text:
For Sales
For Account Management
Careers &
Login 
Get a demo5
Lead Forensics is a software that reveals the identity of your anonymous website traffic and turns them into actionable leads within a business to business environment.
This cookie policy is for visitors to our website, apps and other brand-owned pages, discussing how we use cookies. The use of 'we', 'our' and 'us' in this notice means 'Lead Forensics', as operators of the aforementioned channels.
Cookies are small text files that are stored on the browser or hard drive of your computer or mobile device when you visit a web page or application. Cookies are widely used to make websites work more efficiently for users, as well as to provide evidence to the website's operators.
Most web browsers automatically accept cookies, but should you not wish to have information collected in this way, you can configure settings within your browser to disable or accept cookies. For further information on how to control cookies in your browser, including enabling, blocking, clearing and disabling, please refer to ICO Cookies Control.
Lead Forensics uses session cookies / essential cookies, which do not require consent under GDPR. These cookies are placed on your browser to ensure that our website delivers you information and services securely and functionally.
In order to further improve your experience, we place persistent cookies in your browser to remember some of your information. These cookies allow us to tailor our content and the overall website experience by recognising you as users. Their purpose is to make your visit easier and more useful to you when you revisit our website by remembering information, like preferred language, or pre-populating form fields, and other settings.
These cookies require your consent, which we seek through the consent banner you encounter when you visit our web pages, in-line with the opt-in requirements on Cookie Law in GDPR and all other regulations and legislation.
To opt-out of persistent cookies, please select 'decline' when the cookie consent banner appears, If you have already opted-in and now wish to opt-out, please email –
data-compliance@leadforensics.com informing us of your request.
Session- A session cookie exists only when you are reading or navigating the website. Upon closing the web browser, these cookies are removed.
Persistent- A persistent cookie exists on your computer until a future date; for instance, the cookie expiry date could set as 1 year, and each time a website is accessed over this period, our website will access this cookie.
Third Party- These are implemented by third party websites with the aim of collecting certain information to carry out various research into behavioural, demographic and other analytical information, which we use to deliver the best possible user experience.
The table below shows a complete breakdown of the cookies used through our web pages.
Cookie Purpose Type Expiry
__zlcmid This is for our website chat, used to identify a device across visits, and also across a single chat session. Third-party Session
__zprivacy This is used to store your preference to disable Live Chat, and cease using cookies. Third-party Session
__zlcid This is for our website chat, used to identify a device across visits, and also across a single chat session. Third-party Session
__hssc This cookie keeps track of sessions. It contains the domain, viewCount (increments each pageView in a session), and session start timestamp. Third-party,
(Consent Banner)
Persistent,
__hstc It contains the domain, utk (see below), initial timestamp (first visit), last timestamp (last visit), current timestamp (this visit), and session number (increments for each subsequent session). Third-party,
hubspotutk Keeps track of a visitors identity. Is passed to hubspot on form submission and used when de-duplicating contacts. Third-party,
__hs_opt_out This cookie is used by the opt-in privacy policy to remember not to ask the visitor to accept cookies again.This cookie is set when you give visitors the choice to opt out of cookies. Session,
__hs_testcookie This cookie is used to test whether the visitor has support for cookies enabled. Third-party Session
_ga Used to distinguish users for website analytics Third-party,
_gid Used to distinguish users for website analytics Third-party,
_gat Used to throttle request rate – Google Analytics deployed via Google Tag Manager Third-party,
__cfduid The __cfduid cookie is used to identify individual clients behind a shared IP address and apply security settings on a per-client basis. Third-parties,
Hubspot, LuckyOrange, Zopim
_lfuuid The _lfuuid cookie allows a website to track visitor behaviour on the sites on which the cookie is installed. Tracking is performed anonymously until a user identifies himself by submitting a form. Third Party
Unbounce Cookies to track page stats and attribute a conversion event back to a specific page using the page ID and variant letter. Unbounce cookies do not store any personally identifiable information and cannot be used to identify an individual based on the information stored in them directly. Third Party Session
This policy was last reviewed and updated on the 20th May 2020. Policies are periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the current compliance environment.
Start your website demand capture now
Fill in the required information below to speak to an expert
Untitled(Required)
UK: 0207 206 7293 | USA: 720-362-5033
    
Fill in the required information below to arrange your demonstration
Select a date and time for a demo (optional)
(UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US and Canada)(UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US and Canada)(UTC-12:00) International Date Line West(UTC-11:00) Coordinated Universal Time-11(UTC-10:00) Hawaii(UTC-09:00) Alaska(UTC-08:00) Baja California(UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US and Canada)(UTC-07:00) Chihuahua, La Paz, Mazatlan(UTC-07:00) Arizona(UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US and Canada)(UTC-06:00) Central America(UTC-06:00) Central Time (US and Canada)(UTC-06:00) Saskatchewan(UTC-06:00) Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterey(UTC-05:00) Bogota, Lima, Quito(UTC-05:00) Indiana (East)(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US and Canada)(UTC-04:30) Caracas(UTC-04:00) Atlantic Time (Canada)(UTC-04:00) Asuncion(UTC-04:00) Georgetown, La Paz, Manaus, San Juan(UTC-04:00) Cuiaba(UTC-04:00) Santiago(UTC-03:30) Newfoundland(UTC-03:00) Brasilia(UTC-03:00) Greenland(UTC-03:00) Cayenne, Fortaleza(UTC-03:00) Buenos Aires(UTC-03:00) Montevideo(UTC-02:00) Coordinated Universal Time-2(UTC-01:00) Cape Verde(UTC-01:00) Azores(UTC+00:00) Casablanca(UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik(UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London(UTC+00:00) Coordinated Universal Time(UTC+01:00) Amsterdam, Berlin, Bern, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna(UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris(UTC+01:00) West Central Africa(UTC+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague(UTC+01:00) Sarajevo, Skopje, Warsaw, Zagreb(UTC+01:00) Windhoek(UTC+02:00) Athens, Bucharest, Istanbul(UTC+02:00) Helsinki, Kiev, Riga, Sofia, Tallinn, Vilnius(UTC+02:00) Cairo(UTC+02:00) Damascus(UTC+02:00) Amman(UTC+02:00) Harare, Pretoria(UTC+02:00) Jerusalem(UTC+02:00) Beirut(UTC+03:00) Baghdad(UTC+03:00) Minsk(UTC+03:00) Kuwait, Riyadh(UTC+03:00) Nairobi(UTC+03:30) Tehran(UTC+04:00) Moscow, St. Petersburg, Volgograd(UTC+04:00) Tbilisi(UTC+04:00) Yerevan(UTC+04:00) Abu Dhabi, Muscat(UTC+04:00) Baku(UTC+04:00) Port Louis(UTC+04:30) Kabul(UTC+05:00) Tashkent(UTC+05:00) Islamabad, Karachi(UTC+05:30) Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte(UTC+05:30) Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi(UTC+05:45) Kathmandu(UTC+06:00) Astana(UTC+06:00) Dhaka(UTC+06:00) Yekaterinburg(UTC+06:30) Yangon(UTC+07:00) Bangkok, Hanoi, Jakarta(UTC+07:00) Novosibirsk(UTC+08:00) Krasnoyarsk(UTC+08:00) Ulaanbaatar(UTC+08:00) Beijing, Chongqing, Hong Kong, Urumqi(UTC+08:00) Perth(UTC+08:00) Kuala Lumpur, Singapore(UTC+08:00) Taipei(UTC+09:00) Irkutsk(UTC+09:00) Seoul(UTC+09:00) Osaka, Sapporo, Tokyo(UTC+09:30) Darwin(UTC+09:30) Adelaide(UTC+10:00) Hobart(UTC+10:00) Yakutsk(UTC+10:00) Brisbane(UTC+10:00) Guam, Port Moresby(UTC+10:00) Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney(UTC+11:00) Vladivostok(UTC+11:00) Solomon Islands, New Caledonia(UTC+12:00) Coordinated Universal Time+12(UTC+12:00) Fiji, Marshall Islands(UTC+12:00) Magadan(UTC+12:00) Auckland, Wellington(UTC+13:00) Nuku'alofa(UTC+13:00) Samoa
Compliance Certificates
Data Compliance
Website built by Hewitt Matthews
Accept AllRead MoreCookie Settings


The ACEC Engineering Excellence award program is an annual design competition that recognizes engineering achievements demonstrating the highest degree of merit, ingenuity, and creativity. Each year, dozens of firms from around the state submit projects that are judged on a rigorous set of criteria, which includes complexity, innovation, and value to society. These projects are judged by a panel of industry experts including government officials, ACEC leadership, educators from college and university engineering departments, and leadership from other organizations dedicated to the built environment.
"We are honored to be recognized alongside the City of Prineville for this groundbreaking project," said AP project manager Brett Moore.
The City of Prineville's Crooked River Wetlands Complex demonstrates a new approach to dealing with wastewater. Constructed for just $8 million, a fraction of the $62 million price tag of a previously recommended mechanical treatment plant, the complex utilizes natural processes found in the wetlands to further treat the reclaimed water. Designed to operate entirely by gravity, the wetlands offer habitat to numerous plants, wildlife, waterfowl, and insects that support a healthy ecosystem. The nearly 5 miles of trails built throughout the complex also double as a biology and wildlife laboratory for area schools and a recreational get-away for visitors. The wetlands in the complex were designed to augment the flow of water into the adjacent Crooked River. After the water is polished by the microorganisms growing on the plants in the wetland cells, the water is cooled as it flows underground into the Crooked River, providing as much as 2 million gallons per day of clean, cool water to aid in the reintroduction of steelhead and salmon.


text:
Q: Is there any way to combine these two methods into one method, or overloaded methods? Here's a bit of a tricky one.  Perhaps someone's C#-fu is superior to mine, as I couldn't find a solution.
I have a method that takes a parameter that holds either an enum or a string indicating the value of an Enum and returns an instance of that enum.  It's basically an implementation of Enum.Parse but implemented as a generic method.  Why the .NET Framework doesn't have this built in is beyond me.
public static T Parse<T>(object value) where T : struct
{
   if (!typeof (T).IsEnum)
      throw new ArgumentException("T must be an Enum type.");

   if (value == null || value == DBNull.Value)
   {
      throw new ArgumentException("Cannot parse enum, value is null.");
   }

   if (value is String)
   {
      return (T)Enum.Parse(typeof(T), value.ToString());
   }

   return (T)Enum.ToObject(typeof(T), value);
}

Now, I can do something like:
MyEnum foo = Parse<MyEnum>(obj);

And get an instance of MyEnum.  If obj is null, I throw an exception.
However, sometimes obj is null and I want to allow that.  In this case, I'd like to be able to do:
MyEnum? foo = Parse<MyEnum?>(obj);

However, for the life of me, I can't figure out a way to get that working.  First off, even though Nullable<MyEnum> is a struct, it's unable to be used as a type parameter to Parse<T>.  I think this has something to do with all the magic the compiler does with Nullable<>, so I won't question it.
It doesn't appear you can overload the method and only differentiate it based on constraints on T.  For example, if I do:
public static T Parse<T>(object value) where T : new()
{
  // This should be called if I pass in a Nullable, in theory
}

I'll get the error: Member with the same signature is already declared
So, that leaves me with only one option left: Implement a entirely separate method designed for nullable types:
public static T? ParseNullable<T>(object value) where T : struct
{
   if (!typeof (T).IsEnum)
      throw new ArgumentException("T must be an Enum type.");

   if (value == null || value == DBNull.Value)
      return null;

   if (value is String)
      return Enum.Parse(typeof (T), value.ToString()) as T?;

   return Enum.ToObject(typeof (T), value) as T?;
}

I can now call this with:
MyEnum? foo = ParseNullable<T>(obj);

My Question: Is there a way to combine these two methods into a single method that will do the right thing depending on the type parameter, or create overloads where one overload will be used in the case where the type parameter is Nullable<> and the other overload called when it's not?

