text:
Home > Netbooks vs. Tablets Guide
Netbooks vs. Tablets Guide
Home > FAQs > PC+ Life FAQs > Netbooks vs. Tablets
Netbooks vs. Tablets: What is the difference?
Combining portability with accessibility, netbooks and tablets allow users to stay connected while on-the-go. Since their inception in 2007, netbooks have helped users enjoy the simplified features of a compact and lightweight computing tool.
Tablets such as Apple's popular iPad proved to rival low-cost netbooks by offering additional components and capabilities in an even more compact package. There's a specific market for each option that varies based on user's needs.
Netbooks are mostly favored for their compact size, weight and ease of use. They provide a no-frills, simple solution to tackling basic computing needs from just about anywhere. With an average LCD screen size ranging between 8.9 and 10 inches and weighing an average 2.5 to 3 pounds, netbook users can easily transport and set up their computer in almost any setting. Complete with a keyboard and input outlets like a USB and ethernet drives, netbooks most closely resemble a laptop than any other computing option. In order to compensate for their reduced size, netbooks run on less robust processing systems, which are not equipped to handle large amounts of media storage.
By contrast, tablets provide a happy medium between a laptop and a smartphone. Tablet users enjoy the greater portability and lightweight features of tablets in addition to the added functionalities that are not available on most smartphones.
Touch-screen capabilities allow for quick navigation when browsing the Internet, downloading files, streaming video and sharing files. Tablets tend to run at higher price points than netbooks due to the added capabilities and versatility. These portable devices were built to run like an enlarged version of a smartphone with the capabilities of a desktop computer. Most tablets feature the latest Windows or iOS operating systems for added reliability and productivity. Tablet owners are able to utilize different software programs through the use of applications.
Netbooks vs. Laptops: What is the difference?
While a netbook may be similar in many ways to a laptop, there are some differences, including the following:
Size: Netbooks are considered ultra-portable alternatives to a laptop owing to their compact size. Average LCD screen size ranges between 8.9 and 10 inches compared to an average laptop screen size of 15.4 inches. Note that screen size for both netbooks and laptops is measured diagonally from one corner to the other.
Hardware: Compared to laptops, netbooks are equipped with less hard drive space and processing power. Laptops can have upward of 250GB of hard drive space whereas notebooks average 16GB. In terms of processing power, laptops generally are equipped with dual-core or quad-core CPUs (central processing units) making them faster and more efficient at processing information and multitasking functions. Input options: Laptops and netbooks typically host the same input options including ethernet and USB (Universal Serial Bus) ports, although laptops are less limited in size and are able to provide more input options than netbooks. Unlike most laptops, netbooks are not equipped with optical disk drives, meaning netbook users are unable to play CDs or DVDs on their devices.
Price: On average, netbooks tend to cost a fraction of a regular priced laptop. Users should keep in mind that the cheaper netbooks also contain a fraction of hard drive space, processing power and size.
How do I choose between a netbook and a laptop?
Factors to consider when choosing between a netbook and laptop portable computer vary depending on your individual needs. Netbooks and laptops provide similar offerings with varied degrees of functionality, so when shopping for a netbook or laptop, it's important to consider these important points:
Netbook Pros:
Lightweight and compact, making netbooks easy to transport
Fewer components mean netbooks are a fraction of the cost of a new laptop
Battery life tends to last longer due to less power consumption
SDD (solid-state drive) vs. hard drive allows for faster access to data that is available
Netbook Cons:
Optical disk drives used for playing CDs or DVDs are not included
Lacks ability to support or upgrade to current operating systems
Uses lower-end processors meaning reduced processing speed for graphics and streaming media
Reduced amount of storage space for movies, pictures and documents
Laptop Pros:
Dual-core or quad-core CPUs (central processing units) make them faster and more efficient for streaming media
Larger hard drive supports storage for movies, pictures and documents
Carry the latest operating system with capabilities to easily update newer versions when necessary
Laptop Cons:
More expensive than netbooks
Slightly larger and heavier to transport
Higher processing power and usage abilities mean battery life may run out quicker
What are the benefits of a tablet?
Tablets offer a variety of benefits for fast and efficient computing anywhere you go. There's no match for the tablet when combining multi-tasking abilities with portability. Whether you travel for work, are in school or a frequent vacationer, tablets easily fit in a purse, backpack or briefcase. Although smartphones also provide quick access to information, the small screen and touch pad make for a less satisfying experience when compared to a tablet.
Tablets allow users to read e-books, video chat, stream media, use e-mail, browse the Internet and share files, all with a simple tap or swipe of a finger. Equipped with the latest and most powerful operating systems, such as the Apple iOS or the Windows version, you can count on the same reliability from your tablet that you would expect from a home computer. You can personalize your user experience by downloading applications that fit your daily computing needs. Tied in with cloud computing software, tablets can also be used for sharing and collaborating with peers, co-workers and family members with the tap of a screen.
To provide users with a similar experience they would expect from a full-size computer, the average tablet contains the following features: accelerometers, gyroscopes, graphics processors, flash-based memory, WiFi and cellular chips and antennas, USB dock and power supply, speakers, camera sensors, chips and lenses and a touch screen controller chip.


