How to Use VLC Media Player API in a C Program - Progur!
Did you know that the VLC media player has a powerful API you can use in your C programs to add VLC-like capabilities to them. For instance, you could use the API to quickly play any media file, extract meta-data from it, or even extract individual video frames from it. In this tutorial, I'll show you how to create a simple C program that can play an audio file. For the sake of completeness, I'll also show you how to listen to the events generated by the player while it is playing the file.
To be able to use the API, you must install the libvlc-dev package on your Ubuntu computer. You can easily do so using apt-get.
Before you use the VLC API in your C program, all you need to do is include vlc/vlc.h as one of your header files. In this tutorial, however, we'll also be using stdlib.h and stdio.h.
Every program that uses the API must first initialize a VLC instance using the libvlc_new() function. The function might return a NULL if there's an error creating the instance, so make sure you handle it appropriately.
As you can see in the above code, the file I am using is called song.flac, and it's present in my /tmp directory.
To actually play the media file, you will also need a media player, which can be created using the libvlc_media_player_new_from_media() function. Once the player has been created, you can simply call the libvlc_media_player_play() function to start playing the file.
The media will start playing immediately. However, it plays asynchronously. Therefore, unless you add a call to the sleep() function now, your program will exit before the file has completed playing.
At this point, you should be able to hear your file being played.
You already know that the VLC library plays the media file asynchronously. While doing so, it also raises several events. If you wish to listen for those events, you must first create an event manager using the libvlc_media_player_event_manager() function.
Once you have the event manager, you can call the libvlc_event_attach() function to associate an event handler with any event. The following code shows you how to listen for libvlc_MediaPlayerPositionChanged events.
Go ahead and run the program again. This time, you should see several log messages showing the latest position of the player head.
You now know the basics of using the VLC API. I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say that it is extremely intuitive and easy to use. There's a lot more the API offers, and you can learn all about it by referring to the official documentation.


Issue: Medical applications of nano-scale technologies have the potential to revolutionize healthcare by delivering powerful tools for diagnosing and treating disease at the molecular level. But the current zeal for nano-enabled medicines could divert scarce medical R&D funds away from essential health services and direct resources away from non-medical aspects of community health and wellbeing. Although nanomedicine is being touted as a solution to pressing health needs in the global South, it is being driven from the North and is designed primarily for wealthy markets. Using nano-scale technologies, the pharmaceutical industry's ultimate goal is to make every person a patient and every patient a paying customer by "medicating" social ills with human performance enhancement (HyPE) drugs and devices. Nanoenabled HyPEs could usher in an era of two-tiered humans – Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens 2.0.
that nanotechnology will produce half of the pharmaceutical industry product line by 2015. Nanomedicine will help big pharma extend its exclusive monopoly patents on existing drug compounds and on older, under-performing drugs. Analysts suggest that nanotech-enabled medicine will increase profitability and discourage competition.
function and capabilities of human bodies and brains. In the near future, nano-enabled HyPE technologies will erase distinctions between "therapy" and "enhancement" and could change, quite literally, the definition of what it means to be healthy or human.


text:
MedApproach, L.P., Jeffrey L. Rush, M.D., Bio-Pharm Investment, Inc., Danco Investors Group, a/k/a Neogen Holdings, L.P. N.D. Management, Inc., Danco Holdings, L.P. a/k/a Neogen Holdings, L.P. Danco Laboratories, Inc., Danco Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a/k/a Neogen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Respondents-Appellees, v. FREEMAN
Joseph D. PIKE, Petitioner-Appellee, MedApproach, L.P., Jeffrey L. Rush, M.D., Bio-Pharm Investment, Inc., Danco Investors Group, a/k/a Neogen Holdings, L.P. N.D. Management, Inc., Danco Holdings, L.P. a/k/a Neogen Holdings, L.P. Danco Laboratories, Inc., Danco Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a/k/a Neogen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Respondents-Appellees, v. Brian M. FREEMAN, Respondent-Appellant.
Decided: September 26, 2001
Before WALKER, Chief Judge, McLAUGHLIN, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges. John K. Crossman, Zevnik Horton Guibord McGovern Palmer & Fognani, L.L.P., New York, NY, for petitioner-appellee. W. Gary Blackburn, Blackburn & McCune, P.C., Nashville, TN, for respondents-appellees. Richard De Palma, Coudert Brothers, New York, NY, for respondent-appellant.
Respondent-appellant Brian M. Freeman appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard C. Casey, Judge ) granting petitioner-appellee Joseph D. Pike's motion to confirm a July 15, 1999 arbitration award against respondents. In particular, Freeman challenges (1) the portion of the award finding him liable as a general partner of co-respondent Danco Investors Group, L.P., and (2) the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his counterclaim and cross-claims for indemnification based upon a finding that he waived those claims by failing to assert them in the arbitration. We agree with the district court that Freeman failed to demonstrate that the challenged portion of the arbitral award should be set aside. With respect to the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Freeman's indemnification counterclaim and cross-claims, however, we find that the district court's analysis of the counterclaim is based on an erroneous assumption, and that the district court erred in concluding that Freeman waived his indemnification claims by not asserting them in the arbitration. Consequently we vacate the dismissal with prejudice of Freeman's indemnification claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The matter submitted to arbitration involved a dispute among Pike, Freeman, and other individuals and entities involved in a project to manufacture, distribute, and market an abortion-inducing drug in the United States (the "Project"). The patent for the drug in the United States is owned by a non-profit organization, The Population Council, which retained private entrepreneurs to carry out the Project.
Pike was initially the individual selected to be in charge of the Project. Given the Project's potentially controversial nature, Pike set up a complicated corporate structure to shield from publicity the entities playing key roles in the Project. As a result, those who invested in the Project did so by purchasing limited partnership interests in respondent Danco Investors Group, also known as Neogen Holdings, L.P. (the "Partnership"). The Partnership's general partner was respondent N.D. Management, Inc. ("N.D.Management").