A: It requires couple additional type checks within the method and you have to skip generic constraint, but it's definitely possible:
public static T Parse<T>(object value)
{
    var isNullable = typeof(T).IsGenericType && typeof(T).GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(Nullable<>);
    var itemType = isNullable ? typeof(T).GetGenericArguments()[0] : typeof(T);

    if (!itemType.IsEnum)
        throw new ArgumentException("T must be an Enum type or Nullable<> of Enum type.");

    if (value == null || value == DBNull.Value)
    {
        if (isNullable)
            return default(T);  // default(Nullable<>) is null

        throw new ArgumentException("Cannot parse enum, value is null.");
    }

    if (value is String)
    {
        return (T)Enum.Parse(itemType, value.ToString());
    }

    return (T)Enum.ToObject(itemType, value);
}

Sample usage:
var items = new object[] { "A", "B", 0, 10, null, DBNull.Value };

var results = items.Select(x => new { x, e = Parse<Test?>(x) }).ToArray();

foreach (var r in results)
    Console.WriteLine("{0} - {1}", r.x, r.e.ToString());

Prints
A - A
B - B
0 - A
10 - B
 -
 -

A: Why not just remove the constraint on T, and do something like this:
    public static T Parse<T>(Object value)
    {
        Boolean isNullable = typeof(T).GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(Nullable<>);
        if (!isNullable && !typeof(T).IsEnum)
        {
            throw new ArgumentException();
        }

        if (value == null || value == DBNull.Value)
        {
            throw new ArgumentException();
        }

        if (!(value is String))
        {
            return (T) Enum.ToObject(typeof (T), value);
        }

        if (!isNullable)
        {
            return (T) Enum.Parse(typeof (T), value.ToString());
        }

        Type underlyingType = Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(typeof(T));
        try
        {
            return (T)Enum.Parse(underlyingType, value.ToString());
        }
        catch (ArgumentException)
        {
            return default(T);
        }
    }

That should work, if not, let me know.

A: Create a method like TryParse and handle the return value == false case to do what you want with a null value.  You can then implement another method to wrap that call and return null when the return value was false.  (Also, be sure to use Enum.IsDefined as any value of the enum's type is assignable to an enum even if it's not defined by the enum)
public static bool TryParseEnum<T>( object value, out T result ) where T : struct
{
    if( !typeof( T ).IsEnum )
        throw new ArgumentException( "T must be an Enum type." );

    if( value == null || value == DBNull.Value )
    {
        result = default( T );

        return false;
    }

    if( value is String )
    {
        return Enum.TryParse<T>( ( string )value, out result );
    }

    result = ( T )Enum.ToObject( typeof( T ), value );

    return Enum.IsDefined( typeof( T ), result );
}

public static Nullable<T> ParseEnum<T>( this object value ) where T: struct
{
    T retVal;

    if( !TryParseEnum( value, out retVal ) )
    {
        return null;
    }

    return new Nullable<T>( retVal );
}

Usage:
EnumXyz? nullableEnumValue = ParseEnum<EnumXyz>( someObject );

A: I'm going to offer another method... return the default value. Its a good idea to give enums a default value that represents nothing anyway (if you forget to initialize it, etc)... i.e:
enum MyEnum {
    Nothing = 0,
    MeaningfulValue1,
    MeaningfulValue2
    // etc..
}

Then your method just becomes:
if (value == null || value == DBNull.Value)
    return default(T);

..and the callsite:
var val = Parse<MyEnum>(obj);

if (val == MyEnum.Nothing)
    // it was null.

A: Since you're not actually overloading by changing the return type, the answer is that you cannot do what you want.
I would add an overload that takes in a separate parameter to determine the null-ability of the parameter.
public static T Parse<T>(object value) where T : struct
{
    return (T)Parse<T>(value, false);
}

public static T? Parse<T>(object value, bool nullable) where T : struct
{
    T? enumValue = null;

    if ( ! typeof(T).IsEnum)
    {
        throw new ArgumentException("T must be an Enum type.");
    }
    else if (value == null || value == DBNull.Value)
    {
        // this is the key difference
        if ( ! nullable)
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Cannot parse enum, value is null.");
        }
    }
    else if (value is string)
    {
        enumValue = (T)Enum.Parse(typeof(T), value.ToString());
    }
    else
    {
        enumValue = (T)Enum.ToObject(typeof(T), value);
    }

   return enumValue;
}

Usage:
MyEnum value1 = Parse<MyEnum>("A");
// returns null
MyEnum? value2 = Parse<MyEnum>(null, true);
// throws exception
MyEnum? value2 = Parse<MyEnum>(null, false);

A: I believe that the short answer to your question is, "No." In the example you provided at the beginning of your question, you were looking to return two different return types, T and T?. That in itself would require methods with different names.
Here's a link to another question with a great answer on nullables in generic types that might help to clarify the problem for you.

A: If you really want to use one method, then how about this?
The downside is you have to remove the where T : struct constraint.
If you want to keep the constraint, then separating it into two methods is the only way.
    public static T Parse<T>(object value)
    {
        Type underlyingType = Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(typeof(T));
        bool isNullable = underlyingType != null;

        if (!typeof(T).IsEnum && !isNullable)
            throw new ArgumentException("T must be an Enum type.");

        if (value == null || value == DBNull.Value)
        {
            if (isNullable)
                return default(T);

            throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
        }

        if (value is String)
            return (T)Enum.Parse(underlyingType ?? typeof(T), value.ToString());

        if (!value.GetType().IsValueType)
            throw new ArgumentException("value must be a primitive type", "value");

        return (T)Enum.ToObject(underlyingType ?? typeof(T), value);
    }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
A blockhouse is a small fortification, usually consisting of one or more rooms with loopholes, allowing its defenders to fire in various directions. It is usually an isolated fort in the form of a single building, serving as a defensive strong point against any enemy that does not possess siege equipment or, in modern times, artillery, air force and cruise missiles. A fortification intended to resist these weapons is more likely to qualify as a fortress or a redoubt, or in modern times, be an underground bunker. However, a blockhouse may also refer to a room within a larger fortification, usually a battery or redoubt.

Etymology
The term blockhouse is of uncertain origin, perhaps related to Middle Dutch blokhus and 18th-century French blocus (blockade).

In ancient Greece
Blockhouses existed in ancient Greece, for example the one near Mycenae.

Early blockhouses in England

Early blockhouses were designed solely to protect a particular area by the use of artillery, and they had accommodation only for the short-term use of the garrison. The first known example is the Cow Tower, Norwich, built in 1398, which was of brick and had three storeys with the upper storeys pierced for six guns each. The major period of construction was in the maritime defence programmes of Henry VIII between 1539 and 1545. They were built to protect important maritime approaches such as the Thames Estuary, the Solent, and Plymouth. Often sited in pairs, the blockhouses were not built to a common design, but usually consisted of a stone tower and bastion or gun platform, which could be semi-circular, rectangular or irregular in shape. The last blockhouse of this type was Cromwell's Castle, built in Scilly in 1651.

Coastal fortifications in Malta

Blockhouses were an ubiquitous feature in Malta's coastal fortifications built in the 18th century by the Order of St. John. Between 1714 and 1716, dozens of batteries and redoubts were built around the coasts of the Maltese Islands, while a few others were built in the subsequent decades. Almost every battery and redoubt had a blockhouse, which served as gun crew accommodation and a place to store munitions.

Many of the batteries consisted of a semi-circular or polygonal gun platform, with one or two blockhouses at the rear. The blockhouses usually had musketry loopholes, and in some cases were linked together by redans. Surviving batteries include Mistra Battery and Ferretti Battery, which both have two blockhouses, and Saint Mary's Battery and Saint Anthony's Battery, which have a single blockhouse.

Many of the redoubts consisted of a pentagonal platform with a rectangular blockhouse at the rear, although a few had semi-circular or rectangular platforms. Surviving redoubts with blockhouses include Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq Redoubt and Briconet Redoubt, both of which have a pentagonal plan. A few of the redoubts consisted of a single tower-like blockhouse without a platform, and were known as tour-reduits. Of the four tour-reduits that were built, only the Vendôme Tower survives today.

Age of exploration
Originally blockhouses were often constructed as part of a large plan, to "block" access to vital points in the scheme. But from the Age of Exploration to the nineteenth century standard patterns of blockhouses were constructed for defence in frontier areas, particularly South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.

Blockhouses may be made of masonry where available, but were commonly made from very heavy timbers, sometimes even logs arranged in the manner of a log cabin. They were usually two or even three floors, with all storeys being provided with embrasures or loopholes, and the uppermost storey would be roofed. If the structure was of timber, usually the upper storey would project outward from the lower so the upper storey defenders could fire on enemies attacking the lower storey, or perhaps pour water on any fires. When the structure had only one storey, its loopholes were often placed close to the ceiling, with a bench lining the walls inside for defenders to stand on, so that attackers could not easily reach the loopholes.