text:
Breaking therapy resistance of follicular lymphoma
Follicular lymphoma is the most common type of slow-growing blood cancer. [Credit: E. Oricchio et al., Science Translational Medicine (2017)]
Swiss researchers have found a way to prevent the multiple disease relapses after responses to follicular lymphoma therapy.
A lot of therapies but no cures exist for follicular lymphoma (FL), which is the second most common type of non-hodgkin's lymphoma. A Swiss-Canadian research team led by Elisa Oricchio from EFPL in Lausanne has now identified the driver mutation, which prevents response to targeted therapies. Within the 6q region of chromosome No. VI, which is missing in 25-30% of follicular lymphoma cases, the researchers screened 81 genes for for their ability to promote uncontrolled cell growth in culture and uncovered SESTRIN1 as a potential tumour suppressor.
Knocking down the SESTRIN1 gene in mouse models accelerated FL development. Tumours lacking SESTRIN1 also did not respond to an experimental targeted therapy for follicular lymphoma called GSK126. In addition, Oricchio and colleagues discovered that GSK126's target, the histone methyl transferase EZH2, turns on SESTRIN1, to prevent tumour cells from making proteins.
Interestingly, some lymphomas have mutant forms of EZH2, which the scientists found can render those cancers sensitive to a new class of targeted therapies known as bifunctional mTOR inhibitors. According to the authors, efforts to develop lymphoma therapeutics should take into account how mutations in SESTRIN1 and EZH2 might influence the effectiveness of anticancer interventions.
Early-stage ventures fighting AMR wanted!
The official application process for the Start-up competition @AMR Conference 2022 has started. Early-stage ventures fighting drug resistant...
Evotec goes for massive IPO on Nasdaq
The Hamburg-based company announced that it has commenced a public offering in the USA of up to 22,000,000 American Depositary Shares. The price of...
Quell raises US$156m for Treg cell therapy programme
The financing round was co-led by Jeito Capital, Ridgeback Capital Investments, SV Health Investors and Fidelity Management & Research Company...
Sanofi acquires therapeutic acne vaccine
Privately-owned Origrimm, based in Vienna, develops a vaccine-based immunotherapy against acne. ORI-001 is potentially the first-in-class vaccine...
EU orders up Valneva's inactivated Covid-19 vaccine
The European Commission has approved an agreement with Valneva under which the French vaccine maker would supply up to 60 million doses of VLA2001,...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Full Case Name: Gordon Helmer ANDERSON, Respondent, Maxine Anderson, Plaintiff, v. Office of Appellate Courts Neil Raymond CHRISTOPHERSON, Respondent, Dennis Christopherson, Appellant
Country of Origin: United States Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota Primary Citation: 816 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 2012) Date of Decision: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 Judge Name: PAGE, Justice Jurisdiction Level: Minnesota Alternate Citation: 2012 WL 2913222 (Minn.) Judges: Dietzen Page Gildea J. C.J. Attorneys: James S. Ballentine, William R. Sieben, Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent Gordon Helmer Anderson. Chad D. Dobbelaere, Tewksbury & Kerfeld, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent Neil Raymond Christopherson. Troy A. Poetz, Victoria A. Lupu, Rajkowski Hansmeier, Ltd., St. Cloud, Minnesota, for appellant Dennis Christopherson. Wilbur W. Fluegel, Fluegel Law Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association for Justice. Dyan J. Ebert, Garin L. Strobl, Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association Docket Num: No. A11–0191
This appeal asks two questions: whether defendant-dog owners (Christophersons) were strictly liable under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 for plaintiff Anderson's injuries suffered when he attempted to break up a fight between defendants' and plaintiff's dogs; and (2) whether one of the defendants was an "owner" for purposes of this law. In the case at hand, the court found that the events leading to Anderson's injury could produce three reasonable alternative inferences such that summary judgment was inappropriate. The court found there was an issue whether the father Dennis Christopherson was "harboring" the dog at the home for purposes of the animal owner liability statute.
*1 1. The question of whether defendants' dog directly and immediately produced injury under the dog owner's liability statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2010), is a question of fact for the jury.
2. The question of whether defendant harbored a dog under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 is a question of fact for the jury.
PAGE, Justice.
This case requires us to interpret the Minnesota dog owner's liability statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2010). Respondent Gordon Helmer Anderson (Anderson) was injured during an attack on his dog, Tuffy, by a dog named Bruno, owned by respondent Neil Raymond Christopherson. Anderson, along with his wife, Maxine Anderson, sued Neil Christopherson and his father, appellant Dennis Christopherson, arguing, among other claims, that the Christophersons are strictly liable for Anderson's injuries under Minn.Stat. § 347.22. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the Christophersons, holding that: (1) the Christophersons are not liable under the statute because Bruno's conduct was not focused on Anderson; and (2) Dennis Christopherson is not liable because he was not an "owner" of Bruno, as that term is defined under the statute. The court of appeals reversed, holding that summary judgment was inappropriate because: (1) a dog owner may be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a dog's affirmative conduct regardless of the focus of that conduct; and (2) there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Anderson's injury was a direct and immediate result of Bruno's conduct and whether Dennis Christopherson was an owner of Bruno under the statute. Dennis Christopherson sought review, and we now affirm.
Gordon Anderson lives in Andover with his dog, a 20–pound miniature schnauzer named Tuffy. On September 27, 2009, at approximately 2 p.m., Anderson was walking with Tuffy on a leash on Kiowa Street NW in Andover. When Anderson walked in front of a house but across the street on the block, a larger dog weighing approximately 50 pounds of unknown breed named Bruno ran out from the house across the street and bit Tuffy in the stomach. Anderson attempted to separate the dogs and may have kicked Bruno in the process of doing so. While trying to separate the two dogs, Anderson fell and broke his hip. Although the duration of the entire incident was short—less than 20 seconds or so—Bruno did not release Tuffy until someone came out of the house and took control of Bruno.
*2 Neil Christopherson is Bruno's legal owner. Neither Neil nor his father, Dennis Christopherson, were present when Bruno attacked Tuffy. Dennis Christopherson (along with his wife, Kathleen) owns the house, but has not lived in Andover in several years. Both Neil and Dennis Christopherson reside in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. At the time of the incident, Neil Christopherson was visiting the house with his fiancée, Alice, which he does regularly with the permission of his parents. Neil Christopherson had permission from Dennis Christopherson both to visit the house and to bring Bruno, although Dennis Christopherson had only met Bruno once. Dennis Christopherson established rules governing Bruno's ability to stay at the house and was aware that Bruno was staying at the house on September 27, 2009.
In the complaint, Anderson alleges, among other things, that both Christophersons are liable under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 as owners of a dog who injured Anderson FN1 and under common-law negligence.FN2
The Christophersons moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Anderson's claims. Anderson moved for partial summary judgment on his claims, arguing: (1) the Christophersons were strictly liable for his injuries under Minn.Stat. § 347.22; and (2) Dennis Christopherson was "harboring" Bruno within the meaning of that term under the statute. After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dennis Christopherson, dismissing all of the claims against him, and granted partial summary judgment dismissing the statutory claims against Neil Christopherson. The district court denied Anderson's motion in all respects. In granting the Christophersons' motions, the district court held that Bruno's focus on Tuffy precluded liability for the Christophersons under the court of appeals' decision in Mueller v. Theis, 512 N.W.2d 907, 910–11 (Minn.App.1994), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 28, 1994). The district court also held that Dennis Christopherson was not "harboring" Bruno within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 347.22 because he had not given Bruno lodging, shelter, or refuge for more than a limited duration of time or for more than a limited purpose. As a result of the conclusion that Dennis Christopherson was not harboring Bruno, the district court held that Dennis Christopherson owed no duty of care to Anderson and thus Anderson's claims for common-law negligence also failed. Finally, the district court concluded that because there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to Anderson's common-law negligence claims against Neil Christopherson, the court denied summary judgment for that claim.
Anderson appealed the grant of summary judgment on the statutory claims. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for trial, concluding that the district court erred in applying Minn.Stat. § 347.22. Anderson v. Christopherson, 802 N.W.2d 832, 834 (Minn.App.2011). We granted the petition for review filed by Dennis Christopherson.
*3 On review of a grant of summary judgment, we consider "(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and (2) whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law." J.E.B. v. Danks, 785 N.W.2d 741, 746 (Minn.2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). When determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, we view the evidence in the "light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted." Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the facts are undisputed. The application of a statute to undisputed facts involves a legal conclusion we review de novo. City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn.2008). We also review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 294, 300 (Minn.2010).
In order to determine whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Christophersons based on Bruno's conduct being too attenuated to confer liability, we are required to construe Minn.Stat. § 347.22, the Minnesota dog owner's liability statute. In its entirety, section 347.22 states:
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term "owner" includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term "dog" includes both male and female of the canine species.
We have previously held that the dog owner's liability statute imposes absolute liability on any dog owner whose dog "attacks or injures" another. Engquist v. Loyas, 803 N.W.2d 400, 406 (Minn.2011); Lewellin ex rel. Lewellin v. Huber, 465 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn.1991) ("[L]iability is absolute. It makes no difference that the dog owner may have used reasonable care; negligence is beside the point. Past good behavior of the dog is irrelevant. Neither the common law affirmative defenses nor statutory comparative fault are available to the defendant dog owner. (The owner does, however, have the defenses of provocation and failure of the injured person to conduct himself peacefully while in a lawful place.)").
We discussed the reach of the phrase "attacks or injures" extensively in Lewellin. See id. at 64–66. A dog "attacks" when it " 'move[s] against with more or less violent intent, implying aggressiveness in any sense and the initiative in the onset .' " Id. at 64 (quoting Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 140 (1971)). An attack includes dog bites. Id. The phrase "injures" in the statute covers "a dog's affirmative but nonattacking behavior which injures a person who is immediately implicated by such nonhostile behavior." Id. We gave two non-exclusive examples of nonattacking dog behavior encompassed by the statute: "when a dog exuberantly jumps upon or unintentionally runs into a person and injures that person." Id. We went on to explain: "[W]hen a dog attacks a person without provocation, there is no attenuated chain of causation between the attack and the injury. The cause of the injury sustained is itself the gist of the statutory wrong. Similarly, it is intended that there be no attenuated chain of causation when the dog 'injures' a person." Id. With respect to causation under the statute, the "phrase 'attacks or injures' contemplates action by a dog that directly and immediately produces injury to the person the dog attacks or injures ." Id. at 65.
*4 Since Lewellin, the court of appeals has attempted to define the contours of the term "injures" and the legal causation standard under Minn.Stat. § 347.22. In Mueller v. Theis, the court of appeals created a two-pronged test: "that the dog's conduct be focused on the injured party and that the injury be the direct and immediate result of that focus." 512 N.W.2d at 910–11. Noting that the focus requirement is inconsistent with Lewellin 's discussion of proximate cause, the court of appeals in the instant case held that Lewellin contained no such "focus" rule. Anderson, 802 N.W.2d at 836; Lewellin, 465 N.W.2d at 64–65.
The court of appeals was correct in its holding that Lewellin contains no such focus requirement, and we reject the focus requirement articulated by the court of appeals in Mueller. The correct question to be answered under Lewellin is whether the dog's conduct was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries such that injury was the direct and immediate result. 465 N.W.2d at 65. Lewellin requires that the dog's actions constitute an affirmative act that injures someone immediately implicated by the act, and that the act be the proximate cause of the injuries. Id. at 64. Generally, under the common law, as we said in Lubbers v. Anderson, "proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury; however, where reasonable minds can arrive at only one conclusion, proximate cause is a question of law." 539 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Minn.1995). We have also said that, "for a party's negligence to be the proximate cause of an injury, 'the act [must be] one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was likely to result in injury to others ... though he could not have anticipated the particular injury which did happen .' " Id. at 401 (quoting Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett, 490 N.W.2d 108, 113 (Minn.1992)). Under the dog-injury statute, "[p]roximate cause is rarely a disputed issue because the statutory phrase 'attacks or injures' contemplates action by a dog that directly and immediately produces injury to the person the dog attacks or injures." Lewellin, 465 N.W.2d at 65. In order to be subject to the statute, "legal causation for absolute liability under the statute must be direct and immediate, i.e., without intermediate linkage." Id.
While it is true as we said in Lewellin that legal causation is rarely disputed under the dog owner's liability statute, it is also true that on occasion proximate cause will be disputed. See id. Proximate cause is ordinarily a question that arises in negligence actions, see, e.g., Lubbers, 539 N.W.2d at 401, although it also arises in other contexts such as cases involving absolute liability like the dog owner's liability statute. See, e . g., Yennie v. Dickey Consumer Prods., Inc., No. C1–00–89, 2000 WL 1052175, at *1 (Minn.App. Aug.1, 2000) (holding that to prevail on a failure-to-warn claim under Minnesota law, a plaintiff must establish that the lack of an adequate warning caused plaintiff's injuries under an ordinary proximate cause analysis); Marcon v. Kmart Corp., 573 N.W.2d 728, 731 (Minn.App.1998) (holding in a strict liability failure-to-warn case that plaintiff must prove that the alleged "defect was the proximate cause of the injury sustained"), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 14, 1998); J & W Enters., Inc. v. Economy Sales, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 179, 181 (Minn.App.1992) (stating that under "any theory of products liability, the plaintiff must show a causal link between the alleged defect and the injury" (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Rodriguez v. Glock, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1070 (N.D.Ill.1998) ("The labyrinthian concept of proximate cause is the same in negligence and strict liability in tort."); McCarthy v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 916 F.Supp. 366, 372 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ("To state a claim in either negligence or strict liability a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's breach was the proximate cause of her injuries.").