I. The Engagement Contract
For reasons not relevant here, The Population Council eventually decided that Pike should extricate himself from any position of control within the Project. In connection therewith, Pike, individually and on behalf of N.D. Management, the Partnership, and "affiliated entities," hired appellant Brian M. Freeman's company, Brian M. Freeman Enterprises, Inc. ("BMF Enterprises"), to be the agent in negotiating and selling Pike's controlling interest in the various entities involved in the Project. Pike's retention of BMF Enterprises was documented in an engagement contract dated November 3, 1996 (the "Engagement").
II. The Agreement
In January 1997, Pike entered into an agreement to sell 75% of his 100% interest in N.D. Management to respondent MedApproach, L.P. and other "Participating Investors" (the "January Agreement"). In return for the sale and for fulfilling other obligations, Pike was to receive certain payments. Freeman, in addition to his role as the principal of BMF Enterprises, was listed in the January Agreement as one of the "Participating Investors" in the Project. The January Agreement also provided that, with respect to Pike's remaining interests, such as his remaining 25% interest in N.D. Management, Pike was to provide Freeman and two other individuals "an exclusive and irrevocable proxy and power of attorney ․ for all rights with respect to voting of stock or partnership interests in N.D. Management, Inc., [and] Neogen Industries, Inc., which shall also include all control, management and financial functions of each of the Pike Entities and the Project." 1 Freeman signed the January Agreement.
The January Agreement contained the following arbitration clause: "Any disputes hereunder shall be resolved by: binding arbitration by American Arbitration Association in New York City on an expedited basis."
The January Agreement was amended on February 5, 1997. Although the definition of "Participating Investors" was not changed, paragraph 10 of the amendment purported to exclude Freeman to a significant extent from the arrangements set up in the January Agreement, while leaving him responsible for certain specific obligations, including his duties as a proxy holder and holder of a power of attorney and his duty as a "Participating Investor" to make up any shortfall in investments received for the Project.
The January Agreement, amended on February 5, was again amended on or about February 12, 1997 (collectively, the "Agreement"). The February 12 amendment provided in relevant part that certain payments to Pike under the Agreement were to be given instead to BMF Enterprises to satisfy certain of Pike's obligations to BMF Enterprises under the Engagement. The February 12 amendment added, however, that "the remaining sections of the Engagement, remain in full force and effect."
III. The Arbitration
After a dispute subsequently arose as to whether Pike had performed his obligations under the Agreement and whether he was entitled to receive the payments promised to him thereunder, Pike sent a demand for arbitration on September 21, 1998, alleging "the respondents' breach of the Agreement." Freeman was one of the named respondents and was described as an "individual." Respondents filed an answer dated November 5, 1998, asserting as the Twenty Second Affirmative Defense: "As to all claims ․ Freeman ․ [is] not properly before this tribunal for arbitration in that there are no agreements conferring such jurisdiction." Respondents, including Freeman, then participated in the selection of arbitrators and, eventually, in discovery. In February 1999, following a preliminary hearing, the arbitrators issued an order indicating that the parties had agreed that no explanatory supporting opinion would be provided when the arbitrators issued their ruling.
On March 1, 1999, Pike filed a "Written Specification of Affirmative Claims," which provided a summary of the breaches of the Agreement alleged by Pike:
Mr. Pike agreed to relinquish control and approximately 75% of his financial stake in the Project in return for $3,500,000 and an agreement by respondents to indemnify Mr. Pike for expenses incurred in connection with his role in the Project. Also, respondents promised Mr. Pike a position as a consultant for five years, with appropriate support and an annual salary of $300,000. Finally and most importantly, respondents assured Mr. Pike that they would protect the Project and the investors by purchasing any limited partner interests tendered in connection with a rescission offer they would make, and that they would contribute additional financing of $14,000,000.
Respondents have failed to fulfill any of these obligations․
The indemnification that Pike sought for expenses "in connection with his role in the Project" consisted of attorneys' fees and costs Pike incurred in obtaining dismissals or stays of lawsuits brought against him by certain respondents in late 1997 and 1998-lawsuits Pike claimed should have been arbitrated. In addition, Pike sought "[a]n award of all costs in this arbitration proceeding, including attorneys' fees."
In a motion dated the same day, Freeman and co-respondents Jeffrey L. Rush and Bio-Pharm Investment, Inc. moved to dismiss the arbitration for lack of jurisdiction. The supporting memorandum of law stated that by virtue of Paragraph 10 of the February 5 amendment to the January Agreement, "Freeman [and the other movants] are not parties to any contract on which the instant Arbitration is based and thus have not consented to participate in this Arbitration." In opposition, Pike argued that Freeman and the other movants had waived their right to move to dismiss under New York State law by failing timely to object to the demand for arbitration. Freeman and the other movants subsequently filed a supplemental memorandum of law dated March 12, 1999, arguing that their objection was not waived, and that even if, under relevant state law, judicial review of arbitrability had been waived by failing to object sooner:
[Movants] have not waived the right to adjudication of this issue before the arbitrators. The arbitration clause in the January 21, 1997, Agreement provides that "[a]ny disputes hereunder shall be resolved by: binding arbitration by American Arbitration Association in New York City on an expedited basis." Whether the operative provisions of the Agreement, including the arbitration clause thereof, apply to Movants is a "dispute hereunder" to be resolved in this arbitration. First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1923-24, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995); PaineWebber, Inc. v. Bybyk, 81 F.3d 1193, 1198-1200 (2d Cir.1996). As the Court stated in Nationwide General Ins. Co. v. Investors Ins. Co. of America, 37 N.Y.2d 91, 96, 371 N.Y.S.2d 463, 467, 332 N.E.2d 333 (1975), "[p]enetrating definitive analysis of the scope of the agreement must be left to the arbitrators whenever the parties have broadly agreed that any dispute involving the interpretation and meaning of the agreement should be submitted to arbitration."
(Emphasis added.) The movants concluded by stating that they
were not required to and are not precluded from raising this issue in the arbitration. Movants timely and specifically asserted the defense of non-arbitrability in their Answer (Twenty Second Affirmative Defense) and have not waived this issue by appearing before the arbitrators on a motion to dismiss.
On March 16, 1999, the arbitrators denied the motion to dismiss "without prejudice to these respondents' right to seek to prove, at the hearing, should that be deemed by them to be desirable, that they have no liability for any sums that might be awarded at the conclusion of this arbitration proceeding."