Blockhouses were normally entered via a sturdy, barred door at ground level. Most blockhouses were roughly square in plan, but some of the more elaborate ones were hexagonal or octagonal, to provide better all-around fire. In some cases, blockhouses became the basis for complete forts, by building a palisade with the blockhouse at one corner, and possibly a second tower at the opposite corner. Many historical stone blockhouses have survived, and a few timber ones have been restored at historical sites. In New Zealand, the Cameron Blockhouse, near Whanganui, is one of the few blockhouses to survive from the New Zealand Wars.

Second Boer War

During the Second Boer War the British forces built a large number of fortifications in South Africa. Around 441 were solid masonry blockhouses, many of which stand today. Different designs were used in the construction of these blockhouses, but most were either two or three story structures built using locally quarried stone.

However the vast scale of British strategy led the British to develop cheaper, double-skinned corrugated iron structures. These could be prefabricated, delivered to site by armoured train, and then have locally sourced rocks or rubble packed inside the double skin to provide improved protection.

A circular design developed by Major Rice in February 1901 had good all round visibility, and the lack of corners did away with the need for a substructure. Failure due to wood rot and splintering when hit by bullets or shrapnel were eliminated. The steel door to the blockhouse was sheltered by another piece of corrugated iron. The Major Rice blockhouse could be erected in six hours by six trained men. With the change from square gabled roofs to a circular design, they were given the nickname "Pepperpot blockhouse". With mass production the cost to build a blockhouse dropped down to £16, compared to several hundred pounds for masonry ones.

These blockhouses played a vital role in the protection of the railway lines and bridges that were key to the British military supply lines.

Concrete blockhouses
During World War I and World War II, many types of blockhouses were built, when time allowed usually constructed of reinforced concrete. The major difference between a modern blockhouse and a bunker is that a bunker is constructed mostly below ground level while a blockhouse is constructed mostly above ground level.

Some blockhouses like those constructed in England in 1940 were built in anticipation of a German invasion; they were often hexagonal in shape and were called "pillboxes". About 28,000 pillboxes and other hardened field fortifications were constructed, of which about 6,500 still survive.

The Admiralty Citadel in London is one of the sturdiest above-ground structures built during World War II. It was constructed in 1940–1941 as a bomb-proof operations centre for the Admiralty, with foundations nine metres deep and a concrete roof six metres thick. It too was intended to serve as a strongpoint in defending against the feared invasion.

In Berlin and other cities during World War II some massive blockhouses were built as air-raid shelters and anti-aircraft artillery platforms. They were called Hochbunker (literally, "high bunkers"; better translated as "above ground bunkers", to distinguish them from the usual deep i.e. underground air raid shelters) and those that functioned as anti-aircraft artillery platforms were also called Flak towers. Some were over six stories high; several survive to this day because of the high cost of demolition. The  in Berlin-Schöneberg has a post-war block of flats built over it. During the Cold War the shelter was in use as a NATO foodstore.

In the guerrilla phase of the Irish Civil War (1922–1923), a network of blockhouses was constructed to protect the railways from guerrilla attacks.

Blockhouses and coordinated road systems were used in the encirclement campaigns of Chiang Kai-shek against the Chinese Communist Party.

See also
 Battery tower
 Blockhouse No. 1, New York City
 Block House (Delaware)
 British hardened field defences of World War II - Pillbox
 Caponier
 Casemate
 Chartaque
 Chardak
 Fort King George in Darien, Georgia
 Fort Pitt Block House in Point State Park in Pittsburgh
 Martello tower
 Ostrog (fortress)
 Sangar (fortification)

Notes

References

External links

 Pillbox Study Group
 Royal Engineers Museum: Blockhouses during the Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902)
 Berlin Air-raid Shelters, Flak Towers and Bunkers
 Pillboxes
 British World War 2 Fortifications
 The Fortress Study Group

Fortifications by type
.
Concrete buildings and structures
Military science

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Every relationship have their ups and downs. Every relationship is different. We all have different ways of believing things, treating each other, different personalities and views. We all handle things differently. Being a parent, and in a relationship can be difficult at times. You are both coping with the daily life of being a parent, which we all know isn't easy, but you are also trying to keep a happy relationship alive.
To keep the relationship going there are many things both of you can do, to keep it strong and happy. Me and my partner have been together for just over 4 years. We have had our ups and downs. We have nearly come to breaking point, but we have come out stronger. We are really happy and these are the things we do to keep our relationship going.
1. One of the main thing to be a great partner, is to be supportive to each other. Everyone has their good and bad days. When you are in a relationship you need that other person to be there for you when you are feeling down, needing someone to talk to you or anything else you need support on.
2. Be sure to still have those child-free days. Every parent deserves one. Even if it is just for a couple of hours, you and your partner could go out for a walk or some food. Time to get the spark going again, bonding back again and just let your hair down.
3. In a relationship you need to be honest and trustworthy. Once you lie to your partner, that is when it all falls apart. If you don't trust each other, then there really isn't going to be that 'happy ending' relationship. You need honesty and trust in every relationship. You can't live your life not trusting your partner, wondering where they are every second of the day, being very paranoid and controlling. It isn't healthy.
4. Treat each other once in a while. Book your partner a day out somewhere. Get your partner a nice gift or treat them to a homemade cooked meal in the evening.
5. Listen to each other. This is very important in a relationship. If your partner needs to talk to someone, feeling low, be sure to be there to listen. Even if your partner is having a good day and wants to tell you about their day, listen. You are showing that you are interested in what they are saying and you can understand a lot more things and new things about your partner.
6. Appreciate things your partner does. Maybe your partner is the one who goes out to work to bring the money in? Buys you things? Helps you out in a lot of ways? There is always time in a relationship to appreciate things. Never be ungrateful.
7. You need to deal with those bad days. Learn to apologize if it needs saying, or even if it doesn't! Every relationship gets its bad days. We all get upset and have a little cry now and then. Our partners annoy us now and then but that is just life. You are two different people, of course you are going to clash and disagree sometimes. Just don't think that every argument, small or big, is the end. There is a way to work things out, if you really want too.
8. Humour. Have laugh together. You don't want a boring relationship, that sure won't last. If you see a funny video on Facebook, go and show your partner. Share laughter with each other.
9. Be sure to communicate. Always have time to talk during the day. Even if you are stressed. Say good morning, hello when you or they come home from work, good night and ask how their day has been. Make a conversation. Doesn't have to be a very long conversation but it is good to communicate when in a relationship, so neither of you feel alone. You always know you've got your partner there with you.
10. Be happy in yourself. You need to be sure that you are happy in yourself first before you can be happy in the relationship.


text:
How Tucker Carlson Is Boosting Russia's New Propaganda War
CNCB News December 30, 2021
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty
President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to speak on Thursday, in preparation for Jan. 10 talks, convened to address Putin's demand for "security guarantees" that aims to stymie NATO's ability to carry out its functions in Europe. Moscow's elite diplomats and talking heads are openly discussing Russia's goals and strategies. Arguing for America's total capitulation, with the Kremlin allegedly planning to offer no concessions or guarantees, Russian experts propose a plan to make such an outcome acceptable to the general public in the U.S. by waging an aggressive international info-campaign.
Russia's state TV propagandists express their delight in seemingly having the likes of Tucker Carlson in their corner, praising his coverage as the prime example of Russia's successful influence operations abroad. Carlson's talking points often sound identical to those pushed by the Kremlin's propagandists—or by Putin himself.
During one of his broadcasts on Fox News in December, Carlson argued that "NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin." He worried about the possibility of "a NATO takeover of Ukraine," and described the 2014 Maidan Revolution as a U.S.-organized "coup in Ukraine." He also baselessly accused Joe Biden of fomenting "a hot war with Russia." The very next day, translated quotes from Tucker Carlson's show were widely broadcast on Russia's state television. After watching Carlson's remarks during the live taping of 60 Minutes, Igor Korotchenko, member of the Russian Defense Ministry's Public Council and editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine said: "Excellent performance, with which we can only express solidarity."
How Putin Made a Fool of Tucker Carlson
Carlson's claims that the U.S. is pushing the world to the brink of a nuclear war with Russia fit squarely within the Kremlin's current propaganda offensive. During Tuesday's live broadcast of The Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, host Vladimir Soloviev expressed his concerns about convincing Americans that the fears of war are real: "Americans change their behavior only when there is an existential threat to their population… Their memory of WWI is much greater than that of WWII, because of the numbers of those who perished and the difficulty of that war. We often think of Americans as the mirror image of ourselves and our concerns. They only look like us. Their mentality is completely, absolutely different."
Political scientist and Professor of Communications Dmitry Evstafiev articulated the fear tactics, meant to convince everyday Americans to surrender U.S. interests in order to avoid war with Russia. He said: "Just look at how much they [the U.S.] started to talk about peace lately. There is only one way to balance that. We need to start talking about war with American and European societies. American and Western societies don't understand what a war with Russia would mean. They think that a war would take place somewhere far off, but we should explain that it will come up close. A war is very comfortable when a drone flies over and kills someone, but no, a bomber plane will come and kill you… A coffin draped with a stars-and-stripes flag should arrive… to an American city. In this context, we should start a very serious conversation with Western societies—not about peace, but about war."
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov is set to represent Russia during the talks concerning the so-called "security guarantees" sought by Moscow. His comments ahead of the meeting provided a revealing glimpse into the Kremlin's belligerent attitude.
Sitting down with a reporter on Tuesday, Ryabkov threatened the United States: "An abyss between what is desirable and necessary for the collective West—as opposed to what we need—keeps deepening and widening. A bridge could be built upon the platform that we proposed. If that bridge doesn't get built, fortress walls will be built instead, with cannon balls raining down from them and hot tar pouring down onto their heads. People who say that Russia should be placed in the corner, like a misbehaving pupil, underestimate what might happen next. They've lost their grip on reality and common sense. I hope they haven't lost their sense of self-preservation."
Like Ryabkov, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov scoffed at the possibility of Russia being punished by additional Western sanctions. During his appearance on Monday's broadcast of Soloviev's online show Soloviev Live, Lavrov dismissed the idea that Russia could be cut off from the world's banking systems or otherwise isolated. He also pointed out that high-ranking members of Russia's military will participate in the upcoming January talks with the United States: "The military will be represented at a high level in our delegation. We asked [the U.S.] to confirm whether we were correct by our understanding that the same would be done on their part." Lavrov added that Russia wasn't planning to offer any concessions, claiming that it has already given up too much over the last decades.
Hosting 60 Minutes on Wednesday, Evgeny Popov marveled: "It seems to me that our diplomats never spoke to the United States so harshly." Andrei Bezrukov, a Russian spy whose life story served as the inspiration for the hit TV show The Americans, replied: "The balance of power has changed. Twenty years ago we couldn't talk to them this way… Now we can show them something and they understand that. The new balance of power—including military power—is what brought them to the negotiating table." Vitaly Tretyakov, dean of the Moscow State University's School of Television, concurred: "Nothing in the history of the world ever happens without military force… Pacifists don't determine world politics… Our Foreign Affairs Ministry was so cultured for the past 20 years, now it's hard for Americans and other westerners to fathom that it stopped being so civil. Its formerly cordial demeanor sank into oblivion."
Russian Citizens Are Now Being Prepped for Nuclear War
Moscow's approach to the upcoming exchange apparently hinges on the perception of invincibility and the idea of Russia's "military superiority." Offering no concessions, the Kremlin expects to get them from the United States by evoking the threat of World War III as the sword of Damocles that hangs over the world's head. Moscow's elite propagandists are hard at work, gaslighting domestic and foreign audiences.
Appearing on the state TV program 60 Minutes on Tuesday, military expert Korotchenko predicted: "January is becoming a key month that will determine the course of humanity's modern history… These three summits will determine what will happen next. Whether we will directly move on to WWIII… or the red lines will be acknowledged and we will cement the status quo, where the interests of Moscow and NATO will be balanced. The main thing is, Russia will no longer retreat."
The stream of demands accompanied by nuclear threats continually emanates from Moscow. During last Friday's broadcast of 60 Minutes, State Duma deputy Mikhail Delyagin asserted: "Nuclear mushroom may rise over Ukraine, but the NATO flag may not."
Read more at The Daily Beast.
Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!
Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
Previous Previous post: Comments renew debate over adoption as abortion alternative
Next Next post: 3 Stocks That Are Flirting With a Bottom; Analysts Say 'Buy'
Galopin Des Champs tops 47 Brown Advisory entries
Shopify Stock Falls Despite E-Commerce Deal With China's JD.com
Israel says it successfully tests long-range missile defense