*5 On the record before us, we conclude that the question of whether Anderson's injuries were a direct and immediate result of Bruno's actions is a question about which reasonable minds may differ and therefore is a question of fact for the jury. On the record here there are at least three reasonable, alternative inferences that can be drawn from the facts: (1) that the attack on Tuffy caused Anderson's fall and injuries; (2) that the attack on Tuffy caused Anderson to intervene to protect Tuffy, resulting in the fall and injuries, with Anderson's intervention being a direct and immediate response; or (3) that the attack on Tuffy caused Anderson to respond but broke the chain of causation. On the facts presented, therefore, a reasonable jury could conclude that Anderson's injury was directly and immediately produced by Bruno's actions and was not so attenuated from Bruno's attack on Tuffy that it compels the conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Anderson's injuries were proximately caused by that attack. Bruno's attack on Tuffy was an affirmative act that prompted Anderson's response. Anderson was holding Tuffy on a short, non-retractable leash, so it is unclear whether Anderson's intervention into the fight was voluntary. The duration of the attack was short–20 seconds or less. Anderson stated in his deposition that, immediately following the attack, the "next thing [he] knew, [he was] on the ground." In Lewellin, in which we concluded that the chain of events was too attenuated to constitute legal causation, the causation chain had several links: the dog was riding in the backseat of a car and put its head into the driver's face, distracting the driver, who tried to settle the dog and lost control of the car, which went off the road and killed a child at the roadside. Lewellin, 465 N.W.2d at 66. Given the three reasonable, alternative inferences from the evidence in the record, summary judgment is inappropriate and it is for the jury to decide these fact questions.
The remaining issue is whether Dennis Christopherson is an "owner" of Bruno within the meaning of that term in Minn.Stat. § 347.22. In identifying persons responsible for the conduct of a dog that attacks or injures, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 provides: "[T]he owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term 'owner' includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable." An "owner" thus includes a harborer and a keeper but the legal, registered owner is primarily liable. Minn.Stat. § 347.22. A person "keeping" a dog is a person who "either with or without the owner's permission undertakes to manage, control or care for it as dog owners in general are accustomed to do." Verrett v. Silver, 309 Minn. 275, 277, 244 N.W.2d 147, 149 (1976). In other words, a keeper acts as if he or she is the owner but without legal ownership of a dog. A person "harboring" a dog is a person who affords lodging, shelters, or gives refuge to a dog for a limited purpose or time. Id. This is because keeping requires " more than the mere harboring" of a dog, or harboring itself would simply be the same as "keeping." Id. (emphasis added). However, harboring must involve "something more than a meal of mercy to a stray dog or the casual presence of a dog on someone's premises." Id.
*6 In Gilbert v. Christiansen, we clarified that an apartment manager who did not have the right to exercise control inside a tenant's apartment was not a harborer. 259 N.W.2d 896, 897 (Minn.1977). In quoting the Restatement (Second) of Torts, we noted that neither the "mere right to exclude" nor "[t]he possession of the land on which the animal is kept, even when coupled with permission given to a third person to keep it" were sufficient to convert the landlord of a property into a harborer under the statute. Id. at 897 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 514 cmt. a (1977)). The Restatement comment to section 514 states that "a person harbors a dog or cat by permitting his wife, son or household servant to keep it in the house or on part of his land that is occupied by the family as a group." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 514 cmt. a (1977). We also observed that a defendant who permits a person with a dog to stay at the defendant's house while the defendant was on vacation could be enough to qualify the defendant as "harboring" the dog within the meaning of the statute. Gilbert, 259 N.W.2d at 897 n. 1.
Dennis Christopherson argues that the facts in this case establish as a matter of law that his conduct does not rise to the level of harboring Bruno; as a mere owner of the Andover house, his relationship to Bruno is too attenuated to make him a harborer and is more analogous to that of an absentee landlord. See Gilbert, 259 N.W.2d at 897. The district court, in ruling in favor of Dennis Christopherson on this issue, relied on a court of appeals opinion that stated in dicta that "[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court has defined harboring as giving lodging, shelter, or refuge to a dog for longer than a limited time or for more than a limited purpose." Tschida v. Berdusco, 462 N.W.2d 410, 411 (Minn.App.1990) (citing Verrett, 309 Minn. at 277, 244 N.W.2d at 149), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 20,1990).
There is no dispute that Neil Christopherson is the legal, registered owner of Bruno. Thus, Neil Christopherson is primarily liable for Bruno's conduct. See Minn.Stat. § 347.22. Additionally, Dennis Christopherson is liable as an "owner" if he harbored Bruno under the statute. Under Verrett, a harborer's interactions with a dog may be for a limited period of time or for a limited purpose, so long as they involve more than a stray meal or allowing a dog's casual presence on the premises. Verrett, 309 Minn. at 277, 244 N.W.2d at 149.FN3 Gilbert also requires that a harborer do more than exercise control over land upon which a dog resides.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Anderson, we conclude that a jury could reasonably find that Dennis Christopherson was affording lodging, providing shelter, or giving refuge to Bruno by allowing his son to keep Bruno at Dennis Christopherson's Andover home. Dennis Christopherson considered Neil welcome at the home in Andover, the Christopherson family was very close and lived next door to each other in Sioux Falls, and the Andover house was Neil's childhood home. In addition, Neil Christopherson had permission to bring Bruno to the Andover house, had discussions with his parents about rules and regulations for Bruno's conduct while in Andover, and was responsible for helping with maintenance while staying at the Andover house. Thus, on these facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that Dennis Christopherson harbored Bruno. See Verrett, 309 Minn. at 277, 244 N.W.2d at 149; accord Restatement (Second) of Torts § 514, cmt. a (1977). On that basis, we conclude that the court of appeals did not err when it remanded the question of whether Dennis Christopherson harbored Bruno to the district court for trial.
*7 We therefore affirm the court of appeals and remand for a jury trial on both the question of whether Anderson's injuries were caused by Bruno's conduct under Minn.Stat. § 347.22, and also the question of whether Dennis Christopherson was an "owner" of Bruno under Minn.Stat. § 347.22.
GILDEA, Chief Justice (dissenting).
*7 The majority holds that there is a question of fact as to the Christophersons' liability under the dog-bite statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2010). Because our precedent establishes that the Christophersons are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, I respectfully dissent.
Respondent Gordon Anderson testified that while he was walking his dog Tuffy, respondent Neil Christopherson's dog Bruno charged at Tuffy, "bit him in the chest [and] hung on." Anderson tried to break the two dogs up, fell, and was injured. Specifically, Anderson explained that he lost his balance "because [he was] in the midst of trying to separate [Bruno] from Tuffy." Anderson brought negligence and strict liability claims against respondents. The district court granted the Christophersons' summary judgment motion on the strict liability claims and on Anderson's negligence claim against appellant Dennis Christopherson. The court of appeals reversed. The majority affirms the court of appeals, holding that there is an issue for trial on Anderson's strict liability claim. I disagree.
The strict liability claim is based on the dog-bite statute, Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (2010). See Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 809 (Minn.1981) (noting that with the dog-bite statute, "the legislature has decided to impose liability without fault, or strict liability, upon the owner of the dog"). Under that statute, "[i]f a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured." Minn.Stat. § 347.22.
The dog's owner is liable under the dog-bite statute if the dog "attacks" the plaintiff or if the dog "injures" the plaintiff. See Lewellin v. Huber, 465 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn.1991) (noting the two different verbs, attacks or injures, in the statute and concluding that "it would appear that the legislature intended the verb 'injures' to cover a dog's affirmative but nonattacking behavior which injures a person"). Anderson conceded at oral argument that the portion of the statute that addresses a dog "attack" is not at issue in this case. The majority's reliance on the fact that Tuffy was on a leash when Bruno bit Tuffy therefore is misplaced. Simply put, Bruno did not attack Anderson; Bruno attacked Tuffy. Anderson recognizes these undisputed facts and he does not argue that respondents are liable to him because Bruno attacked him.
Rather, Anderson contends that respondents are liable under the statute because Bruno "injure[d]" Anderson. We addressed the "injures" portion of the dog-bite statute in Lewellin. We held in Lewellin that for a dog owner to be liable under the "injures" portion of the statute, the dog must be the "direct and immediate" cause of the plaintiff's injury. Id. at 65–66. We described the concept of causation that applied to negligence claims as providing liability for "all injuries naturally and proximately resulting from the negligence." Id. at 65. Conversely, we stated that the dog-bite statute "intended that there be no attenuated chain of causation when the dog 'injures' a person." Id. at 64. Accordingly, we specifically rejected application of the broader common-law negligence formulation of proximate cause to liability under the dog-bite statute because that "elongate[d] ... causal chain ... would extend absolute liability beyond its intended purpose and reach." Id. at 65.
*8 In Lewellin, the dog was in the back seat of a car that one of the defendants was driving. The dog distracted the driver, and as the driver was "attempting to get the dog settled," the car struck and killed the plaintiffs' child. Id. at 63. The plaintiffs sued the driver and the dog's owner on behalf of their child, who was killed in the accident. Even though the dog's behavior set in motion the events that led to the child's death, we held, as a matter of law, that there was no liability under the statute. Id. at 66. We noted that the "dog's conduct was directed at the driver" and that "[t]he driver's subsequent efforts to handle the dog's distracting but nonattacking conduct introduced another link in the chain of causation." Id. Despite the probable existence of "causation in fact," we held that the "chain of events is too attenuated to constitute legal causation for the radical kind of liability that the statute imposes ." Id. In my view, Lewellin compels the conclusion that the Christophersons are not liable under the dog-bite statute.
Just as in Lewellin, the dog, Bruno, set in motion a chain of events that led to Anderson's injury. But also as in Lewellin, Bruno's conduct was not "directed at" Anderson, the injured party. See id. Bruno's conduct was directed elsewhere. It was Anderson's reaction to Bruno's conduct that caused Anderson's injury. As he confirmed at his deposition, Anderson was injured because he decided to intervene in the dog fight and attempted to break the two dogs up. That intervention "introduced another link in the chain of causation" that makes the chain too attenuated to support liability under the statute. See id.
I do not disagree with the majority that the factual attenuation in this case is not as remote as the factual attenuation in Lewellin. There, it was the driver's reaction to the dog's conduct that caused the driver to lose control of the car and collide with the child. Id. at 63. Here, it was Anderson's reaction to the dog's behavior that caused his own injuries. But this is a distinction without a difference for purposes of the rule. The rule of Lewellin requires that the dog's conduct be the "direct and immediate" cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Id. at 66. Given that something else intervened here between Bruno's conduct and Anderson's injury—Anderson tried to break up the dog fight—Bruno was not the direct and immediate cause of Anderson's injury under Lewellin. I therefore would hold that respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In reaching the opposite conclusion, the majority has effectively overruled Lewellin. Relying on cases that apply the common-law proximate cause standard, the majority finds that there is a question of fact for the jury to resolve in this case as to causation. But we rejected precisely this standard in Lewellin. Id. at 65. The majority articulates no reason for overruling Lewellin, much less the "compelling reason" our jurisprudence requires to support a reversal of precedent. SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Washburn–McReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855, 862 (Minn.2011) (noting that "[w]e are 'extremely reluctant to overrule our precedent ...' and 'require a compelling reason' to do so." (citation omitted)).
*9 The majority also does not articulate the fact question that the jury will be asked to decide. The majority instead argues that this case was wrongly decided on summary judgment because there are at least two reasonable inferences favorable to Anderson that could be drawn from the undisputed facts. But these inferences do not create an issue for the jury because they are not supported by the record and are inconsistent with our case law.
First, the majority states that a jury could find that "the attack on Tuffy caused Anderson's fall and injuries." This finding would be inconsistent with the "direct and immediate" statutory standard from Lewellin, 465 N.W.2d at 66. In addition, this inference is not supported in the record because Anderson conceded that he is not seeking relief under the "attack" portion of the statute. To the contrary, Anderson admitted that he fell as a result of his attempt to intervene.
Second, the majority asserts that a jury could find that "the attack on Tuffy caused Anderson to intervene to protect Tuffy, resulting in the fall and injuries, with Anderson's intervention being a direct and immediate response." But any such finding could not lead to liability under the statute. Under Lewellin, a dog owner is liable for injuries directly and immediately resulting from a dog's affirmative action—not the plaintiff's direct and immediate intervening response to a dog's action. 465 N.W.2d at 66. Indeed, the plaintiff's intervention served to "introduce[ ] another link in the chain of causation," making the strict liability statute inapplicable. Id. Concluding, as the majority does, that a dog owner is liable for a plaintiff's injuries under such circumstances makes a dog owner liable for the actions of the plaintiff. Creating liability for a dog owner not only when his dog directly and immediately injures the plaintiff, but also when the plaintiff is injured because the plaintiff decided to respond to the dog's actions, is not contemplated by the statute and is inconsistent with our case law.
In sum, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, acknowledging that there was no material fact in dispute. The majority even admits that "the facts are undisputed" in this case. The only question is whether the undisputed facts support liability under the dog-bite statute. That inquiry is one of law, and under Lewellin, the answer to the legal question is clear. I therefore would reverse the court of appeals.FN1
DIETZEN, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Chief Justice Gildea.
FN1. Minnesota Statutes § 347.22 provides, in full:
FN2. The complaint included a loss of consortium claim by Maxine Anderson, which was subsequently dismissed without prejudice based on the parties' stipulation.
FN3. The court of appeals' definition of "harborer" in Tschida does not correctly state the law as outlined in Verrett. Compare Verrett, 309 Minn. at 277, 244 N.W.2d at 149, with Tschida, 462 N.W.2d at 411. To the extent that the definition of "harboring" in Tschida is inconsistent with Verrett, Tschida is overruled.
FN1. Because I would hold that the Christophersons are entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the dog-bite statute, I would not reach the alternative issue raised as to whether Dennis Christopherson can be considered Bruno's owner for purposes of the statute.