In May 1999, an eleven-day evidentiary hearing was held, during which Freeman testified. In his opening statement, Pike's counsel asserted that
we're asking in particular that Mr. Freeman-his portion of all of this personally and that the award that is entered should-for any obligation of even the limited partnership, we contend is a direct personal obligation of Mr. Freeman as a general partner. You'll say to me, but he's a limited partner, why would he be a general partner. We put in our brief and explained the HA Law (phonetic) where a limited partner undertakes to manage the business, decide when the general partner can resign and quit, etcetera, that they become at all a general partner and we'll show you buckets of correspondence and just countless acts, documents signed by Mr. Freeman in his own name, on behalf of the limited partnership.
Subsequently, Pike filed a post-hearing brief dated June 10, 1999. In that brief, Pike again asserted that any money for which the Partnership was to be found liable should, in the event the Partnership was unable to pay it, be the responsibility of its general partners, whom Pike identified as MedApproach, Bio-Pharm, and Freeman. While MedApproach was identified as the "express general partner," Pike also claimed that Freeman was "liable as a general partner" because he was a limited partner who "took part in the control of the business of the partnership." According to Pike, a limited partner who exercises such control becomes personally liable as a general partner under California and New York partnership law.2
Respondents filed an opposing brief on June 17, 1999. They claimed that (1) Freeman was not actually a limited partner, but was only "a trustee of a limited partner," and, in any event, (2) the provisions of partnership law relied upon by Pike had been superseded and now required the party suing to have a reasonable belief that a limited partner exercising control of a partnership was actually a general partner. Respondents argued that, although the evidence of Freeman's control of the partnership offered at the hearing was undisputed, Pike could not have had such a reasonable belief because Pike, not Freeman, had been the one who sold his interest in the general partnership to MedApproach, and thus knew how the entities were structured-at least as of February 1997.
In an award dated July 15, 1999 (the "Award"), the arbitrators found in favor of Pike. Of particular concern to Freeman was the portion of the Award that indemnified Pike for several hundred thousand dollars in attorney's fees and costs, payment of which was ordered to be the
responsibility, jointly and severally, of N.D. Management, Inc., Danco Laboratories, Inc., Danco Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Neogen Holdings, L.P. aka Danco Holdings, L.P. and Danco Investors Group, L.P. aka Neogen Investors, L.P. By his actions as proved during this proceeding, it is determined that Respondent Brian M. Freeman is a general partner of Danco Investors Group, L.P.
MedApproach, Freeman, and Rush were thus ordered to provide sufficient funds to the Partnership by September 10, 1999, to allow it to make the required payments, "[t]he proportion of such funds to be provided respectively by MedApproach, Freeman and Rush ․ in the ratio of 50:25:25, unless otherwise agreed among them." 3
In addition, the Award ordered Freeman and the other respondents to pay a total of $70,000 for "dilatory and bad faith conduct in this arbitration, including but not limited to the promulgation of frivolous claims, the failure to comply with procedural orders, and the late production of required documents." The Award also ordered that MedApproach and the individual respondents Rush and Freeman were jointly and severally responsible for paying $700,000 in consulting fees to Pike as required by the Agreement.
Following the issuance of the Award, Pike commenced a proceeding to confirm it in New York state court, which was removed by defendant Neogen Holdings, L.P. to federal court on the basis of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-205.4 Freeman then filed (1) a motion to vacate the Award; (2) a counterclaim against Pike seeking indemnification for payment of the Award under the terms of the Engagement; and (3) cross-claims against the other respondents seeking indemnification under the Agreement.
At argument before the district court, Pike's attorney again argued that
the simple fact, which was proved at the arbitration, and which we have submitted the evidence [of] in our papers, is that Freeman was functioning as a general partner of this operation. He was the moving force. He negotiated everything. He had his finger on all of the financials. He was writing all the letters. There is a huge litany of things that he admitted during the arbitration that he was doing. And as a matter of fact, he was functioning as and chargeable as a general partner. Whether he has any rights as a general partner, frankly, we could care less. But he certainly has the responsibilities and the liabilities.
On June 30, 2000, in an oral decision, Judge Casey confirmed the award in its entirety. The district court also dismissed with prejudice Freeman's counterclaim against Pike for indemnification and Freeman's cross-claims against the other respondents for indemnification on the ground that Freeman had waived them by failing to assert them in the arbitration. Judgment was entered on August 18, 2000, and this appeal followed.
In reviewing a district court's confirmation of an arbitral award, we review legal issues de novo and findings of fact for clear error. DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 821 (2d Cir.1997). Federal court review of an arbitral judgment is highly deferential; such judgments are to be reversed only where the arbitrators have exceeded their authority or made a finding in manifest disregard of the law. Fahnestock & Co. v. Waltman, 935 F.2d 512, 515 (2d Cir.1991). "[A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision." United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987). In determining whether arbitrators have "manifestly disregarded the law," we have held that there must be
something beyond and different from a mere error in the law or failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law, in order to sustain a finding of manifest disregard of the law. Illustrative of the degree of "disregard" necessary to support vacatur under this standard is our holding that manifest disregard will be found where an arbitrator understood and correctly stated the law but proceeded to ignore it.
Fahnestock, 935 F.2d at 516 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Folkways Music Publishers, Inc. v. Weiss, 989 F.2d 108, 111-12 (2d Cir.1993) ("[C]ourts may vacate awards only for an overt disregard of the law and not merely for an erroneous interpretation․ Moreover, the law ignored by the arbitrators must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable if the award is to be vacated.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the arbitrators did not exceed their authority nor did they manifestly disregard the law.
I. Freeman's Liability
Freeman claims that the arbitrators exceeded their authority in deciding that he was a limited partner liable as a general partner because the Agreement containing the arbitration clause did not address whether Freeman was a limited partner.5 This claim lacks merit because, in deciding the extent to which respondents caused injury to Pike, it was well within the scope of the arbitration clause for the arbitrators to decide under what theory or theories Freeman should or could be held liable for the damage suffered.