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


cainlong1 (#14365) 90 days ago News bandar bola All https://media233.com Discuss Published New Discard Success!
In the event you aren't difficult, soccer is just not the overall game for yourself. Genuinely, when you can't manage simply being handled, you need to engage in tennis or golfing as well as other non-speak to sports activity. Don't take part in the video game as your Father desires anyone to in the event you truly don't want to get thrown to the ground.


text:
Kenneth W. Fisher Will be Allowed to Testify for Plaintiffs in McGarrigle v. Mercury Marine
Wednesday, December 21st, 2011
For basic information on John McGarrigle and Barbara McGarrigle v. Mercury Marine in U.S. District Court, D. New Jersey, see our McGarrigle v. Mercury Marine case page.
Very briefly, John McGarrigle fell from a small boat when it hit a wave, was not wearing a lanyard kill switch, the boat circled repeatedly, he tried to re-board it, and was struck by the propeller.
Both sides moved for summary judgement on some issues prior to the trial. Both sides won some issues and lost some issues. The full opinion written by Disrict Judge Noel L. Hillman is available on Leagle.com.
The defense tried to block Kenneth W. Fisher from being an expert witness for the plaintiff. They said he was not an expert in this field (kill switches on small boats) under Daubert. They also do not want to allow Dr. Fisher or others to use U.S. Coast Guard Navigational and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 4-89 (Circular 4-89). Defense claims Circular 4-89 only applies to commercial vessels. Defense also wants to prevent Dr. Fisher or others from using American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) F 1166-07 standard regarding human factors engineering (they grant it refers to ships and marine structures, but claim it does not specifically mention recreational boats).
In a 20 December 2011 opinion, the court said Dr. Fisher will be allowed to testify and he can use ASTM F 1166-07, but he will not be allowed to use Circular 4-89.
At the same time, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgement to prevent Defense from being able to claim the accident was caused by the victim taking a small boat out in choppy water and going too fast, they also wanted to block evidence of his behavior after being ejected (tired to re-board the circling boat), and wanted to block evidence that neither Mr Garrigle or his father read the outboard owners manual.
In the same 20 December 2011 opinion, the court said the defense would be allowed to present evidence of a proximate cause of the accident being the condition of the water and the speed of the boat. Defense will also be allowed to discuss the victim's attempts to re-board the circling boat. The defense will not be able to introduce the failure of Mr. Garrigle or his father to read the owners manual as evidence of comparative fault or as a proximate cause because the defendant acknowledges some people operate their outboards without reading the manual, and thus it was foreseeable.
We will now discuss the decision to allow Mr. Fisher to testify in more depth.
Debate Over Kenneth W. Fisher, Expert Witness for the Plaintiff
To win a product liability suit, plaintiffs must show the product that caused the harm was not reasonably fit, suitable or safe for its intended purpose. They can do that by showing the product failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions, or it was designed in a defective manner. In this case, Plaintiffs intend to meet that burden of proof through testimony of their expert witness, Dr. Kenneth W. Fisher. Defendants claim Dr. Fisher is not qualified to testify in this case. They say he fails to meet the requirements in Federal Rule 702 governing admissibility of expert witness testimony. To meet those qualifications, the defense says he must be qualified to testify as an expert, his testimony must be reliable (based on methods and procedures of science, not upon subjective belief or unsupported speculation), and the expert must have grounds for their belief (testimony must be relevant to the case and assist in trying the facts).
Qualifications: Defense claims Dr. Fisher's expertise lays in the design and construction of ships and large maritime structures, not in small recreational vessels. Plaintiffs claim the defense's definition of qualifications is so tight that only previous employees of outboard manufacturers would qualify, then go on to point out the qualifications of Dr. Fisher. The court found him qualified to testify and cited a case in which excluding an expert witness from testifying just because they were not the best qualified or had the most appropriate specialization was called an abuse of discretion.
Reliability: the court listed the factors to be considered in determining if an expert witness's testimony is reliable or not: if it consists of a testable hypothesis, has been subject to peer review, has a known or potential rate of error, existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, if the method is generally accepted, if the relationship of the technique to the established reliable methods, the expert's qualifications, and non-judicial uses.
In this case, Dr. Fisher is offering an opinion that type B lanyard (see our coverage of the case) was defectively designed, and that type A lanyard is a safer alternative, as would be warnings on the engine. The court said this is not a complex opinion so they will only focus on Dr. Fisher's selection of standards, and upon his overall reliability.
Defense claims Dr. Fisher's reliance upon American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) F 1166-07 standard regarding human factors engineering is wrong because they do not think the standard applies to recreational boats. Defense says the standard applies to ships and marine structures, not recreational boats or outboard engines. Dr. Fisher claims the small boat falls under the category of a maritime structure, but could only find one other person that agreed with his position. The court found the Defense's opposition to the ASTM standard to be more of a disagreement than an unreliability.
Defense argued there was no reliable basis for Dr. Fisher's claim that type A lanyards would be a safer alternative design. Dr. Fisher did not conduct tests on the lanyards or research accident occurrences with either style lanyard. The court said lanyard A is already in use by the industry and that could stand as evidence of its reliability.
Thus the court found Dr. Fisher's opinion to be reliable under Rule 702.
Fit: the court must examine the experts conclusions to determine if they could have reliably flowed from facts know by the expert and the methodology they used. Dr. Fisher is offering an opinion that the lanyard was defectively designed because it allowed the plaintiff to start and operate the small boat without using a lanyard. Dr. Fisher reviewed the outboard motor involved in the accident, regulations and codes, the defendants and a competitors operators manual. His opinions could logically flow from those experiences and from his identification of another lanyard (lanyard type B) often used in the industry that requires the lanyard key to be inserted before the engine will start.
Thus Dr. Fisher and his opinions meet the requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert.
The challenging of an expert witness is quite common in boat propeller injury trials. Both sides frequently challenge expert witnesses. The Defense often challenges the same experts they previously challenged somewhere else. The term Daubert is often used. It refers to a specific case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The Daubert case and two other cases helped to articulate what is referred to as the Daubert Standard regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony in U.S. Federal Courts (see Daubert Standard on Wikipedia).
Defense Wants to Block Testimony Claiming Its Engine Was Defective
Mercury Marine claims that between 1986 and July 2007 they sold over 750,000 8 to 25 horsepower outboards using lanyard type B. Mercury Marine says the Plaintiff's accident is the only one they are aware of using that scenario (tiller steered outboard, victim ejected, did not use lanyard type B, and was struck by the propeller of the circling boat). Therefore, Dr. Fisher is offering an opinion that is not supported by the facts, and should not be allowed to do so.
PGIC comment – If we get some time, we will see if we can jog their memory a bit with a few examples.
Categories : Legal Shorts
Tags : Brunswick, kill switch, lanyard, McGarrigle, Mercury Marine, Propeller Accident Trial


New Delhi, India, February 1, 2016 — Nucleus Software, the leading provider of lending and transaction banking solutions to the global financial services industry, further strengthens its global presence by announcing the successful launch and roll-out of its lending software at Bank of Queensland (BOQ), in Australia. BOQ, a leading Australian challenger Bank, has implemented Nucleus Software's award winning flagship lending product, FinnOneTM for its retail loan origination operations.
Established in 1874, today Bank of Queensland has more than 200 branches across Australia, including a majority of owner-managed branches, ensuring a commitment to deliver exceptional personal service to their customers. To power its ongoing transformation program, BOQ selected Nucleus Software's FinnOne for its home and personal lending markets. With FinnOne, Nucleus Software is helping BOQ to increase its business agility and become paperless. FinnOne is revolutionizing multi-channel retail loan processing at the Bank across the front and middle offices. The advanced solution is also reducing process complexity in a range of ways, including replacing inflexible, hard copy rules with sophisticated, automated credit policies and process checklists. FinnOne will enable BOQ to get closer to its customers and help to speed up its "Time to Yes".
"Nucleus Software is a key partner and is assisting us in digitizing our home and personal lending operations. Their global expertise is helping us to achieve our vision of having a Bank that is much closer to our customers, and is assisting us to develop digital capabilities that will eventually allow our customers to transact anytime anywhere. FinnOne will streamline the Bank's retail loan operations as well as make us more nimble, providing us with the ability to introduce innovative, tailor-made products and customer-oriented services to meet the growing demands of our customers. Nucleus Software is at the centre of our mission to create Australia's most loved Bank", Mr. Jon Sutton, Chief Executive Officer, BOQ said.
Nucleus Software's flagship lending product, FinnOneTM has been ranked as the 'No. 1 Best Selling Lending System' by International Banking Systems (IBS) for the 7th year in a row. FinnOne™ is designed to support seamlessly integrated applications, provide operational support, risk management and decision-making capabilities to banks and financial services companies. FinnOne™ focuses on both, retail and corporate loans, thereby emerging as a comprehensive solution to back any line of the lending business.
BOQ is one of Australia's leading regional banks and provides a genuinely independent alternative for Australian financial services customers. BOQ's strategy is based around operational excellence and delivering outstanding customer service. It offers products and services across retail and business banking, finance, general and life insurance and superannuation.