text:
Світлана Олексіївна Юрчак ( , село Поториця, тепер Сокальського району Львівської області) — українська радянська діячка, старший флотатор збагачувальної фабрики Стебницького калійного заводу. Депутат Верховної Ради УРСР 11-го скликання.

Біографія
Народилася в селі Поториця Сокальського району (за іншими даними — в селі Потелич Жовківського району) Львівської області в родині робітника. Виростала без батька. З дванадцяти років навчалася в Львівській середній школі-інтернаті № 2.

У 1964 році закінчила Львівську середню школу-інтернат № 2. У 1965 році закінчила Львівське професійно-технічне училище № 28.

У 1965—1981 роках — апаратник, старший апаратник, флотатор збагачувальної фабрики Стебницького калійного заводу Львівської області.

Обиралася депутатом Стебницької селищної Ради народних депутатів у 1972—1975 роках, секретарем комсомольської організації збагачувальної фабрики, членом комітету ЛКСМУ Стебницького калійного заводу Львівської області.

Член КПРС з 1974 року.

З 1981 року — старший флотатор збагачувальної фабрики Стебницького калійного заводу Львівської області. Партгрупорг зміни збагачувальної фабрики, член профспілкового комітету Стебницького калійного заводу. З 1983 року — член Дрогобицького міського комітету КПУ Львівської області.

У 1986 році закінчила заочно Київський технологічний інститут харчової промисловості. З 1988 року працювала заступником головного лікаря Трускавецького санаторію «Янтар».

Потім на пенсії — в місті Києві.

Родина
Одружена. Чоловік — Орест Володимирович Юрчак, двоє дітей — Тарас та Ірина.

Нагороди
 орден Трудової Слави 3-го ступеня (1977)
 медалі

Література
 Депутати Верховної Ради УРСР. 11-е скликання — 1985 р.

Персоналії:Стебник
Персоналії за алфавітом
Депутати Верховної Ради УРСР 11-го скликання
Уродженці Поториці
Члени КПРС