Freeman further claims that he cannot be liable as a general partner because he was not even a limited partner but instead a trustee of two trusts that were limited partners. Pike asserted in the arbitration, however, that Freeman, as an individual, was a limited partner. The record, somewhat surprisingly, contains no official corporate document comprehensively setting forth the limited partners of the partnership.6 The arbitrators were thus left with the competing arguments of the parties and sparse documentary evidence. In examining that evidence, we note that while the names of the trusts do not appear in the Agreement, the Agreement and associated documents contain several passages suggesting that Freeman individually was a limited partner.7 Thus, the arbitrators were entitled to reach a conclusion on liability that required, as a precondition, that Freeman be a limited partner of the Partnership.
We similarly reject Freeman's claim that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law in finding him liable for the amounts specified in the Award. Freeman maintains that his official legal roles in the Project entities do not allow for a finding that he is personally liable for the amounts awarded. In particular, he contends that, under the relevant partnership law, he could not be liable as a general partner unless he was a limited partner who Pike reasonably believed was acting as the general partner. We observe, however, that one of the key issues during the arbitration hearing with respect to Freeman was the extent to which Freeman's actual participation in the entities at issue differed from the official arrangements set forth in the Agreement and other documents. Freeman's testimony during the arbitration hearing detailed an extensive list of activities Freeman carried out involving the control and management of the general partner, after Pike had relinquished control. While Freeman argued that such activities were carried out as an "advisor" to the general partner, among other roles, the arbitrators were entitled to determine that, after Pike relinquished control, he reasonably could have perceived such activities as evidence that Freeman was acting as a general partner. Indeed, where, as here, no explanatory opinion accompanies the award, "[i]f a ground for the arbitrator's decision can be inferred from the facts of the case, the award should be confirmed." Fahnestock, 935 F.2d at 516. Based on the facts of this case-as determined by the arbitrators' interpretation of a somewhat convoluted, inconsistent, and incomplete documentary and testimonial record-we cannot say that no grounds exist to support the arbitrators' decision.
In any event, Freeman has not explained why partnership law provides the exclusive permissible grounds for the arbitrators' imposition of personal liability on Freeman. In fact, Freeman's counsel conceded in the hearing before the district court that the Award might also be justified on a "piercing the corporate veil" theory:
So the point that Mr. Crossman is trying to make in his brief and before your Honor is that perhaps Freeman exercised such control that it would be appropriate to hold him personally liable for the debts of the limited partnership. However, your honor, that does not convert Freeman to a general partner. What it may be, if one were to look at it in the broadest way, is a request that notwithstanding the fact that it is neither a limited partner nor a general partner, that he is nonetheless personally liable on a piercing the corporate veil issue. And what I'm arguing to your Honor is not whether the arbitrators were correct or not in making a determination that Freeman had liability, but specifically in making a declaration that he is a general partner.
(Emphasis added.) Based on the above,8 it is clear that the arbitrators' decision to impose personal liability on Freeman, including liability for obligations of the Partnership, was not in manifest disregard of the law.9 We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court to the extent that it confirmed the Award and denied Freeman's petition to vacate it.
II. Freeman's Indemnification Claims
In the district court, Freeman asserted for the first time a counterclaim against Pike for indemnification, and cross-claims for indemnification against all of the other respondents, i.e., all of the various limited partnership and corporate entities, as well as MedApproach, Jeffrey Rush, and Bio-Pharm Investments. The counterclaim seeks indemnification under the Engagement for "any judgment entered in favor of [Pike] and against defendant Freeman, and defendant Freeman is entitled to judgment against Pike in such amount, plus interest." 10 The cross-claims seek indemnification under, inter alia, the Agreement "for any judgment entered in favor of [Pike] and against defendant Freeman, and for any costs and legal fees incurred in connection with the underlying transaction, the arbitration proceedings and in the [district court] action, together with interest." 11
The district court did not discuss the indemnification counterclaim and the cross-claims separately, and appeared to assume that both were asserted primarily under the Agreement.12 The court first found the claims to be within the scope of the Agreement's arbitration clause and thus subject to arbitration. Finding that Freeman could have asserted his indemnification claims in the arbitration but had failed to do so, the district court then concluded that Freeman had waived his right to assert these claims:
Freeman had ample opportunity to raise the issue of indemnification during the arbitration. The fact that the precise issue of indemnification was not raised, nor were the calculations regarding indemnification made, did not relieve respondent Freeman of the duty to raise at arbitration all questions or matters relevant to the outcome of the case, including indemnification. United Food and Comm. Workers, Local 400 v. Marval Poultry Company, Inc., 876 F.2d 346, 349 (4th Cir.1989).
․ Arbitration is not a trial run in which a party may sit quietly by without raising pertinent issues, wait to see if the result is in his favor and then seek judicial relief as an afterthought. See Marino v. Writers Guild of Am., East, Inc., 992 F.2d 1480, 1483-84 (9th Cir.1993). If that were the case, arbitration would lose its vitality as an alternative to litigation, which is inconsistent with the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, the enforcement of arbitration agreements and the confirmation of arbitration awards. Porush v. Lemire, 6 F.Supp.2d 178, 182 (E.D.N.Y.1998). To the extent that respondent Freeman would have had any right to be indemnified in this action, any dispute on that issue was required to be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the contract. As respondent Freeman did not raise this issue during the arbitration before the panel, he has waived the right to do so.
In light of this waiver finding, the district court dismissed Freeman's indemnification claims with prejudice.
We agree with the district court's determination that the cross-claims are subject to arbitration because, as noted, these claims are predicated in large part on the Agreement, and the Agreement's arbitration clause is sufficiently broad to cover disputes about indemnification claims based on the Agreement.
We do not agree, however, with the district court's determination that the counterclaim is subject to arbitration because that determination is based on the erroneous assumption that the counterclaim was premised on the Agreement. As noted, the counterclaim was actually premised on the Engagement. Whether the counterclaim is subject to arbitration despite the fact that the Engagement lacks an arbitration clause is a question that the district court should address on remand.