text:
Colorado Triathlete
Your news source for triathlon in Colorado since 1999!
Sonny V and Conrad Stoltz Win XTERRA East Championship
June 12, 2011 | By Colorado Triathlete
XTERRA Planet
June 12, 2011 (Richmond, VA) – Conrad Stoltz, 37, of Stellenbosch, South Africa and Shonny Vanlandingham, 42, of Durango, Colorado won the 13th annual XTERRA East Championship in Richmond, Virginia.
It's the third straight year Stoltz, a two-time Olympian and four-time XTERRA World Champion, has won the event and it's his sixth victory in Richmond since 2005. Even more impressive, the day marked Stoltz 10-year anniversary with XTERRA.
"Back in 2001 I was just an innocent roadie thinking I had reached the pinnacle of triathlon going to the Olympic games and I came to Richmond for my first XTERRA," said Stoltz.
"I borrowed this 35-pound soft ride bike a week before the race and came out just to see what XTERRA was all about, and I was blown away. Mike Vine won, I got second, Nico Lebrun was third, Steve Larsen was fourth, and Ned Overend was fifth. After the race Steve and Ned came over to me and said 'welcome to XTERRA, great to see you.' The people were so friendly and I had such a good time that XTERRA became my goal. I really lost my heart to XTERRA in Richmond."
Likewise, Richmond is infatuated with Stoltz, and the forest surrounding the incredible James River Park System trails are packed every year with locals coming out to see the "Caveman" crush it. Today he did not disappoint. Stoltz splashed out of the James River in third place just a few seconds behind Craig Evans and fellow countryman Dan Hugo. He was four seconds behind Evans leaving the transition area, and in first place just a few moments later.
"An 800 watt sprint out of the transition area and he's gone, and I'm still trying to get in my shoes. It's amazing. The first kilometer on the bike he's putting down 500 watts and I'm thinking to myself this is the moment, I've got to be on his wheels, but the power he generates…," said Hugo, who has now finished second behind Stoltz in the last three XTERRA regionals and second here in Richmond for the third time in four years. "Just call me silver Stephanie," he joked, and added that the "fun factor" of this course was off-the-charts
Indeed, Stoltz had more than two minutes on Hugo by the second 10-mile loop of the bike, with Evans another two minutes behind Hugo, and Branden Rakita and Nicolas Lebrun a close fourth and fifth. His 20-mile bike split through the forest maze was 1:24:12 – three minutes faster than Hugo, six better than Evans, seven quicker than Rakita, eight faster than Lebrun and on, and on.
Stoltz never let down on the run, posting the third best time, and pumped his fist high as he crossed the finish line for his 41st XTERRA championship win since 2001. To celebrate, he'll head home to South Africa for the first time during the winter in 20 years.
"I'm going to visit my Dad on the farm and celebrate Father's Day with him, spend time with my fiancée, plan a wedding, and gear up for the South Africa time trials to see if I can qualify for the Olympics," smiled Stoltz, who will return to the U.S. in late September to defend his XTERRA USA Championship in Utah and try to win the XTERRA U.S. Pro Series for the ninth time.
While the duo from Stellenbosch were cooling off and talking with the media Frenchman Nico Lebrun – who like Stoltz started his XTERRA career here in Richmond in 2001 – was hard at work posting the fastest run split to overtake Evans and Rakita to finish 3rd – his best result of the season (and sixth time in the top 3 in Richmond).
"Today for the first time in a while I had good energy and was able to catch Branden on Belle Isle, but it is amazing what Conrad and Dan can do on this kind of course. I was really far away from them," said Lebrun, who is amazing himself when the course is better suited to his strengths (altitude and climbing).
Rakita, incredibly, had the fourth best swim, bike, and run times and finished in fourth place. Evans had the fastest swim and third-best bike to enter T2 in third, but was passed by Rakita and Lebrun on the run and finished 5th.
Brad Zoller, a pilot who rowed crew at Purdue, had the best race of his pro XTERRA career to finish in 6th and the young Will Ross from Anchorage, Alaska had his best result in 7th.
Vanlandingham Breaks Through in Richmond, Stays in Contention
After finishing 3rd in 2008 and 2nd in 2009 and 2010, Shonny Vanlandingham finally won it all in Richmond. The reigning XTERRA World Champion had the fastest bike and run splits by far to erase a two-minute deficit coming out of the water.
"I've been working on my swim and I felt like I improved. I know it's a shorter swim than normal but when I heard I was only two minutes back I was excited," said Vanlandingham.
The Richmond swim is shorter than the typical 1.5km course, but the most unique you'll find anywhere. It starts underneath train tracks and zig-zags its way side-to-side going with and against river currents (that you can't see but certainly can feel). The water level in the James was about perfect this year, but there were still sections where competitors had to stand and walk. Then they have to get out of the water at Belle Isle, shuffle across a dirt trail, jump in and zigzag their way back across the river. It took a little more than 14 minutes for the leaders this year, about five minutes longer than in years past. Likewise, the new two-loop bike course was significantly longer, and was reflected in the winning times which we're the longest in race history. The course consisted of a one-kilometer swim, 32-kilometer mountain bike, and a 10-kilometer trail run.
For Vanlandingham, getting through this wacky course the quickest was of utmost importance.
"It was do or die here today because I needed the points if I was going to challenge for the overall Pro Series title. The pressure was on and I was happy to pull this one out," said Vanlandingham, the most successful NORBA mountain biker of all-time and seven-time member of the U.S. National mountain biking team.
Vanlandingham trailed XTERRA U.S. Pro Series points leader Melanie McQuaid from Canada by two minutes after the swim, caught her at about mile 15 of the bike and the two rode together for a few miles before Vanlandingham pulled away. She finished more than three minutes ahead of McQuaid.
"I'm happy with today," said McQuaid. "It went well and I stayed in the race for a while considering I didn't have the power I would've like. I've been racing a lot and I'm not as fast as I was earlier in the year."
McQuaid is juggling a 70.3 racing schedule on top of XTERRA, and just finished third at a 70.3 race last weekend.
"Now I'm going to go home, take a month off and recover," said McQuaid, who will not race at the last regional of the season in Colorado next month. What that means is Vanlandingham has the chance to secure big points at the Mountain Champs and make it a head-to-head duel for the Pro Series title at the XTERRA USA Championship at Snowbasin Resort in Ogden, Utah on September 24.
Suzie Snyder, the two-time age group XTERRA World Champ who turned pro last year, came into the race healthy and rested for the first time in a while and it showed. Snyder reeled in Christine Jeffrey early on the bike to move into second place, was passed by Shonny on the first lap and stayed in third the rest of the way. It's her best-ever XTERRA result as a professional but not unprecedented, remember she placed 5th at XTERRA Worlds last year.
"Fun day," said Snyder. "The weather was great, the course was fantastic, I felt strong, and was able to race hard all day. I couldn't have asked for much more."
Jeffrey was solid all around to finish in fourth, while Jessica Noyola cracked the top five for the first time in her pro career. Also of note, Caroline Colonna – at 47-years-old, finished sixth on the day and sits in seventh in the Pro Series standings.
Stoltz, McQuaid Lead Pro Series Standings After Five
Stoltz has a stranglehold on the Pro Series having won four of the first five regionals and finishing second to Josiah Middaugh in the other. With 490 points he'll sit out the Mountain Championship and enter the USA Championship race in stellar position. Branden Rakita jumped from third to second place in the series with today's absence of Josiah Middaugh – who will be racing at home in the Mountain Championship next month. If Middaugh should win that race, he'd be in second with 447 points entering the USA Champs – still a long way from Stoltz but with a mathematical shot at the Pro Series title nonetheless.
The women's series got a whole lot more interesting with Vanlandingham's victory today. Should she win the Mountain Championship next month (and remember McQuaid is not racing there) she'd end up with 470 points, 11 more than McQuaid. Thus, Vanlandingham could defend her Pro Series title even if McQuaid won in Utah and she finished second. Still a lot of 'ifs', and thank goodness it's all decided in the dirt.
Stoltz, McQuaid win XTERRA USA Championship Colorado's Middaugh Wins XTERRA East Championship Conrad Stoltz Proves to Be Unbeatable Again in Maui Vanlandingham and Middaugh Take Runner-up Spots at XTERRA South Central Championship Colorado's Middaugh Wins XTERRA East Championship
On the Web Since 1999
On the Web Since 1999 Select Month September 2020 August 2020 May 2020 April 2020 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 October 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 October 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 January 2004 December 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 May 2001 April 2001 February 2001 January 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 January 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999
Blackhawk, CO 80422
© CO TRI, LLC | All Rights Reserved