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Home > Shop > International Chocolates Delivery>Italy>in Turin
Luxury Chocolate Gifts in turin
GUARANTEED EXPRESS DELIVERY TO TURIN
Shipping Rates & Timing in Turin
We deliver overnight and charge a flat fee of USD 20.18 up to 5 items sent to the same delivery address. Beyond 5 items per delivery address, the shipping cost is USD 7.85 per item. If your order is received before 2PM Central European time, your chocolates ship the same day. Please note that custom duties are not applicable since we are shipping within the European Union.
zChocolat has already successfully delivered 31,333 chocolate gifts to Italy.
Customer Service Hotline: +39.069.480.0031 local call from Italy or zcontact@zchocolat.com via email
What surprises most about Turin is the harmony of its urban panorama, surrounded by imposing peaks. The capital of Piedmont is a city with a unique charm, which has seen emperors pass by, where they were born from kingdoms, where power has left indelible traces. Turin is today a metropolis with its rich past but turned towards the future. It has the ambitions of a city that from a village at the foot of a mountain to the capital of a kingdom and a nation, but also of cinema and the automotive sector. Its refined essence is halfway between the sobriety and luxury typical of 19th century cities, with a youthful and effervescent appearance that is bestowed on it by the many terraces, cafés and wine bars, which from Castello Square, the historic "living room" of Turin, proliferate throughout the city.
The impervious treasures of the city, the palaces have made the history of the subalpine capital, which for centuries has been the heart of the Kingdom of the House of Savoy, but also the theatre of National Unity. The mansions which welcomed the kings and nobility of the time are of an extraordinary majesty. The starting point is, once again, Castello Square, with the Royal Palace, Madama Palace and Carignano Palace, the most important buildings of the city. The ideal route for a visit could be the "Corona delle Delizie" (crown of delights), the delightful residences that surround the city. Formerly hunting properties, they later became summer residences, among which the Royal Palace of Venaria stands out.
Luxury chocolate gifts delivered in Turin
zChocolat, world leader in luxury chocolate gift giving and Pascal Caffet, World Champion Chocolatier have been delivering their high-quality and premium French chocolates in Turin, Italy since November 1st 1999 and have always made a grand and lasting impression with gift recipients in Turin. Whether you are shipping to San Salvario, Crocetta, Cenisia, Cit Turin or any of the suburbs, zChocolat delivers high-end & exclusive French chocolates overnight and in perfect conditions.
Thankfully, unique temperature sensitive packaging and DHL Express delivery mean connoisseurs of zChocolat's all-natural, preservative-free confections can enjoy fine French chocolate anywhere in the world. Insulated delivery boxes keep your gift at the perfect temperature while a reflective outer layer provides additional protection from world-famous rays in Italy.
zChocolat in Turin
All our Signature Chocolates can be delivered in Turin and at any time of the year with our summer packaging depending on the season.
We also deliver chocolate gifts in the following places in Italy : chocolate delivery in Bari - gift delivery in Vicenza
The perfect choice for all European deliveries
Since we ship within Europe, our customers do not pay any custom duties when ordering our chocolates for delivery in Turin. Moreover, our shipping rates in Europe are very competitive! Lastly, our offices being also located in Europe in a GMT+1 time zone, we respond to gift recipients requests throughout the day very efficiently.
Customs duties in Turin
Local duties and tariffs may be applicable upon delivery in Turin, Such fees are not applied systematically and cannot be assessed in advance because they vary widely from 0% to 0% of the total declared value (invoice amount less shipping charge). If you send our chocolates as gifts, we make absolutely certain that your gift recipient does not pay any taxes upon delivery. We ship Delivery Duties Paid to Italy. If a duty fee is applied, we pay it on your behalf when making entry in Italy and bill you separately upon receipt of the local customs invoice several weeks after delivery. An invoice is sent to you via email at such time including a USD 16.82 processing fee. Please note that in some instances, the custom clearance process may delay delivery.
Custom duties are not applicable since we are shipping within the European Union.
Please note that we do not deliver in Italy on weekends (Saturdays & Sundays) and the following upcoming holidays:
2019-04-22 Easter Monday
2019-04-25 Liberation Day
2019-08-15 Assumption Day
2019-11-01 All Saints' Day
2019-12-08 Immaculate Conception
2019-12-25 Christmas
2019-12-26 Boxing Day
Turin (Torino in Italian, Turin in Piedmontese) is an Italian city, capital of the metropolitan city of Turin and the region of Piedmont. Turin was the capital of the Savoy States from 1563 to 1713, the Kingdom of Sicily from 1713 to 1720, the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1720 to 1861 and the Kingdom of Italy from 1861 to 1865. Turin was the first capital of modern Italy. Although it is not as famous as Rome or Florence, it is also a cultural centre. The city is crossed by the Po River and the Doire Baltea and is bordered by the Italian Alps. Turin is an important city for technology and industry. It is the seat of FIAT (Fabbrica Italiana Automobile Torino). The city hosted the 2006 Olympic Winter Games.
Things to do in Turin:
The Reale Polo is the ancient Royal Palace of Turin and several museums more impressive than others. It is the monumental heart of the capital of Piedmont.
The banks of the Po River offer a green stroll below the gentle wooded hills of the south of the city. A country atmosphere with a mix of herons, fishermen and joggers.
Look for a view of the city and the Alps in the background: Mont des Capucins, Superga basilica, beacon of victory. There is no shortage of places if the view is clear.
The religious buildings, such as the Basilica of Superga, the Great Madre (Church of the Great Mother of God), the Dome, the Consolata, the Crocetta, tell the history of the city of Turin and represent the best testimonies of the great architects who passed through it, among which we quote Filippo Juvara and Guarino Guarini.
The Dome preserves the Shroud of Turin, which is located more precisely in the Dome of Guarini, which caught fire in 1997 and is now fully restored.Thanks to the inheritance of the Royal House heritage, Turin preserves rare and precious treasures: weapons, jewellery, decorations. In the Royal Library, for example, the blood portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, one of the world's most famous portraits, is kept. The famous "Collegio dei Nobili" (College of the Nobles) has become the seat of the Egyptian Antiquities Museum, with a collection that boasts more than 5000 archaeological pieces. It is the second largest collection after Cairo.
The Galerie d' Art Moderne and the Château de Rivoli are certainly a must. The Mole Antonelliana (The Mole Antonelli) symbol of Turin, houses the Museum of Cinema: an installation that perfectly expresses the combination of tradition and progress. Turin is also known as the city of cinema and cinemas. The metropolis that saw the birth of the moving image - starting with Giovanni Pastrone's "Cabiria" of 1914, with texts by D' Annunzio - is today one of the Italian cities with the largest number of cinematographic theatres in relation to the number of inhabitants. Without forgetting the theatrical panorama, which manages to satisfy audiences with different tastes.
La Môle has seen a proliferation of structures, productions and companies, which occupy cultural giants such as the Stabile Theatre and the Regio Theatre, dedicated to opera, music and dance.
Turin Neighbourhoods
The Old City in its homogeneity offers several faces. In its oldest part, the Quadrilatero gathers along its narrow streets: antique dealers, nice bars and restaurants. A little further north, the more popular neighbourhood with immigrants who have recently (or not) arrived. Along the Po and under the hills, the beautiful neighborhoods alternate with quiet residential corners or places to go out on the side of San Salvario.
Turin is a royal city with its sumptuous castle, baroque churches, balanced squares and morgue-filled equestrian statues. Order reigns. A few industrial revolutions later, rehabilitated factories were added to the picture. The Egyptian art museum and the film museum are the most famous. The most impressive Polo Reale weapon gallery. The museum of contemporary art is worth a visit. An Asian art museum further on, a mountain museum higher up, exhibitions in palaces and you will understand that Turin is considered in Italy as a city of museums.
Eating, drinking and dancing in Turin
Turin is the city of Aperitivo, so much to say the happiness of those who eat well and a lot (buffet mode at will). It is also a city of pleasant terraces, charming restaurants and tasty specialities (bicerin, breadcrumbs, agnolotti, bagna caoda... A few clubs and concert halls add spice to it all.
Moving in Turin:
Turin is home to 900,000 inhabitants over 130 square kilometres, with 2.3 million in the metropolis. By proposing to host the Olympic Winter Games in 2006, Turin was to modernise its public transport system. It is done today, with a high-performance network composed of a metro, 10 tramways, buses and trains.


text:
Surrender or Starve
Travels in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and Eritrea
By Robert D. Kaplan
Part of Vintage Departures
Category: Travel: Africa | World Politics
Nov 11, 2003 | ISBN 9781400034529
About Surrender or Starve
Robert D. Kaplan is one of our leading international journalists, someone who can explain the most complicated and volatile regions and show why they're relevant to our world. In Surrender or Starve, Kaplan illuminates the fault lines in the Horn of Africa, which is emerging as a crucial region for America's ongoing war on terrorism.
Reporting from Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea, Kaplan examines the factors behind the famine that ravaged the region in the 1980s, exploring the ethnic, religious, and class conflicts that are crucial for understanding the region today. He offers a new foreword and afterword that show how the nations have developed since the famine, and why this region will only grow more important to the United States. Wielding his trademark ability to blend on-the-ground reporting and cogent analysis, Robert D. Kaplan introduces us to a fascinating part of the world, one that it would behoove all of us to know more about.
Also in Vintage Departures
Also by Robert D. Kaplan
See all books by Robert D. Kaplan
About Robert D. Kaplan
Robert D. Kaplan is the bestselling author of twenty books on foreign affairs and travel translated into many languages, including Adriatic, The Good American, The Revenge of Geography, Asia's Cauldron, Monsoon, The Coming Anarchy, and Balkan Ghosts. He holds the… More about Robert D. Kaplan
Published by Vintage
Nov 11, 2003 | 240 Pages | 5-3/16 x 8 | ISBN 9781400034529
Finding George Orwell in Burma
Emma Larkin
In Exile from the Land of Snows
John Avedon
The Masque of Africa
Ryszard Kapuscinski
The Last Mughal
Jonathan D. Spence
The Flamboya Tree
Clara Kelly
The Nations Within
Vine Deloria, Jr.
Rana Dasgupta
Arabian Sands
Wilfred Thesiger
"A writer of extraordinary intellect and passion . . .with a wonderfully lucid way of relating history as a living thing." —San Francisco Chronicle
"This vivid account . . . tells very convincingly a story which the author claims was almost entirely ignored by Western media, diplomats, and relief officials. Kaplan paints a horrific picture of often fatal cruelty." —Foreign Affairs
"Robert Kaplan is a scholarly and adventurous journalist. . . . He draws attention to long-term trends that other writers have little noted." —The New York Times
"Kaplan is a gritty travel reporter and commentator on foreign affairs known for providing no-nonsense political-historical overviews of the dicey places he visits." —The Washington Post Book World
Get the latest updates about Robert D. Kaplan


Join Stealth Power as We Attend the Fire Department Instructor's Conference (FDIC) International 2019!
Stealth Power will again be equipping a Braun custom ambulance with our idle reduction technology at FDIC.
Stealth Power and Braun Custom Ambulances are again joining forces for the Fire Department Instructor's Conference (FDIC) in Indianapolis today (April 11th, 2019).
Stealth Power's Sales Director, Bill Needles, will be at booth #4639 to showcase the latest in idle reduction technology and discuss real-time data for fleet managers.
Be sure to stop by the Braun booth today and mention #FDIC2019 on social media for updates during the conference.