Turning to the district court's waiver finding, we note that the cases upon which the district court based this finding do not support the view that one failure to raise an indemnification claim in an arbitration (in which the claims underlying the indemnification claim have been raised) constitutes a waiver of the indemnification claim. None of these cases concerned an indemnification claim that a party had failed to raise during such an arbitration. Nor is the general rule recognized by these cases applicable to indemnification claims such as those asserted by Freeman. This rule prohibits "collateral[ ] attack[s]" on an arbitration "procedure on grounds not raised before the arbitrators." Marino, 992 F.2d at 1484-85 (holding that party waived challenge to award predicated on allegation that his opponent precluded him from ascertaining the qualifications or partiality of the arbitrators); see also Marval Poultry, 876 F.2d at 352-53 ("[A] party to arbitration cannot voluntarily engage in the arbitration of the issues submitted to the arbitrator and then attack the award on grounds not raised before the arbitrator.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that party waived his challenges to the arbitration award); Porush, 6 F.Supp.2d at 182 (holding that party waived attack on arbitration award that alleged that award was based on insufficient evidence).13 It is evident that Freeman's indemnification claims are not "collateral attacks" on the Award. On the contrary, they necessarily presuppose the validity of the Award.
In a vein similar to the district court's waiver finding, Pike argues that Freeman was barred from bringing his indemnification claims in the district court by the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion.14 It is well settled that this doctrine serves to bar certain claims in federal court based on the binding effect of past determinations in arbitral proceedings. See Goldstein v. Doft, 236 F.Supp. 730, 732-33 (S.D.N.Y.1964) (Weinfeld, J.), aff'd, 353 F.2d 484 (2d Cir.1965) (per curiam); Am. Ins. Co. v. Messinger, 43 N.Y.2d 184, 189-90, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36, 371 N.E.2d 798 (1977). To prove that a claim is precluded under this doctrine, "a party must show that (1) the previous action involved an adjudication on the merits; (2) the previous action involved the [parties] or those in privity with them; [and] (3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were, or could have been, raised in the prior action." Monahan v. New York City Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 284-85 (2d Cir.2000) (citing Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980)). Whether a claim that was not raised in the previous action could have been raised therein "depends in part on whether the same transaction or connected series of transactions is at issue, and whether the same evidence is needed to support both claims." Interoceanica Corp. v. Sound Pilots, Inc., 107 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir.1997) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). "To ascertain whether two actions spring from the same 'transaction' or 'claim,' we look to whether the underlying facts are 'related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage.' " Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(b)). As this "same transaction" test indicates, the "could have been" language of the third requirement is something of a misnomer. The question is not whether the applicable procedural rules permitted assertion of the claim in the first proceeding; rather, the question is whether the claim was sufficiently related to the claims that were asserted in the first proceeding that it should have been asserted in that proceeding. See, e.g., Kane v. Magna Mixer Co., 71 F.3d 555, 560 (6th Cir.1995) (stating that one of the elements of res judicata is "an issue in the subsequent action which was litigated or which should have been litigated in the prior action"). This said, showing that the applicable procedural rules did not permit assertion of the claim in question in the first action of course also suffices to show that the claim is not barred in the second action.
With respect to the third requirement, the parties agree that Freeman did not assert his indemnification claims in the arbitration. Consequently, the question is whether these claims should have been raised in the arbitration, that is, whether they are based on the same "transaction" as were the claims asserted by Pike in the arbitration.15 Freeman contends that his indemnification claims are not based on the same transaction upon which Pike's breach of contract claims were based because the indemnification claims "ar[ose] out of the entry of the Award against Freeman and the costs and expenses of the arbitration and of the [proceedings before the district court]." We agree. The two sets of claims are related in neither time nor origin: Whereas Pike's breach of contract claims are based on the party's conduct prior to institution of the arbitration, Freeman's indemnification claims did not arise until the Award was granted and the district court proceedings were prosecuted.16 Cf. Bank of India v. Trendi Sportswear, Inc., 239 F.3d 428, 440 (2d Cir.2000) (rejecting fourth-party defendant's argument that indemnification claim brought against it by fourth-party plaintiff was barred by res judicata because fourth-party plaintiff "could have obtained a conditional judgment against [fourth-party defendant] in [a previous action] if [fourth-party plaintiff] believed it had a valid indemnification claim," on the ground that "we have uncovered no authority requiring a party to obtain a conditional judgment for the purpose of avoiding the preclusive effect of res judicata"). We hold, therefore, that Freeman's indemnification claims are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.17
Finally, we note that there is a third potential justification for the conclusion that Freeman forfeited his indemnification cross-claims (and, assuming that it is subject to arbitration, his indemnification counterclaim) by not asserting them in the arbitration below: because he was required to do so by the Agreement or the Engagement (or some other agreement to which he was a party and which is at issue in this case). If Freeman was not so required, then even assuming that the counterclaim was subject to arbitration, Freeman did not waive his indemnification claims by not asserting them in the arbitration below. Freeman would thus be free to assert them in a future arbitration. Hence, on remand, the district court is instructed to determine whether Freeman was required, pursuant to an agreement to which he was a party and which is at issue in this case, to assert his indemnification cross-claims in the arbitration below. Similarly, if the district court determines on remand that the indemnification counterclaim is subject to arbitration, the district court is instructed to determine whether Freeman was required, pursuant to an agreement to which he was a party and which is at issue in this case, to assert his indemnification counterclaim in the arbitration below.
For the reasons discussed, we affirm the judgment of the district court confirming the Award as against Freeman, vacate the judgment insofar as it dismissed with prejudice Freeman's counterclaim and cross-claims for indemnification, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. The "Pike Entities" were Neogen Holdings, LP, Neogen Investors, LP, Neogen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Danco Laboratories, Inc., N.D. Management, Neogen Industries, Inc., and "any and all other entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by Pike related to the Project."
2. The post-hearing brief also asserted that Freeman was personally liable for certain breaches of the obligations of "Participating Investors" under the Agreement.
3. The Award did not grant all of the fees and costs sought by Pike and, in particular, did not grant him the costs and fees associated with the arbitration.
