begin today!


Once you've successfully integrated Leadfeeder to your Salesforce, and you have configured your Salesforce view, you can connect leads to Salesforce leads, accounts and opportunities. These may already exist in Salesforce, or you can create new ones directly from the Leadfeeder UI.
STEP 2: First, you need to choose if you want to include existing visits from that lead in your Salesforce's account/lead. They'll show up in the section called Leadfeeder visits. Alternatively, you can setup the integration to send only future visits of that Leadfeeder lead to Salesforce.
b) Connect to an existing account/lead in Salesforce.
STEP 4: After connecting a lead with Salesforce, visits will appear as you can see in the screenshot below.
NOTE: With the Lightning UI, it will look a bit different.