text:
Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in the US: Longitudinal evidence from a nationally representative sample of adults from April–October 2020
Michael Daly, Eric Robinson
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239970
Michael Daly
1Department of Psychology, Maynooth University, Co. Kildare, Ireland
For correspondence: Michael.A.Daly@mu.ie
Eric Robinson
2Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Data/Code
Introduction Vaccines against COVID-19 have been developed in unprecedented time. However, the effectiveness of any vaccine is dictated by the proportion of the population willing to be vaccinated. In this observational population-based study we examined intentions to be vaccinated against COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic.
Methods We analyzed longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample of 7,547 US adults enrolled in the Understanding America Study (UAS). Participants reporting being willing, undecided and unwilling to get vaccinated against coronavirus across 13 assessments conducted from April-October, 2020. Public attitudes to vaccination against the coronavirus were also assessed.
Results Willingness to vaccinate declined from 71% in April to 53.6% in October. This was explained by an increase in the percentage of participants undecided about vaccinating (from 10.5% to 14.4%) and the portion of the sample unwilling to vaccinate (from 18.5% to 32%). The population subgroups most likely to be undecided/unwilling to vaccinate were those without a degree (undecided: RRR=2.47, 95% CI: 2.04-3.00; unwilling: RRR=1.92, 95% CI: 1.67-2.20), Black participants (undecided: RRR=2.18, 95% CI: 1.73-2.74; unwilling: RRR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.63-2.42), and females (undecided: RRR=1.41, 95% CI: 1.20-1.65; unwilling: RRR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.14-1.46). Those aged 65+, those on high incomes, and other race/ethnicity participants were least likely to be undecided or unwilling to vaccinate. Concerns about potential side effects of a vaccine were common.
Conclusions Intentions to be vaccinated against coronavirus have declined rapidly during the pandemic and close to half of Americans are undecided or unwilling to be vaccinated.
As of November, 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic has been responsible for more than 1.3 million deaths worldwide1. Potential vaccines against COVID-19 have been developed in unprecedented time and early findings suggest there are multiple candidate vaccines that may protect against infection and be suitable for mass roll out in the near future2,3. However, the overall effectiveness of any vaccine is dictated, at least in part, by the proportion of the population willing to be vaccinated.. Simulation studies suggest at least three quarters of the population may need to be vaccinated to extinguish the ongoing coronavirus pandemic4,5.
During the early stages of the pandemic (March-June), studies of small samples of European and Australian adults suggested that the majority of people surveyed reported that they would be vaccinated when a widely available vaccine was available6-7. Similarly, a nationally representative study of adults in China conducted in March found that 9 out of 10 would accept a vaccine when available8. US studies conducted early in the pandemic found that between 58% and 86% of adults reported they were likely to be vaccinated against COVID-196,9-11.
However, the rise of 'fake news' during the pandemic has been widely acknowledged11,12 and widespread misinformation about the pandemic may have been damaging to public uptake of measures designed to reduce the spread of the virus (e.g. mask-wearing, social distancing) and willingness to vaccinate10,13,14. In addition, because the speed at which coronavirus vaccines have been developed has been unprecedented and this has been widely reported2,3, this may have made the general public more hesitant about accepting a vaccine when available15,16. Furthermore, research indicates that in some countries public trust in government handling of the COVID-19 crisis has been negatively affected17 and this too may have detrimentally affected intentions to follow public health guidance.
COVID-19 has had a disproportionately large impact on ethnic minorities18 and groups from lower socioeconomic backgrounds19 and as infections will likely continue to be socially patterned, understanding whether population demographics determine willingness to vaccinate will also be important. For example, research examining previous influenza vaccination programmes has found that vaccination intentions and uptake are reduced among more disadvantaged groups20,21. Initial research examining coronavirus vaccination intentions has produced mixed findings on the role of demographic predictors, which may be due to a reliance to date on relatively small and non-representative samples to examine population subgroup differences9,10,22.
At present, there is a lack of up-to-date estimates of the proportion of the general population that would be willing to use a vaccine when available and it is unclear whether estimates of vaccination uptake collected much earlier in the pandemic have changed over time. It will be also important to understand whether intentions to vaccinate are socially patterned and more or less likely in specific population sub-groups, in order for public health messages to be directed at those who are least likely to vaccinate15,16. In the present research we therefore made use of data from the Understanding America Study (UAS), a large nationally representative panel of US adults who have reported their vaccine intentions on thirteen occasions from the outbreak of the pandemic through to October, 2020.
Study design and participants
This study utilized data collected as part of the Understanding America Study (UAS), a nationally representative longitudinal study of adults aged 18 and over. The UAS is a probability-based sample recruited via address-based sampling from the US Postal Service Computerized Delivery Sequence file containing all US postal addresses23. Participants complete surveys online and those without internet access are provided with tablet computers and internet access. Of 8547 UAS participants eligible to take part in the COVID-19 tracking study, 7547 participated and provided data across 13 waves of assessment conducted every two weeks between April 1st and October 31st, 202024.
In total, participants provided 80,060 observations across the 13 survey waves (average response rate of 81.6% among COVID tracking study participants). A small portion (2%) of observations were omitted because they were submitted after October 31st or were missing vaccination intentions or covariate data leaving a total of 78,453 observations (10.4 per participant). The UAS weights were applied to adjust for unequal probabilities of selection into the UAS. Post-stratification weights were also incorporated to provide a correction for non-response by aligning each survey wave with the distribution of demographic characteristics of the US population25.
In each survey wave participants indicated how likely there were to get vaccinated for coronavirus when a vaccine becomes available to the public on a five-point scale. Participants were classified as either: (1) Undecided (responses of 'unsure'), (2) Unwilling to vaccinate (responses of somewhat or very unlikely to vaccinate), or (3) Willing to vaccinate (responses of somewhat or very likely to vaccinate).
Vaccination intentions were predicted by month of survey (April, May, June, July, August, September, October) and a set of demographic variables: age (coded as 18-34, 35-44, 50-64, 65+), sex (coded as male, female), race/ethnicity (White, Hispanic, Black, Other race/ethnicity), household income (≤$40,00/$40,000–$100,000/ ≥$100,000 gross per annum), college degree (vs. none), and the presence of a chronic health condition (present vs. not present). Specifically, participants indicated whether they had been diagnosed with the following conditions: diabetes, cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, asthma, chronic lung disease, an autoimmune disease.
Participants also reported their level of agreement (from 1 = strongly disagree, to 4 = strongly agree) with nine items assessing their attitudes towards a potential vaccine (see Table 3 for items in full) in late October (14th-31st). Questions assessed participant beliefs that the COVID vaccine would be beneficial, important for personal and community health, and a good way to protect from coronavirus disease. Participants also indicated whether they agreed approved vaccines would be effective and whether they were concerned about the lack of long-term follow-up information and potential side effect of a COVID vaccine were assessed (e.g. "I think the COVID-19 vaccine might cause lasting health problems for me.").
First, we examined trends in vaccinate intentions over the period of the study by comparing the prevalence of willingness/undecided/unwillingness to vaccinate in April and October, 2020. To estimate the statistical significance of time trends we used multinomial logistic regression analysis with robust standard errors clustered at the individual-level. Those willing to vaccinate were compared to: (i) those undecided on vaccination, and (ii) those unwilling to vaccinate. A series of multinomial logistic regressions were run to identify if the relative risk of being undecided or unwilling to vaccinate increased from April to October for the overall sample and each population subgroup examined. This model contrasts the natural log [Pr(Willing to vaccinate)/Pr(Unwilling to vaccinate)] and natural log [Pr(Undecided on vaccination)/Pr(Unwilling to vaccinate)] estimates across different demographic groups to ascertain relative risk ratios (RRR).
Next, multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the extent to which survey month and different demographic factors predicted vaccination intentions. A single adjusted analysis was used to estimate the independent effect of each predictor variable (i.e. month of survey, age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, income, presence of a chronic condition) controlling for all others. In addition, we tested a separate model where interactions between survey month and participant demographics were added to our main model to test whether changes in vaccination intentions over time differed systematically between demographic groups.
All analyses incorporated the UAS sampling weights to generate nationally representative estimates. RRRs and 95% CIs were estimated using the Stata version 15 (Statacorp).
Participants were aged 47.2 (SD = 16.6) years on average, 52.1% were female, 34.2% had a college degree, and 64.1% were White, 17.8% Hispanic, 12.2% Black, and 5.9% Other race/ethnicity (see Table 1). On average, willingness to vaccinate declined from 71% in April to 53.6% in October. This was explained by an increase in the percentage of participants undecided about vaccinating against COVID-19 (from 10.5% to 14.4%) and the portion of the sample unwilling to vaccinate (from 18.5% to 32%), as shown in Table 1. A decrease in the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 between April and October was evident across all population subgroups examined (Table 1).
Sample characteristics of participants in the Understanding American Study (UAS; N = 7,547, Obs. = 78,453) and vaccination intentions in April and October, 2020.
An unadjusted multinomial logistic regression analysis confirmed that from April to October, 2020 there was a statistically significant higher risk of being undecided (RRR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.62-2.05) or unwilling (RRR = 2.29, 95% CI: 2.11-2.48) to be vaccinated versus being willing to get vaccinated (see Table S1). Unadjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses also showed that all population subgroups were more likely to be undecided or unwilling to vaccinate in October compared to April (Table S1). There was also an over 2-fold higher relative likelihood of being undecided or unwilling to get the COVID-19 vaccine in October compared to April, 2020 (undecided: RRR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.79-2.29; unwilling: RRR = 2.47, 95% CI: 2.27-2.68) in a fully adjusted model that included controls for participant demographic factors and the presence of chronic illness (Table 2). An examination of month-to-month changes confirmed that the likelihood of being undecided or unwilling to vaccinate (versus being willing to vaccinate) increased in a graded fashion from April to October, as shown in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 1.
Table S1.
Results of unadjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses examining the relative risk of being undecided or unwilling to vaccinate against COVID-19 in October compared to April, 2020.
Results of adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses examining demographic predictors and temporal changes in indecision and unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in the United States (N = 7,547, Obs. = 78,453).
Change in vaccination intentions across 13 waves of the Understanding America Study conducted between April 1st and October 31st, 2020. Graph is based on an analysis of 78453 observations on 7547 participants. Estimates are predicted probabilities from marginal effects calculated after a multinomial logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, educational attainment, and the presence of pre-existing health conditions. 95% confidence intervals are presented in grey.