4. Although Pike moved to remand the action to state court, the district court denied the motion and correctly held that federal subject matter jurisdiction existed under the Convention. See 9 U.S.C. § 203. We have held that three basic requirements must be met for a district court to establish jurisdiction under the Convention: "[T]he award (1) must arise out of a legal relationship (2) which is commercial in nature and (3) which is not entirely domestic in scope." Cargill Int'l S.A. v. M/T Pavel Dybenko, 991 F.2d 1012, 1018 (2d Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court found that the first element was undisputed, except for Freeman's contention that he was not a party to the Agreement for the purposes of the arbitration clause, and that the second element was also undisputed. The court found that the third element was met because it credited Freeman's representation that N.D. Management, Danco Holdings, L.P., and Danco Laboratories, Inc. were "Cayman Island corporations with their principal places of business located in Georgetown, Grand Cayman," indicating that the award did not simply arise "out of [a legal] relationship which is entirely between citizens of the United States." 9 U.S.C. § 202.With respect to Freeman's status as a party to the Agreement, because Freeman had conceded that "[w]hether the operative provisions of the Agreement, including the arbitration clause thereof, apply to Movants is a 'dispute hereunder,' to be resolved in this arbitration," and the arbitrators had determined that Freeman was a party to the arbitration clause, the court affirmed the arbitrators' decision. This Court has held that "[a]lthough a party is bound by an arbitral award only where it has agreed to arbitrate, an agreement may be implied from the party's conduct." Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100, 1105 (2d Cir.1991) (finding such agreement to be implied based on non-signatories' "active and voluntary participation in the arbitration," as well as the fact that they had not "objected to the process, refused to arbitrate or made any attempt to seek judicial relief"). While Freeman had claimed that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction over him, he did not object to the process by which the arbitrator, rather than a court, resolved the question of his status as a party to the agreement to arbitrate, did not refuse to arbitrate, and did not seek judicial relief from having to participate in the arbitration. See Gvozdenovic, 933 F.2d at 1105.At oral argument on the instant appeal, Freeman's counsel conceded that Freeman had submitted the question of his status as a party to the Agreement to the arbitrators to decide, and stated that Freeman was not objecting on appeal to the arbitrators' finding that he was a party to the Agreement.
5. Freeman also argues that, because neither the partnership agreements nor the other limited partners were before the arbitrators, the arbitrators exceeded their authority by finding that he was an actual general partner, rather than merely liable as though he were a general partner. He rests his claim that the arbitrators found him to be an actual general partner on the Award's statement that "Freeman is a general partner." We disagree that this statement must be given the interpretation advanced by Freeman. Read in the context of the entire Award, this language is reasonably interpreted to state that Freeman is to be held liable as a general partner.
6. The document upon which Freeman relies is simply a facsimile sent by Pike in April 1997 entitled "Investors Contacts," which lists the two trusts and states that Brian M. Freeman is their trustee.
7. For example, "Participating Investors" in the January Agreement is defined as "MedApproach, Richard S. Cusac, William S. Elkus, Brian M. Freeman and Jeffrey L. Rush, M.D. and such of the other limited partners of Neogen Investors." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, the "Irrevocable Proxy and Power of Attorney" executed pursuant to the Agreement in favor of certain "Holders," one of whom is Freeman as an individual, refers to the Agreement as being between Pike, "the Holders and certain other limited partners of" the Partnership. (Emphasis added.) Finally, another document indicating the same was pointed out to Freeman during the arbitration hearing itself:Q: If you turn to the last page of it, page eight, it's-there's a statement at the end: 'The L[imited] P[artner] representatives.' "You're the first one, that's you?"A: That's me.
8. We also observe in this regard that, at least according to the record, Freeman was not just an advisor or consultant to the general partner, but a "Director/Proxy Holder" of the general partner as well.
9. We note that Freeman does not challenge on appeal any liability imposed upon him in the Award other than the amounts related to his liability as a general partner.
10. Freeman's counterclaim as originally filed also sought indemnification for "any costs and legal fees incurred by Freeman in connection with the underlying transaction, the arbitration proceedings and in the instant action, together with interest." On appeal, however, with respect to the latter claim for "any costs and legal fees incurred ․ in connection with the underlying transaction," Pike correctly points out, and Freeman concedes, that in the second amendment to the Agreement, Freeman expressly waived any claim for costs incurred before February 10, 1997. Freeman has also stated on appeal that he does "not seek indemnification against Pike for liabilities which he suffered prior to the issuance of the Award (other than seeking fees and costs in the arbitration itself)"-an apparent abandonment of any attempt to recover transaction-related costs after February 10, 1997. Furthermore, in response to Pike's argument that Freeman cannot be indemnified for bad faith actions or intentional misconduct, Freeman has disclaimed any attempt to be indemnified for the $70,000 the Award imposed for Freeman's bad faith and dilatory conduct. Thus, Freeman currently seeks indemnification from Pike, based on the Engagement, for any amount of the up to $111,075 he would have to provide to Danco Investors, L.P. to enable it to pay Pike's legal fees, the portion of Pike's $776,125 consulting fee which he might be required to pay, the costs of the arbitration proceeding and district court litigation, and any applicable interest on those amounts.
11. Unlike the relief sought from Pike, the cross-claims also seek indemnification for the $70,000 imposed for Freeman's "dilatory and bad faith conduct."
12. Although the district court initially stated that "Freeman seeks indemnification pursuant to, but not limited to," the Agreement-thus suggesting that Freeman's indemnification claims were also brought pursuant to documents other than the Agreement-the district court immediately went on to state that "Freeman's indemnification claim derives its basis from" the Agreement.
13. The additional authorities cited by respondents-appellees are not to the contrary. See AAOT Foreign Econ. Ass'n (Vo) Technostroyexport v. Int'l Dev. and Trade Servs., Inc., 139 F.3d 980, 982 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that party waived objection to award based on alleged corruption of arbitration panel); Dorado Beach Hotel Corp. v. Union De Trabajadores De La Industria Gastronomica De Puerto Rico Local 610 of the Hotel Employees and Rest. Employees Int'l Union AFL-CIO, 959 F.2d 2, 5-6 (1st Cir.1992) (holding that party waived objection to award based on preemption defense); Ebasco Constructors, Inc. v. Ahtna, Inc., 932 P.2d 1312, 1317 (Ak.1997) (holding that party waived objection to award by failing to object in arbitration to arbitrator's consideration of opponent's theory of recovery raised for first time on first day of arbitration hearing).