text:
Ottawa Canada Montreal Edmonton Montreal Canadiens NHL Atlantic Division NHL Eastern Conference National Hockey League Ottawa Senators Shea Weber Artem Anisimov Drake Batherson Anton Forsberg Nick Suzuki Alex Formenton Carey Price Evgenii Dadonov Nick Paul Jeff Petry Dominique Ducharme D.J. Smith Eric Staal Josh Anderson Leo Anthony Gallagher Connor Brown Brendan Gallagher Thomas Chabot Maxence Guenette Brady Tkachuk Sports Sports transactions Sports business NHL hockey Professional hockey Hockey Men's hockey Men's sports COVID-19 pandemic Coronavirus Infectious diseases Diseases and conditions Health Lung disease
Senators beat Montreal 6-3, snap Habs' 3-game win streak
- Apr. 03, 2021 11:33 PM EDT
Ottawa Senators' Evgenii Dadonov (63) celebrates with Artem Anisimov after scoring against the Montreal Canadiens during the second period of an NHL hockey game in Montreal, Saturday, April 3, 2021. (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press via AP)
MONTREAL (AP) — Evgenii Dadonov scored twice and Artem Anisimov had three assists as the Ottawa Senators defeated the Montreal Canadiens 6-3 on Saturday night.
Anton Forsberg finished with 35 saves for Ottawa.
Montreal entered the game riding a three-game win streak sandwiched around a nine-day hiatus due to COVID-19 protocols. Ottawa (13-21-4) had lost two straight, including a 4-1 decision to the Canadiens on Thursday.
Josh Anderson had two goals and Tyler Toffoli also scored for Montreal. Nick Suzuki and Shea Weber each contributed a pair of assists. Toffoli, returning after missing the last three games due to injury, raised his season goal total to 19.
Brady Tkachuk, Alex Formenton and Connor Brown scored for Ottawa, and Drake Batherson added an empty-net goal 2:55 remaining. Thomas Chabot had two assists.
Forsberg made his second start of the season — and the 50th of his NHL career.
"He gave us every chance. … The kid's really focused and you've got to be happy for him. He battled for us," Ottawa coach D.J. Smith said of Forsberg.
Carey Price stopped 26 of 31 shots for Montreal.
Montreal interim head coach Dominique Ducharme called it a bad night for his team.
"Tonight we were just not sharp. We didn't play a solid game. … On the other side, they played better," he said.
Ottawa was handed an early opportunity when Brendan Gallagher was assessed a double high-sticking minor after just 28 seconds. Tkachuk took advantage 14 seconds later, stuffing the puck in after Batherson found him at the edge on the crease for his 12th of the season.
Toffoli countered on the power play at 5:31 with a one-timer from the faceoff circle.
Forsberg took a blast from Weber off the shoulder midway through the first.
Brown scored a short-handed goal for the Senators at 12:07, poking in a rebound off a Nick Paul shot.
After Price made back-to-back saves to deny the Senators, the Canadiens tied it at 2-2 at 6:58 of the second period with Anderson beating Forsberg on the glove side with a high shot. Ottawa answered 51 seconds later with Dadonov tipping home a Thomas Chabot shot through traffic from the point.
Dadonov made it 4-2 at 16:04 after both Montreal defensemen headed behind the net to coral Anisimov, only to see him send the puck to his fellow Russian left unmarked in the slot. It was Dadonov's 11th of the season.
Anderson scored his 13th with 72 seconds remaining in the second period, beating Forsberg to cut the lead to 4-3.
Formenton restored Ottawa's two-goal lead at 2:55 of the third, beating Price after Jeff Petry lost the puck near the Montreal goal.
NOTES: Newly acquired center Eric Staal, his quarantine nearly complete, is expected to make his Canadiens debut Monday against visiting Edmonton. … The Senators have signed 19-year-old Val-d'Or Foreurs defenseman Maxence Guenette, a seventh-round pick (187th overall) in the 2019 NHL draft, to a three-year entry-level contract.
Senators: At Winnipeg Jets on Monday.
Canadiens: Host Edmonton Oilers on Monday.


text:
Search Fighting Blindness
Living with sight loss
Current Page: Stargardt Disease
Genetic Diagnosis
Stargardt Disease, also known as fundus flavimaculatus, is an inherited retinal degeneration which causes progressive loss of vision as a result of damage to the central region of the retina known as the macula. The macula contains photoreceptor cells known as cone cells, which are responsible for fine, detailed, central (reading) vision and for colour vision. This condition in turn leads to a loss of central and colour vision, but peripheral (side vision) is usually preserved. Stargardt Disease can be variable in that the age at onset and rate of progression of vision loss can differ between individuals.
It is the most common form of inherited juvenile macular degeneration, with a prevalence estimated between one in 8,000 and one in 10,000 people. The carrier rate has been quoted as high as 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 people.
Stargardt Disease is usually identified in individuals under the age of 20 when decreased or impaired central vision is first noticed, although some individuals are not diagnosed until much later in life. Initial symptoms can include having difficulty seeing the board in class or having difficulty reading. Individuals may also experience difficulty in recognising faces, driving or identifying colours, more commonly in the latter stages. Seeing at night may also become more challenging. Central blind spots can develop and these may increase in size over time, potentially impacting vision. Both eyes are usually affected in a similar manner.
The condition can be slowly degenerative and progressive, but it is very uncommon for someone with Stargardt Disease to become completely blind. The rate of progression and degree of visual loss can vary from person to person and even among affected members of the same family. It is, therefore, very difficult to predict what an individual's vision will be like at a specific time in the future.
Stargardt Disease is a genetic condition. It is caused by mutations in genes including ABCA4 and ELOVL4 which are associated with vision. These genes are essential for making proteins which are found in the light sensitive cone photoreceptor cells. Damage to these genes can affect the function of these cells.
The majority of people with Stargardt Disease have the recessive form of disease involving mutations in the ABCA4 gene. This means that both copies of the gene don't work properly giving rise to the condition. In this case, the individual's mother and father have both passed on a mutation in the ABCA4 gene. This gene provides instructions to make the ABCA4 protein which has an important role in transporting toxic substances out of cone photoreceptor cells.
These toxic substances include A2E, a by-product of Vitamin A recycling. Mutations in this gene lead to the accumulation of metabolic waste, forming a substance called liopfuscin which gathers in the photoreceptor cells and supporting retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells. This substance causes the RPE and subsequently the photoreceptor cells to die, leading to vision loss. This accumulation of liopfuscin and consequent atrophy is most pronounced at the macula, which is the area of highest metabolic activity within the retina.
A very rare form of Stargardt-like Disease may be caused by mutations in the ELOVL4 gene, which follows an autosomal dominant form of inheritance. This means that one copy of the gene doesn't work properly giving rise to the condition. In this case, the individual will have received a mutated copy of the gene from an affected parent. Mutations in the ELOVL4 gene can make dysfunctional ELOVL4 protein clumps that can interfere with photoreceptor cell functions leading to cell death.
More information on genetic inheritance patterns can be found at our Genetic Inheritance section.
If a family member is diagnosed with Stargardt Disease, it is strongly advised that other members of the family also have an eye exam by an eye doctor (ophthalmologist) who is specially trained to detect retinal diseases.
Stargardt Disease is diagnosed through a number of assessments which help with providing the correct diagnosis.
The eye doctor will ask about a person's medical history, including any family history of eye conditions. Individuals will receive a clinical eye examination where they may be asked to read letters off a chart (Snellen chart). They may also check intraocular pressure and examine visual acuity and the visual field.
An individual may receive a number of imaging tests. Information about the condition may be identified using colour or wide-field fundus photography (which essentially takes photos of the back of the eye). Fundus autofluorescence may be used to identify stress or damage to the retinal pigment epithelium. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) can also be used to assess the various layers at the back of the eye.
An individual may also have an electroretinogram (known as an ERG), which is used to evaluate the functioning of the different types of photoreceptor cells (rods and cones).
A genetic test is also an important component of testing, to ensure the correct condition is diagnosed. For people living in Ireland, genetic testing for Stargardt Disease can be performed through the Target 5000 programme.
For further information, please contact the Research Department on 01 6789004.
It's often impossible to tell which type of retinal disease a person has just by looking into the eye. As such, a genetic test may be necessary to confirm the diagnosis.
The Target 5000 programme provides free genetic and clinical testing to all individuals living in Ireland with a genetic retinal degeneration, including Stargardt Disease. Through genetic screening of the person awaiting diagnosis and their family members, the Target 5000 programme will provide more detailed information about the nature and inheritance pattern of the condition.
As gene-specific clinical trials and treatments become available, knowing the genetic mutation associated with a genetic retinal degeneration will become even more important. Taking part in this programme ensures participants are included on a national registry from which participants can be identified for clinical trials and treatments and from which further information about each of the genetic retinal degenerations can be defined. For further information on the Target 5000 programme, please contact the Research Department on 01 6789004 or email research@fightingblindness.ie.
There are no proven treatments for Stargardt Disease as of yet, although recent years have demonstrated advances in clinical research and development. To find out more about advances made in this area, please visit the 'Latest Research' section.
Maximising an individual's remaining vision is a crucial step to take and there are many low vision aids including telescopic and magnifying lenses which may offer benefit. There is research to suggest that UV sunlight can increase the toxicity of the waste products accumulating in the retina, therefore it is recommended that people with Stargardt Disease wear UV screening sunglasses when out in direct sunlight. Furthermore, researchers have identified that taking extra vitamin A, such as in a vitamin supplement (or some acne medications) may have a negative effect on the condition and should be avoided.
General eye check-ups are important for people living with Stargardt Disease, as these individuals may still be at risk of developing other kinds of eye problems that can affect the general population, some of which may be treatable.
No matter what level of vision a person may have, it is important to look after the eyes. To find out more about what can be done to take care of the eyes on a daily basis, please visit our Tips for Good Eye Health.
Advances in research have yielded a greater understanding of the condition, with much progress made to develop therapies for it.
Researchers are actively gathering as much information (such as the information from clinical tests and genetic testing) as possible in an effort to fully understand this condition. The aim is that this information will bring benefits such as yielding new treatments and ways to improve quality of life.
Gene therapy has become an area of investigation for conditions including Stargardt Disease. With this technique, researchers use small, safe viruses to deliver the correct version of the gene of interest to the retina. As the ABCA4 gene is most commonly affected in individuals living with Stargardt Disease, it has become a gene therapy target for researchers. An early-phase clinical trial is now underway to determine the safety and tolerability of this gene therapy, with follow-up being performed to examine the intervention over time. If it is found to be safe, further investigations will be carried out to determine how effective it is.
Stem cell technology holds great potential to replace retinal cells that have already died due to degeneration. Stem cells are like precursor cells which have the potential to self-renew and generate many other different cell types. This has become an area of interest for Stargardt Disease, with a number of groups worldwide seeking to identify a new treatment. Previous clinical trials have examined the transplantation of human retinal pigment epithelial stem cells, with results demonstrating no major safety concerns and follow-up underway.
There are a small number of clinical trials currently underway, involving the transplantation of human retinal pigment epithelial stem cells and bone marrow-derived stem cells. These clinical trials are in the early-phase of investigation, with further study required.
Another interesting approach takes the form of therapeutic agents which aim to target the formation of toxic by-products and the resulting cell death associated with Stargardt Disease. At present, there are two interventions being examined in clinical trials which aim to tackle the formation of toxic by-products. The first is an oral drug which aims to inhibit the function of an enzyme needed for the formation of toxic A2E. This agent is advancing rapidly though clinical trials, with a phase 3 clinical trial now underway to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
Another drug, also administered orally aims to slow down the generation of the toxic by-products, with a phase 2 clinical trial investigating this intervention due to get underway soon. Another early phase 2 clinical trial is underway to examine the safety and efficacy of an intervention which aims to inhibit the function of a protein, known as complement component 5 (Complement C5) involved in cellular inflammation and death.
Researchers have investigated numerous supplements in previous clinical trials, however, no significant positive findings have yet been found.
Information about clinical trials can be found on their website: Clinical Trials Website and can be searched by condition and trial location.
Fighting Blindness currently support a number of research initiatives which aim to improve the diagnosis, care and quality of life of individuals living with Stargardt Disease.
Target 5000 research, largely funded by Fighting Blindness aims to determine the genetic cause and understand the nature of the condition over time. Through Target 5000, a national registry will also be developed which will greatly improve access to suitable clinical trials and treatments for people living in Ireland with Stargardt Disease.
A study by Professor Kennedy and Ms Rebecca Ward at University College Dublin is currently examining an animal model (zebrafish) of Stargardt Disease in an effort to further understand the genetic basis of the condition. This study also aims to examine neuroprotectant drugs which may slow the rate of photoreceptor cell loss and hence identify new therapeutic targets.
StarT is an European Training Network which aims to understand the regulation of the ABCA4 gene, to elucidate its hidden genetic variation, and to develop novel treatments. A total of 14 early stage researchers will receive training opportunities in outstanding vision research groups across UK and Europe.
Receiving a diagnosis can be overwhelming for anyone, but this is not a journey that you have to make alone. There are many groups and resources available to provide support for people living with Stargardt Disease.
Fighting Blindness offers a free and confidential counselling service (Insight Counselling). For further information please contact insight@fightingblindness.ie or call 01 6746496.
A mindfulness group is also available on every Wednesday at the Fighting Blindness office at 11am.
For technology support and guidance, the Dublin-based Technology Exchange Club meets every Monday at the Fighting Blindness office at 11am. Another Technology Exchange Club, based in Cork, meet every Saturday in the Cork City Library, Grand Parade, Cork City at 11am. The Cork-based club do not meet on Bank Holiday weekends or on the second Saturday of the month. For further information please contact insight@fightingblindness.ie or call 01 6746496.
Féach provides support for parents of children living with sight loss in Ireland.
ChildVision is the national education centre for children with sight loss in Ireland.
NCBI (National Council for the Blind in Ireland) provides support and services for people living with sight loss in Ireland.
Retina International provides useful information on Stargardt Disease.
Stargardt Disease community on RareConnect is an online social network for patients and families. It was created by EURORDIS (European Rare Disease Organisation) and NORD (National Organisation for Rare Disorders) to provide a safe space where individuals and families affected by rare diseases can connect with each other, share vital experiences, and find helpful information and resources.
Stargardt's Connected is a resource which provides information and support for people living with Stargardt Disease. In addition, this website includes regular updates on research.
Last Updated: 4th February 2019
Subscribe to hear from us
Stay up-to-date with our latest news in research, events and support services.
Example: Yes, I would like to receive emails from Fighting Blindness. (You can unsubscribe anytime)
By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Fighting Blindness, 3rd Floor, Dublin 2, http://www.fightingblindness.ie. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact
Fighting Blindness,
3rd Floor, 7 Ely Place,
Dublin 2, D02 TW98
Telephone: +353 1 6789 004
Email: info@fightingblindness.ie
Allergan International Foundation
Copyright © 2021 - Fighting Blindness | Reg Charity No 20013349 | Company No 109625