When all observations from 13 survey waves were examined, those without a college degree were at elevated relative risk of being undecided or unwilling to vaccinate (undecided: RRR = 2.47, 95% CI: 2.04-3.00; unwilling: RRR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.67-2.20), as were Black participants (undecided: RRR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.73-2.74; unwilling: RRR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.63-2.42) and females (undecided: RRR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.20-1.65; unwilling: RRR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.14-1.46). In contrast, a reduced relative risk of being undecided or unwilling to vaccinate was found among those aged 65+ (undecided: RRR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.38-0.63 unwilling: RRR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.74), those on high household incomes (undecided: RRR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.32-0.50; unwilling: RRR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.71), and other race/ethnicity participants (undecided: RRR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40-0.82; unwilling: RRR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.71).
An examination of the interactions between survey month and individual demographic characteristics did not yield evidence for systematic differences in changes in vaccination intentions over time between demographic groups.
Finally, we examined attitudes towards the vaccine reported between October 14-31, 2020. The majority of the sample (70-80%) agreed that the COVID vaccine would be personally beneficial, important for personal and community health, a good way to protect from coronavirus disease, and effective if approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; see Table 3). However, responses differed markedly between those willing and unwilling to be vaccinated. For example, while 92% of those who were willing to be vaccinated agreed that the vaccine would be effective if approved by the FDA or CDC, only 43% of those unwilling to be vaccinated agreed. In the overall sample it was common for participants to report concerns over the vaccine and 69.7% agreed they were concerned about serious side effects of the vaccine. Forty-four % agreed the vaccine might cause lasting health problems for them. However, such concerns were more prevalent among those unwilling to be vaccinated. For example, 65% of this group were concerned about lasting health problems resulting from the vaccine compared to 27% of those willing to be vaccinated.
Attitudes Towards Vaccination against COVID-19 in the Understanding America Study assessed between October 14th and 31st 2020 (N = 5762).
In a large nationally representative sample of US adults, intentions to be vaccinated against COVID-19 have declined from a high of 71% of the population in April to close to only 54% reporting being willing to vaccinate in October, 2020. Reporting being undecided or unwilling to vaccinate was more likely among those with lower levels of education and income, females, Black (African American) and younger adults. Concerns about the vaccine causing long lasting health problems and uncertainty about the benefits of the vaccine were also common.
Based on estimates that vaccination coverage of close to 75% may be required to vaccinate to eradicate coronavirus4,5,10,26, our estimates that close to 50% of the population may be willing to vaccinate are concerning. It will now be critical to better understand the reasons why a large proportion of the population are sceptical about vaccination against COVID-19. Public concerns about the safety of vaccines may be an important driver of the increase in the proportion of the population reporting being unsure or explicitly stating they will not vaccinate10.
In line with this, 70% of the present sample reported being concerned about serious side effects of the vaccine and 44% believed that a vaccine might cause lasting health problems for them. To some extent these concerns are to be expected given the unprecedented speed at which vaccines have been developed2,3 and current lack of information on long-term safety of candidate vaccines. However, the rise of anti-vaccination misinformation (e.g. misleading healthcare information, conspiracy theories) may also have played a role in explaining this increase11-14,26. It will therefore be critical that accurate safety information is widely and transparently communicated by trusted sources to promote confidence in the scientific decision-making underpinning the approval of COVID-19 vaccines16,21.
It will also be important to address social inequalities in vaccination intentions20,21, and to ensure widespread uptake of effective COVID-19 vaccines. In the present study, willingness to vaccinate was strikingly lower among more disadvantaged groups (e.g. African Americans, those with lower income and education levels) and these groups have already been disproportionately affected by COVID-1918,19. Previous research on influenza vaccines also suggests that access issues may prevent minority and disadvantaged groups from being vaccinated21,27. It will therefore be important to identify strategies to reduce social inequalities in both vaccination intentions and opportunities to vaccinate20.
Strengths of the present research include the use of a large probability-based nationally representative sample of adults allowing generalizations to be made to the population. The current study also moves beyond prior research by including a high frequency longitudinal assessment of vaccination intentions throughout the pandemic. In addition, participant concerns and perceptions of the benefits of a potential vaccine were assessed to shed light on potential reasons for low willingness to vaccinate.
Limitations are our reliance on self-reported intentions and the lack of detailed assessment of factors that may explain why vaccination intentions have declined over time in the US. However, in advance of the deployment of a COVID vaccine it is necessary to rely on intention-based measures which have been shown to predict vaccination behavior27. Further, intentions are malleable and represent a target for evidence-based approaches aiming to increase the proportion of the population that are willing to vaccinate28. This now represents an urgent public health priority to minimize further loss of life due to the COVID-19 pandemic29. Finally, studies tracking vaccination attitudes including perceived health benefits and side-effects of vaccination, long-term health concerns, and the role of misinformation are now needed to provide an in-depth understanding of the drivers of changes in vaccine intentions.
Intentions to be vaccinated against coronavirus have declined rapidly during the pandemic and close to half of Americans are undecided or unwilling to be vaccinated. This reduced willingness to vaccinate may undermine the pandemic response and the public health benefits of an effective vaccine.
The research data are distributed by the USC Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research.
https://uasdata.usc.edu/index.php
Dr Daly had full access to the study data and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.
All authors.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data
Drafting of the manuscript
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content
Daly.
ER has previously received funding from Unilever and the American Beverage Association for unrelated research.
No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.
Funding statement
Unfunded research.
The project described in this paper relies on data from survey(s) administered by the Understanding America Study, which is maintained by the Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR) at the University of Southern California. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of USC or UAS. The collection of the UAS COVID-19 tracking data is supported in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and by grant U01AG054580 from the National Institute on Aging. However, these organizations bear no responsibility for the analysis or interpretation of the data.
World Health Organization (WHO). WHO COVID-19 Weekly Epidemiological Update. 2020: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update---24-november-2020
Lurie N, Saville M, Hatchett R, Halton J. Developing Covid-19 vaccines at pandemic speed. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):1969–73.
Callaway E. COVID vaccine excitement builds as Moderna reports third positive result. Nature. 2020;587(7834):337–338
Bartsch SM, O'Shea KJ, Ferguson MC, et al. Vaccine efficacy needed for a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine to prevent or stop an epidemic as the sole intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(4):493–503.
Iboi EA, Ngonghala CN, Gumel AB. Will an imperfect vaccine curtail the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.? Infect Dis Model. 2020;5:510–524.
Lazarus, J.V., Ratzan, S.C., Palayew, A. et al. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1124-9
Dodd RH, Cvejic E, Bonner C, et al. Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in Australia. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020:S1473-3099(20)30559-4. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30559-4
Wang J, Jing R, Lai X et al. Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Vaccines. 2020, 8, 482. doi:10.3390/vaccines8030482
Taylor S, Landry CA, Paluszek MM, Groenewoud R, Rachor GS, Asmundson GJ. A proactive approach for managing COVID-19: The importance of understanding the motivational roots of vaccination hesitancy for SARS-CoV2. Front Psychol. 2020:11:2890. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575950
Fisher KA, Bloomstone SJ, Walder J, et al. Attitudes toward a potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: A survey of U.S. adults. Ann Intern Med. 2020. doi: 10.7326/M20-3569
Romer D, Jamieson KH. Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the US. Soc Sci Med. 2020;263:113356. doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356
Kata A. A postmodern Pandora's box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine. 2010;28(7):1709–16
Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(10):201199.
Allcott H, Boxell L, Conway J. Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. J Public Econ 2020:doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254
Neumann-Böhme S, Varghese NE, Sabat I, et al. Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(7):977–82.
Bauchner H, Malani PN, Sharfstein J. Reassuring the public and clinical community about the scientific review and approval of a COVID-19 vaccine. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1296–7.
Fancourt D, Steptoe A, Wright L. The Cummings effect: politics, trust, and behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet. 2020;396(10249):464–5.
Townsend MJ, Kyle TK, Stanford FC. Outcomes of COVID-19: disparities in obesity and by ethnicity/race. Int J Obes. 2020;44,1807–09.
Lamb MR, Kandula S, Shaman J. Differential COVID-19 case positivity in New York City neighborhoods: Socioeconomic factors and mobility. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020; doi.org/10.1111/irv.12816
Endrich MM, Blank PR, Szucs TD. Influenza vaccination uptake and socioeconomic determinants in 11 European countries. Vaccine. 2009;27(30):4018-24. doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.04.029
Galarce EM, Minsky S, Viswanath K. Socioeconomic status, demographics, beliefs and A (H1N1) vaccine uptake in the United States. Vaccine. 2011;29(32):5284–9.
Reiter PL, Pennell ML, Katz ML. Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated? Vaccine. 2020;38(42):6500–7.
Alattar L, Messel M, Rogofsky D. An introduction to the Understanding America Study internet panel. Soc Sec Bull. 2018;78(2):13–28. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v78n2/v78n2p13.html.
Kapteyn A, Angrisani M, Bennett D, et al. Tracking the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of American households. Surv Res Methods. 2020;14(2):179–86. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2020.v14i2.7737
Angrisani M, Kapteyn A, Meijer E et al. Sampling and weighting the Understanding America Study. WP No. 2019-004. 2019. University of Southern California, Center for Economic and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3502405
Mills M, Rahal C, Brazel D et al. Rapid review: COVID-19 vaccine deployment: Behaviour, ethics, misinformation and policy strategies. 2020. The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-vaccine-deployment.pdf
Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C. Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behavior–a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005–2016. PLOS One. 2017;12(1):e0170550.
Wegwarth O, Kurzenhäuser-Carstens S, Gigerenzer G. Overcoming the knowledge– behavior gap: the effect of evidence-based HPV vaccination leaflets on understanding, intention, and actual vaccination decision. Vaccine. 2014;32(12):1388–93.
Paul E, Steptoe A, Fancourt D. Anti-vaccine attitudes and risk factors for not agreeing to vaccination against COVID-19 amongst 32,361 UK adults: Implications for public health communications. SSRN. 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3716874
Posted November 30, 2020.
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.
You are going to email the following Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in the US: Longitudinal evidence from a nationally representative sample of adults from April–October 2020
Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
medRxiv 2020.11.27.20239970; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.27.20239970
Addiction Medicine (127)
Allergy and Immunology (345)
Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (341)
Forensic Medicine (4)
Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1487)
Geriatric Medicine (142)
Health Economics (328)
Health Informatics (1088)
Health Policy (558)
Health Systems and Quality Improvement (400)
Hematology (170)
HIV/AIDS (313)
Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (9285)
Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (509)
Medical Education (173)
Medical Ethics (43)
Nephrology (178)
Nutrition (212)
Obstetrics and Gynecology (278)
Occupational and Environmental Health (399)
Oncology (782)
Otolaryngology (149)
Pain Medicine (84)
Palliative Medicine (31)
Primary Care Research (175)
Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1498)
Public and Global Health (3372)
Radiology and Imaging (550)
Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (263)
Sexual and Reproductive Health (125)
Sports Medicine (133)