14. This argument raises the question whether federal law or state law should govern a federal court's determination of the preclusive effect of an arbitral award-a question that unfortunately "has not been much developed." 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4475, at 772 (Supp.2001). Because there appears to be no significant difference between New York preclusion law and federal preclusion law, however, we need not base our analysis of Pike's res judicata claim on only one of these sources of preclusion law. See Maharaj v. Bankamerica Corp., 128 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir.1997) ("Under both New York law and federal law, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, provides that '[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.' ") (quoting Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981)).
15. This question of course presupposes that the indemnification claims "could have been raised" in the arbitration in the sense that such claims are permitted by the American Arbitration Association's Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedures (the "Procedures"). Nothing in the Procedures indicates that such claims could not have been asserted in the arbitration. The provision most directly on point, R-6, entitled, "Changes of Claim," provides:After filing of a claim, if either party desires to make any new or different claim or counterclaim, it shall be made in writing and filed with the AAA. The party asserting such a claim or counterclaim shall provide a copy to the other party, who shall have 15 days from the date of such transmission within which to file an answering statement with the AAA. After the arbitrator is appointed, however, no new or different claim may be submitted except with the arbitrator's consent.On the other hand, because Freeman was clearly not required to assert his indemnification claims in the arbitration by R-6, he did not waive them pursuant to the Procedures by failing to do so.Rather than addressing whether the Procedures permitted or required the claims to be brought in the arbitration, the parties debate whether New York law permits or requires indemnification claims to be brought in the same state court proceeding in which the underlying liability claims are asserted. We do not reach this issue because neither the Procedures nor any other authority of which we are aware provides that New York procedural law is applicable in AAA proceedings.
16. In support of his contention that Freeman's indemnification claims are barred by res judicata, Pike quotes the New York Court of Appeals' statement (regarding one of the prime bases of the res judicata doctrine, namely, the minimization of inconsistent results) that "a party is not free to remain silent in an action in which he is a defendant and then bring a second action seeking relief inconsistent with the judgment in the first action." Henry Modell and Co. v. Minister, Elders and Deacons, 68 N.Y.2d 456, 461, 510 N.Y.S.2d 63, 502 N.E.2d 978 (1986); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979) (stating that res judicata "fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions"). It is evident that this "inconsistency" rationale actually supports our finding that Freeman's indemnification claims are not precluded by res judicata. Far from being inconsistent with the Award, Freeman's indemnification claims necessarily presuppose its validity.
17. Freeman argues that (1) he did not waive his indemnification cross-claims by not bringing them in the arbitration because, under Rule 13(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cross-claims are always permissive, and (2) he did not waive his indemnification counterclaim because, under Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only claims which have accrued or matured at the time of the pleading are compulsory and his indemnification counterclaim had not accrued when he filed his pleadings in the arbitration. As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association, however, this reasoning is at most merely analogically relevant to this case. See Champ v. Siegel Trading Co., 55 F.3d 269, 276 (7th Cir.1995).
SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge:

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
State Rep. Matt Krause
House District 93 (Retired) - Haslet
Facebook: KrauseforTexas
Twitter: @RepMattKrause
Career: A
2019: C+
2017: A+
2015: A
About State Rep. Matt Krause
Matt Krause is a fourth generation Texan born in Tyler and raised in San Antonio. He met his wife, Jennie, while in college at Christian Heritage College (now known as San Diego Christian College) where he played basketball while earning a degree in History. After graduating, he was in the inaugural class at Liberty University Law School. After earning his law degree, he accepted an offer from Liberty Counsel to open an office in Texas. He, his wife, and four children reside in Fort Worth, and he is now the executive director at the Torch of Freedom Foundation.
Culture, Recreation, and Tourism
General Investigating, Chair
Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
State Rep. Matt Krause's Record


text:
Rep. Lipinski Honors the State Champion Lockport Boys Bowling Team
U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-3) presents members of Lockport Township High School's athletic department and boys bowling coaching staff with a copy of the statement he made in the House of Representatives honoring the Lockport Township High School boys bowling team for their victory at the state championship tournament. The statement congratulates the Porters for their first ever Illinois High School Association title in boys bowling and notes how the "victory is a reminder of how preparation, practice, and perseverance produce solid results, even when facing difficult challenges." Rep. Lipinski presented (appearing in photo from left to right) Assistant Coach Roger McDaniel, Head Coach Jeff Wyatt and Athletic Director Brian Goff with a copy of the statement at the congressman's district office in Lockport's Central Square.


Located just 40m from the beach in Castara's Heavenly Bay, Lillibets is Castara's newest accommodation offering. The apartments and their verandas are spacious, well-furnished and extremely comfortable. Enjoy the luxury of your very own fully equipped suite.
The beach is quiet, secluded and approximately 40 metres from your apartment. Heavenly Bay has some of the best snorkelling in Tobago, just 30 metres from the shore, and just has to be experienced.
Located beside the turquoise waters of magnificent Grafton Beach, Black Rock Dreams is the most prestigious condominium development in Tobago and home to eight privately owned luxury villa-apartments. Three of the largest – Mahi Mahi Suite, Chaconia Suite and Flamboyant Suite- are available for vacation rental. We are delighted to introduce them to you here. The Black Rock Dreams apartments are situated in a secure compound with direct access to the spectacular beach through lush tropical gardens with an attractive swimming pool. Each air-conditioned three-bedroom unit is tastefully decorated and furnished and equipped to exceptional standards.
Based in the tiny and increasingly popular fishing village of Castara, on the beautiful northern Caribbean coast of Tobago, Alibaba Tours are well-known for their excellent sightseeing tours. They offer comfortable and knowledgeable island tours, rainforest and off-road safari excursions in an open jeep, snorkelling, fishing and beach barbeque boat tours. Are you up for a beach holiday with snorkelling and just being lazy and relaxed? No problem! The beach and the coral reef with its colourful fishes are waiting for you. Are you keen on exploring Tobago with its wonderful tropical rainforest and stunning coastline? Just let us know and we take you on tours on and around the island and show you the real Tobago!