text:
Le Focke-Wulf Fw 44 Stieglitz (Chardonneret en allemand) est un avion biplan biplace de sport et d'entraînement allemand de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Cet appareil qui fit son premier vol au cours de l'été 1932 fut la première réalisation du Dipl. Ing. Kurt Tank chez Focke-Wulf. Il connut un succès remarquable et même si la production exacte est inconnue (entre  selon les auteurs), il fut indiscutablement l'avion le plus construit de la firme de Brême après le chasseur Fw 190. C'est également un fuselage de Fw 44 qui a été utilisé pour réaliser l'hélicoptère Focke-Wulf Fw 61.

Origine et développement
Quand il fut nommé à la tête du département projets et essais en vol de la firme Focke-Wulf, Kurt Tank fut assailli de demandes pour un biplan de voltige. Ce type d'avion était réclamé par plusieurs grands pilotes allemands, mais aussi par les écoles de pilotage. Il dessina donc rapidement un biplan de construction mixte à ailes égales décalées, revêtement entoilé et tracté par un moteur en étoile Siemens Sh 14A de . Désigné Fw 44A, le prototype (D-2409, W.Nr.154) effectua son premier vol à la fin de l'été 1932 sur le terrain de l'usine de Brême, piloté par Gerd Achgelis. Directeur de la section aéronautique et chef-pilote à l'école d'ingénieurs de Weimar, celui-ci rédigea le  un rapport élogieux sur le comportement de l'appareil. Si Achgelis termina son rapport en commandant un Fw 44 pour son usage personnel, le biplan était loin d'être au point : Faiblesse du bâti-moteur, mauvais rendement des ailerons du plan supérieur, etc. Un second prototype (D-2465, W.Nr.155) fut d'ailleurs perdu sur accident le . Entretemps Henrich Focke avait abandonné en  la direction de Focke-Wulf AG. Devenu directeur technique, Kurt Tank avait lancé la production d'une petite série Fw 44B, dont le fuselage était allongé de .

Versions
 Fw 44A : Prototypes, deux appareils construits. Le D-2409 fut remis a Gerd Achgelis le , jour du premier vol du , le D-2465 détruit sur accident le . Moteur 7 cylindres en étoile Siemens Sh 14A de .
 Fw 44B : Premier modèle de série, fuselage allongé de , moteur Siemens Sh 14A de . Le prototype (D-2613/D-ESYK) effectua son premier vol le . Il fut ensuite modifié en .
 Fw 44C : Afin d'effectuer les essais en vol du nouveau moteur 4 cylindres en ligne Argus As 8B de , une cellule de  (D-2621/D-EGEF, W.Nr. 164) fut équipée de ce moteur. Kurt Tank effectua lui-même le premier vol le . L'appareil était sous motorisé mais l'autonomie passait de .
 Fw 44D : Le prototype Fw 44B fut rapidement équipé d'une alimentation permettant le vol inversé, les sièges modifiés pour permettre à l'équipage de s'asseoir sur un parachute et un coffre à bagages aménagé derrière le siège arrière. L'avant du fuselage était modifié, seules les têtes de cylindres dépassant du profilage, et l'atterrisseur modifié pour pouvoir y adapter des patins permettant de décoller et atterrir sur la neige. Le  fut produit en grande série à partir de .
 Fw 44E : Une vingtaine de Fw 44D furent équipés d'un moteur en ligne Argus As 8B.
 Fw 44F : Tandis que les premiers Fw 44D sortaient d'usine, Kurt Tank cherchait encore à améliorer sur biplan. Les sièges devinrent ajustable en hauteur, des feux de position étaient ajoutés et le coffre a bagages devenait accessible de l'extérieur grâce à une trappe ménagée sur le flanc gauche.
 Fw 44H : En  un Fw 44D (F-ETXA W.Nr.67) fut modifié pour recevoir un prototype du moteur en ligne 6 cylindres Hirth HM 501A de . Un seul autre appareil fut ainsi modifié (W.Nr.751).
 Fw 44J : Modèle destiné initialement à l'exportation et pouvant recevoir soit un moteur Sh 14A de  soit un Sh 14A-4 de . Le  fut produit en série jusqu'en 1936 à Brême, puis par Bücker et Siebel avant que la production ne soit finalement transférés à Prague chez Ceskomoravska-Kolben-Danek (CKD), où  furent encore construits au début des années 1940. Cet appareil se fit remarquer dans plusieurs manifestations internationales. Gerd Achgelis participa à plusieurs manifestations internationales aux États-Unis en 1934 et 1935, et se classa troisième aux Championnats du monde de voltige à Vincennes. Le comte Hagenburg devient le  champion olympique de voltige (La voltige aérienne n'a figuré qu'une seule fois au programme des Jeux Olympiques). Outre ces succès de prestige qui attirèrent l'attention de quelques pays européens, Focke-Wulf organisa en 1936 une tournée de présentation de son biplan en Amérique du Sud. Cette tournée permit d'engranger un certain nombre de commandes privées (Le Stieglitz était proposé à un prix moyen de ), mais aussi fut à l'origine de contrats de licence. Le  fut finalement le modèle le plus construit.
 Fw 44M : Destiné au marché nord-américain, ce modèle apparu en 1937 était équipé d'un moteur en ligne Menasco C4S Pirat de . Le prototype (D-ENGO) devait rester unique, malgré les efforts de Focka-Wulf pour signer des accords de licence avec Fairchild, Curtiss ou North American.
 Fw 44N : Évolution du moteur Sh 14A, le Bramo 325 de  fut naturellement monté sur une cellule de  (D-EHVA). L'appareil se distinguait également par l'introduction d'un capot NACA. Un second exemplaire (D-EGHO) fut réalisé pour effectuer des essais officiels à l'E.Stelle de Rechlin en , mais le développement du moteur ne fut pas poursuivi.

Description
Le Fw 44 est un biplan à ailes égales décalées, affectées de la même flèche et du même dièdre. Les plans inférieurs sont fixés directement à la base du fuselage, les plans supérieurs tenus par une simple cabane et des mats d'entreplans en N, le tout raidi par haubanage souple. Le longeron est en spruce et les nervures en contreplaqué, supportant un revêtement de toile et contre-plaqué. Chaque plan est pourvu d'ailerons. Le fuselage a une structure en tubes métallique soudés, la partie supérieure avant recevant un revêtement métallique, l'arrière et les flancs de la toile. L'empennage est de construction mixte, avec revêtement toile et contreplaqué, le stabilisateur ayant une incidence réglable en vol. À l'avant de la cloison pare-feu en dural on trouve un bâti-tubulaire recevant le moteur et trois réservoirs, soit deux pour le carburant ( au total) dont un destiné au vol inversé, et un d'huile ().