A secret federal agency used national security intelligence to prosecute Americans.
Drug Enforcement Agency officers have been making use of national security intelligence to investigate and prosecute American citizens.
Advocates of SOD's practices point to its successes, like the nabbing of high-profile drug dealers and criminals who collaborate with violent groups like Colombia's FARC. Its detractors, on the other hand, have spoken frankly about the program's unsettling tactics – not to mention its questionable constitutionality. "You can't create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases," former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. told Reuters. "If you don't draw the line here, where do you draw it?" There's a lot more to SOD, so head over to Reuters to get the full briefing.


A Texas prosecutor says a Border Patrol agent targeted a vulnerable community when he killed four women.
Webb County District Attorney Isidro Alaniz spoke Monday about the allegations against 35-year-old Juan David Ortiz. He's accused of fatally shooting four women and injuring a fifth who escaped.
Alaniz said that investigators are still trying to determine a motive for the killings.
A Texas prosecutor says the Border Patrol agent charged with killing four women is a "rogue individual" whose actions don't reflect on the agency.
Webb County District Attorney Isidro Alaniz spoke during a news conference Monday about the murder charges against 35-year-old Juan David Ortiz. He's also accused of injuring a fifth woman who escaped.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost echoed the sentiments and said Ortiz has been placed on unpaid suspension.
Webb County sheriff's Chief Deputy Federico Garza says Ortiz wasn't on duty and wore civilian clothes during the killings.
Investigators say a Border Patrol agent accused of killing four women collected an arsenal of weapons to prepare for a confrontation with Texas police after he thought he'd been identified.
Webb County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Federico Garza released the information Monday during a news conference.
He says 35-year-old Juan David Ortiz collected numerous weapons at his home after another victim escaped and sought help from a state trooper at a nearby gas station.
Garza says Ortiz wasn't immediately identified as the suspect in the woman's kidnapping and the deaths. But he was later identified and spotted at another gas station hours later. He fled and hid in a hotel parking lot.
Garza says Ortiz "was going to try to commit suicide by cop" by brandishing his cellphone to look like a weapon. Instead, Ortiz was taken into custody this weekend in Laredo, Texas.
He's being held on $2.5 million bond on several charges, including four counts of murder.
The Navy says a Border Patrol agent accused of killing four women near the U.S.-Mexico border was in the service for almost eight years.
A biography of Juan David Ortiz released Monday says that he enlisted in the Navy in July 2001 and served until May 2009. He was listed as a hospital corpsman, second class.
He joined the Border Patrol shortly after leaving the Navy. The Border Patrol often recruits servicemembers and gives hiring preference to eligible veterans.
Authorities say the 35-year-old Ortiz "provided a voluntary verbal confession" early Saturday in the deaths of the four women. He's being held on $2.5 million bond on four counts of murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and unlawful restraint.
A U.S. Border Patrol supervisor remains jailed in Texas after he confessed to killing four women and assaulting a fifth who managed to escape, police said in court records.
According to affidavits , the 35-year-old Ortiz "provided a voluntary verbal confession" early Saturday in the deaths of the women. Webb County District Attorney Isidro Alaniz described Ortiz as a serial killer whose victims were believed to be prostitutes.
Jail records don't list an attorney to speak for Ortiz, who had worked for Border Patrol for 10 years. He is the second Border Patrol agent in Laredo to be arrested on a murder charge this year.


Everyone, even agency owners, makes mistakes now and then. However, the issue becomes more serious when the core of those mistakes (especially if they are repeated) is the agency's overarching business development strategy. If that is flawed, then the business is at risk.
One of these common biz dev issues is what I call the "feast or famine" mentality. You recognize the cycle. You hunt down as much new business as you can find, then get so busy servicing clients that you stop chasing new business. All resources go to urgent matters like hitting deadlines, and meanwhile, blog posts don't get written and your monthly newsletter becomes a quarterly one.
That can cost you a great deal…but it's also 100% fixable. Hubspot asked me to write a series on new business challenges for agencies and the first piece covers this particular flaw in most agencies' systems. As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic.
If you really want to dig into building a sustainable new business program for your agency — consider our online, on-demand course Agency New Business Blueprint.


The Strategic Rocket Forces announced today that two regiments of RS-24 Yars missiles began combat duty in Novosibirsk and Nizhniy Tagil divisions on December 25, 2013. It's interesting that the Rocket Forces representative was quoted as saying that the missiles began "experimental combat duty". This is a bit strange for a missile that has been in service from some time.
These are apparently the 15 Yars missiles that were expected to enter service by the end of the year. In an earlier announcement, the Rocket Forces said that the Nizhniy Tagil regiment is incomplete - right now it has only six ICBMs.
I heard that Regiment 357 was transferred to RS-24 in Novosobirsk.
Pavel, do you know what Regiment is in transition at Nishni Taigil?
Pavel, with all these additions, is there any chance of updating Current Status? The information there is fairly outdated.
I'll try to do an update in the next few weeks. On Yars, yes, it looks like it's the 357th regiment in Novosibirsk. I don't have anything on Nizhniy Tagil, though. I have three regiments that appear to be active there - 142, 433, and 804. If my notes are correct, the 142th still had Topol missiles in February 2013, so maybe Yars is in one of the other two.
Rather than update the strategic nuclear force levels on an annual or longer basis, why not provide real-time updates to the Current Status? It would be good place to consolidate your notes. A date and footnotes reflecting recent changes would be added to the Current Status display.
Well, Pavel already promised to provide an update.
By now we only can summarize some data based on what is published for the single weapon systems.
331 operational missile systems of five different types, carrying up to 1100 warheads.
One thing here I am not completely clear on. Is the move to multiple warhead RS-24 and RS-26 from single warhead Topol-M based solely on the launch cost-per-warhead savings? Not only will 6 Topol-M will have a vastly improved chance of penetrating defenses than one RS-24 with 6 smaller warheads, but the loss of one RS-24 results in the loss of 6 warheads. With the ever lower numbers of warheads allowed, the number of launchers becomes a serious issue when talking about survivability.
If Russia intends to stay with sub-megaton yield warheads (as it appears to be doing), why not have the entire ICBM force be composed of single warhead Topol-M's? The extra cost in launchers would be greatly offset by the elimination of all these new missile types, including the liquid-fueled heavy. With talk of reducing total strategic warhead levels to 1100, this seems like the more logical option.
Put differently, If ICBM warhead levels are dropped to ~500 (based on the proposed 1100 number being thrown around) That would equate to less than 75 launchers assuming a mix of RS-24, RS-26 and new 10 warhead liquid fueled heavy. That is an incredibly risky strategy compared to, say, 500 Topol-M with 500 warheads. Any halfway decent boost or midcourse phase ABM system would seriously compromise the viability of such a deterrent structure.
Multiple warheads only make sense when the number of warheads allowed is essentially unlimited, as during the Cold War. This is far from the reality of today. The only other possible reason could be the inability to afford enough launchers, which with the numbers we are discussing and the various launcher development programs underway, I find hard to believe.
I think the calculation has always been different - if, say, six missiles were to survive, then it would mean 36 warheads on MIRVed ones and only six if the missiles are single-warhead. Nobody cares very much about missile defense - people who are in this business know that it won't be able to do much anyway.
"On Yars, yes, it looks like it's the 357th regiment in Novosibirsk"
No, it does not look like.
"Первым в сибирской дивизии перевооружение прошёл звенигородский полк"
This is interesting. I had a source that said that it was the 357th regiment (12th ploshchadka) that was being converted to Yars as of the end of 2012. The 428th regiment is the 13th ploshchadka. If it is converted, it's this one - http://goo.gl/maps/ADUpD - the shelters had been dismantled by 6/26/2012. No construction is see at the two other sites: http://goo.gl/maps/Kd97m (I have it as the 12th ploshchadka, 327th regiment) and http://goo.gl/maps/dWTJR (21st, 382nd).
So, it does appear that the information about the 357th regiment was wrong. The only possibility that I see is that the regiment was temporarily converted to a training center - something like that was done in Irkutsk. But that seems unlikely as well.
I think you are right with the 428 regiment (formerly this was the site of 773 regiment - now in Teykovo).
The second Regiment will be probably here 55.368883° 83.233664° (garages already removed - see GE & Yandeks). As far as I know this once was occupied by 826 Regiment.


The idea of living with an active infection is not an appealing one to most of us, and yet there are many who have gum disease (which is an ongoing and worsening infection in the gums) and do not treat it immediately. Robert Lowe DDS in Charlotte, NC encourages our patients to learn more about the importance of gum disease treatment, and how it can lead to optimally healthy teeth and gums.
As your dentist in Charlotte, Dr. Lowe cannot overemphasize the seriousness of gum disease. It is often treated with an area of dentistry known as periodontics because advanced gum disease is called periodontal disease. However, we view all levels of gum disease treatment as important.
Why? If left untreated, gum disease causes pockets of bacteria to build up between the roots of the teeth and the gum tissue. Over time, this loosens the teeth and can lead to the loss of adult teeth.
The very first step in your gum disease treatment is the oral exam that looks for signs that it is occurring. An annual or twice annual checkup and cleaning is often a fantastic preventative measure, and a process that allows us to find any signs that you have gum disease beginning. If caught so early, we can usually treat it with a deep cleaning or some antibiotics and send you home.
At that time, we are also going to review the best techniques to use for brushing and flossing as this will ensure that you can provide adequate self-defense until your next cleaning and exam!
If, however, you have more progressed signs of gum disease, such as pain, bleeding gums, loose teeth, changes in the bite and bad breath, it may be that you require more advanced care.
The next way we may provide treatment is through the use of processes known as scaling and root planing. These go beneath the gum and remove the bacteria and infection. There are also even more treatments, which involve surgical removal of gum tissue if the infection has become too serious.
The good news is that treatment is available, and the sooner you begin, the better the outcomes. If you have additional questions about gum disease treatment, or about any of the other treatments mentioned here, give us a call at our Charlotte, NC office at 704-450-3321. You can also use our online contact form and one of our staff will get back to you promptly.