Utilisateurs
  : Même si quelques appareils furent remis à des pilotes privés allemands, généralement favorisés par le pouvoir Nazi, le  fut essentiellement utilisé comme avion d'école par la Deutsche Luftsportsverband (DLV) et la Deutsche Verkehrsfliegerschule (DVS), puis par la Luftwaffe jusqu'à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Il fut donc utilisé par les Flugzeugführerschulen A/B 4 (Prague-Cbely), A/B 14 (Klagenfurt), A/B 23 (Kaufbeuren), A/B 43 (Crailsheim), A/B 51 (Elbing), A/B 72 (Detmold), A/B 112 (Langenleborn), A/B 113 (Brünn), A/B 125 (Neukuhren), C 22 (Oels), la Luftkriegsschule LKS 4 de Fürstenfeldbruck et l'école des élèves officiers de Neu Kuhren. Le JG 134 'Horst Wessel' utilisa également brièvement des  avant de recevoir ses premiers Heinkel He 51. Pratiquement tous les pilotes allemands ayant participé à la Seconde Guerre mondiale ont volé à un moment ou un autre sur le Stieglitz.
  : Une commande de 15 Fw 44J fut signée le . Le  suivant un second contrat portait sur la fourniture de pièces détachées, d'outillage et de 37 moteurs Sh 14A permettant la production sous licence de 30 Stieglitz. La production fut lancée en 1938 à la Fabrica Militar de Aviones de Cordoba, les livraisons débutant l'année suivante. Entre-temps la licence avait été modifiée pour permettre la construction de 60 appareils. Deux appareils produits en Argentine furent livrés au Brésil avant que la production ne débute dans ce pays. Il semble qu'environ 190 Stieglitz aient été produits à Cordoba jusqu'en 1942. 150 ont été livrés à la Fuerza Aérea, et 7 à la Marine. Si les  furent retirés de service en 1957, les biplans produits en Argentine devaient servir jusqu'en 1984. Quelques appareils furent cédés aux aéro-clubs argentins et trois étaient conservés en état de vol dans de pays en 2010.
  : 10 Stieglitz furent commandés chez Focke-Wulf à Brême et 40 exemplaires construits sous licence par Hirtenberger Patronenfabrik à Wiener-Neustadt. Les livraisons débutèrent en 1936, ces avions étant récupérés par l'Allemagne bien entendu en 1938.
  : Un unique Fw 44J figura à l'inventaire de la Fuerza Aérea entre 1937 et 1940.
  : Après avoir pris livraison de 2 Stieglitz produits par FMA en Argentine, Fabrica do Galeao a produit à son tour sous licence 41 appareils à partir de 1939 pour la marine. 34 furent transférés à l'armée de l'air en 1941. Les derniers furent retirés par la FAB en 1947.
  : Six Fw 44J à moteur Sh 14A furent livrés le . Quatre appareils supplémentaires suivirent entre les 4 et , puis 10 en  et 20 entre  et . Le biplan école  emprunte certains éléments au Stieglitz mais n'est ni une copie ni une version produite sous licence.
  : 15 Fw 44J ont été commandés en  pour l'école d'El Bosque. Ils permirent la constitution de la première patrouille acrobatique chilienne, restant en service jusqu'en 1945 malgré l'arrivée en 1941 de BT 13 et AT 6 fournis par les États-Unis.
  : Trois Fw 44F furent commandés en  par l'aviation cantonaise (W.Nr.773/775). Livrés fin juin, ils étaient accompagnés par Gerd Achgelis qui effectua plusieurs démonstrations publiques avant de les remettre officiellement aux autorités de Canton le . Six appareils supplémentaires (W.Nr.1040/1045) furent commandés en juillet et trois encore un peu plus tard (W.Nr. 981/983), ainsi que sept Fw 44J (W.Nr.1267/1273) livrés entre avril et .
  : 30 Fw 44J ont été commandés en Allemagne en . 35 ont été livrés au total, quelques exemplaires restant en service jusqu'en 1960. De nombreux exemplaires ont été depuis revendus à des musées.
  :
  : 10 Fw 44J furent commandés auprès de CKD pour livraison en  et furent effectivement achevés pour livraison dans les temps. L'opération Weserübung empêcha leur livraison.
  :
  : 9 Stieglitz livrés par la Luftwaffe.
  : Courant 1935 le pilote allemand E. Kropf présenta un programme aérien de voltige à Ljungbyhed. Le  la Suède passa commande de deux  qui furent livrés en avril et évalués par la Flygvapnet avec les immatriculations 801/802 sous le type provisoire P2. Cette évaluation aboutit à la commande de 14 appareils supplémentaires. Devenus , ces biplans furent livrés entre janvier et  à l'école de pilotage F5. Entre-temps, le , Focke-Wulf et la Suède avaient conclu un accord de licence permettant à ASJA (Saab) de produire 20 machines supplémentaires dans son usine de Linköping, l'objectif étant de remplacer les  (Sk 9) et  (Sk 10) comme avion d'entrainement standard de la Flygvapnet. Des extensions de licence permettront ensuite aux Ateliers Centraux de Vaesteras (CVV) de réaliser 37 appareils supplémentaires entre 1939 et 1943. 12 appareils ayant également été achetés en Tchécoslovaquie auprès de CKD en 1940, ce sont donc au total 85 Sk 12 (Fw 44J) qui furent utilisés par l'aviation militaire suédoise. Ces biplans devaient rester en service jusqu'en 1967. Une trentaine de ces appareils furent perdus en service, mais la majorité des Stieglitz encore en état de vol ou visibles dans les Musées en Europe aujourd'hui ont porté les couleurs suédoises.
  : Le  un Fw 44F de la Luftwaffe se posa à Dübendorf, piloté par un officier d'infanterie. Interné, l'appareil fut pris en compte par les troupes fédérales d'aviation (A-95) et utilisé de façon sporadique jusqu'en .
  : 600 exemplaires furent produits sous licence par Ceskomoravska-Kolben-Danek (CKD).
  : Huit Fw 44J furent commandés en 1939 et livrés en 1940, le pilote Stein donnant des cours de pilotage à la fille adoptive de Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Sabiha Gökçen sur un des premiers exemplaires livrés). Au total 20 appareils furent livrés à la Turquie.

Les survivants
Il existe un nombre relativement élevé de Fw 44 en état de vol, dont deux en France. Compte tenu de leur âge et de la difficulté à entretenir des moteurs qui ne sont plus construits, leur situation varie d'année en année, mais ce site  permet d'en suivre l'actualité.

Liens externes

Références

Bibliographie

  Bernd Vetter, Focke-Wulf Fw 44 Stieglitz. Flugzeug Profile . Flugzeug Publikations, Illertissen.

Avion militaire allemand
Avion militaire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale
Aviation légère
Avion d'entraînement militaire
Avion à hélices
Avion monomoteur
Avion des années 1930
Avion biplan
Avion civil
Aéronef Focke-Wulf
Premier vol en 1932


text:
Home news agricarbon-helping-farmers-tap-carbon-credits-market
Agricarbon: helping farmers tap into the carbon credits market
"It is vital that this carbon benefit is realised in the short term to address the climate crisis"
An initiative supported by the James Hutton Institute has set its sights on developing methods for measuring soil carbon with a cost-effective commercial tool to help UK farmers tap into the carbon credits market.
Agricarbon, led by Invergowrie farmer Stewart Arbuckle, has funding from Heathrow Airport, which is one of the world's first aviation hubs to become carbon neutral for its infrastructure and is targeting zero-carbon by the mid-2030s.
Mr Arbuckle said that Agricarbon aims to assist companies who are looking to become carbon neutral but cannot decarbonise internally so would have to offset by buying carbon credits.
"Our method aims to measure soil carbon and how it changes over time so we can generate soil carbon credits which can be sold to companies to bring revenue to farmers," he added.
The James Hutton Institute is supporting the project by providing knowledge and access to expertise and resources, including Scotland's National Soil Archive, hosted at the Institute's Aberdeen site.
Senior soil scientist Dr Helaina Black, an honorary associate of the Institute, commented: "We are pleased to be able to support initiatives like Agricarbon and Heathrow's, which will help farmers and other land managers to increase and restore carbon stores in soils and ecosystems.
"It is vital that this carbon benefit is realised in the short term to address the climate crisis."
Heathrow has also announced £1.8m of new funding for piloting UK natural carbon capture projects in 2020, some of which will be in Scotland.
The investment will help promote the restoration of natural UK carbon sinks – including peatlands, woodlands and farming soils – which have been estimated by the Committee on Climate Change to have the ability to save 43 MT of carbon annually by 2050, if significant investments are made.
The airport has also committed to use its position to encourage others within the aviation industry to invest in similar initiatives up and down the country.
Heathrow Chief Executive John Holland-Kaye said: "Making our infrastructure entirely carbon neutral is a significant milestone and a testament to the determination of our airport to help spearhead a new era of sustainable aviation.
"Our sights are now set on working with the global aviation industry to deliver on net-zero by 2050, at the latest. We can and will cut the environmental cost of flying whilst keeping the benefits of travel for future generations."
Bernardo Rodriguez-Salcedo, Media Manager, James Hutton Institute, Tel: +44 (0)1224 395089 (direct line), +44 (0)344 928 5428 (switchboard) or +44 (0)7791 193918 (mobile).
resource use
Printed from /news/agricarbon-helping-farmers-tap-carbon-credits-market on 22/01/22 12:23:31 AM


text:
César Antonio Morales Anderson (Rancagua, ) es un bailarín chileno de ballet. Es uno principal en el Ballet Real de Birmingham de dicha ciudad en Inglaterra.

Carrera artística
Siendo niño, se trasladó con su familia a la comuna de Quinta Normal en la ciudad de Santiago, donde mediante el coro de la Escuela Lo Franco conoció el ballet en el Teatro Municipal de Santiago. A los 11 años de edad se presentó a una audición en su escuela de ballet y quedó seleccionado. Bailó con el Ballet de Santiago hasta 2003, cuando se trasladó a París para trabajar como artista invitado independiente, bailando en dicha ciudad, Eslovenia y República Checa. En 2002 ganó el Premio Altazor de las Artes Nacionales por su papel en Sueño de una noche de verano, y en 2003, por Romeo y Julieta.

Referencias

Nacidos en Rancagua
Bailarines de Chile