This is a wonderful beach-side villa apartment, Chaconia has a balance of Tobago's old style Colonial past mixed with the modern in one of the Islands most upscale developments. A fantastic location gives you the ability to choose to spend your days lounging beside the clover shaped swimming pool, swimming in the beautiful Caribbean Sea, or sipping cool drinks on your patio overlooking the beach. The building was completed in 2006 and Chaconia is one of eight apartments in the building. The apartment has a burglar alarm and panic buttons. Chaconia is one of the larger apartments (2,400sq ft) and is extremely light and airy with views to three sides.
Widely acclaimed as Tobago's premier bird watching and natural history guide, Newton George is not only an experienced and knowledgeable ornithologist - he is also a committed and dedicated Birder in the truest meaning of the word. His sheer enthusiasm leaves one in no doubt that birds and wildlife are both his love and his life. The depth of Newton's experience and knowledge are without question. Of equal importance, however, is the fact that Newton is a highly approachable, enthusiastic individual with a keen sense of humour.
Taylor's Car & Jeep Rentals are a small Castara-based self-drive vehicle rental service offering very high levels of personal service and choice from a small fleet of clean, well-maintained saloon cars and four-wheel-drive SUVs. Although based at the Lillibet's Apartments in Castara's Heavenly Bay, Taylor's can provide vehicles throughout Tobago with free delivery and collection on all rentals of three days or more.
Bayview Villa is set in landscaped gardens with a poolside terrace providing panoramic sea views over Stone Haven Bay. The villa is only a short walk from Grafton Beach.
The villa offers a choice of a 3-bedroom apartment, a 2-bedroom apartment and a further single-room apartment. Each can be rented individually, or as a combined rental providing total accommodation for 12 people.
This spacious fully air-conditioned four-bedroom Caribbean villa is set in an acre of tropical gardens with a variety of organically grown fruits and vegetables for guests to enjoy. The many varieties of exotic plants and shrubs around the garden and pool attract an array of butterflies and birds.
Car hire, maid service, excursions and sporting activities can be arranged to suit your requirements. Evening meals and child care can also be arranged. A central location ensures that all of the major features of the island are in easy reach.
Top River Pearl is a small and friendly guest house and café located in the small fishing village of Charlotteville – a village that many would describe as the "real Tobago".
The property offers a choice of one or two-bedroom apartments all offering lovely views over the village and out to magnificent Man 'O War Bay. The accommodation is spacious, comfortable, clean and affordable and the property is proud of their reputation for friendly hospitality. The attached Cappuccino Bar is open from 8:30am and provides coffee, snacks, light meals and fresh juices throughout the day.
The beautiful Caribbean island of Tobago offers visitors a wide choice of holiday accommodation; something for every taste and budget. No matter what grade of vacation accommodation you require, the most outstanding feature of holidaying on Tobago is the warm, friendly and genuinely hospitable personality of the local staff who make you feel truly welcome on their beautiful island - whatever the level of holiday accommodation.
This site lists summary information on almost every hotel, resort, guest house, self-catering apartment or rental house or villa that Tobago has on offer.
The Arnos Vale Vacation Apartments are located on the outskirts of Plymouth, with a ten-minute walk of beautiful Arnos Vale beach - one of the best snorkelling locations in Tobago. This small and friendly property offers the choice of two 2-bedroom apartments and/or a single Studio apartment.
The house is set in beautiful gardens in a location widely accepted as Tobago's premier habitat for bird life.
SeaScape offers stunning unobstructed views of the Caribbean Sea. It is a new, hand crafted wooden holiday accommodation that sits directly above the beach at Heavenly Bay in the little fishing village of Castara, Tobago. SeaScape was designed in an effort to give full appreciation for this stunning beach front location. The effect is a light, airy, place where the soothing sound of the calm surf below seems to be coming from all around you and where every room offers unobstructed views of fiery sunsets slipping into the Caribbean sea.


RUBBER CYL Side table, designed by Arielle Assouline-Lichten and manufactured by Slash Objects, features a rubber and concrete cylinder cast with a brass inlay. Available with two different diameters: 10" (CYL 10) and 12" (CYL 12").
Ø 10" x H 16"
Ø 10" x H 18"
Ø 10" x H 20"
Ø 12" x H 16"
Ø 12" x H 18"
Ø 12" x H 20"


Maria Beadnell was the first love of the Victorian novelist Charles Dickens. Despite his strong feelings for her, Maria broke off the romance leaving Dickens heartbroken.
In 1830, when Charles Dickens was 17, he met his first love, Maria Beadnell. Maria was from a banker's family, very lively in nature and slightly older than Dickens. By all accounts the romance seems to have been very passionate and Dickens was very much in love Maria although she may have she toyed with his feeling.
However because of his social status and then meager income, her family disapproved and tried to dissuade Maria from carry on with Dickens. Her father forbid the couple to see one another again later sent Maria off to France for finishing school. When Maria returned her emotions had cooled towards Charles and in May 1833 she ended the romance. Dickens was heartbroken when she did so.
Maria remained unmarried she was thirty-five, settling down with Henry Winter, a poor saw-mill manager from Finsbury. She had two daughters with Henry.
Charles Dickens would move on from Maria and meet Catherine Hogarth, daughter of his friend, the editor George Hogarth. He married Catherine in 1836.
Photograph of the older Maria, now Maria Winter.
In what was a shock to Charles Dickens, Maria unexpectedly wrote him a letter in February 1855, after more than 20 years of silence. Dickens was immediately captivated by his fond past feelings he had for her but Maria warned Dickens in her letters that she was no longer the beauty she once was, describing herself as "toothless, fat, old, and ugly".
Dickens refused to believe it and the two arranged a secret meeting on 25 February 1855, without telling either of their spouses. However, despite her warnings, Dickens was shocked by Maria's appearance. In addition to being fat and old, Maria had a silly giggle, a habit that repulsed Dickens.
Charles and Maria met once more, this time for a dinner with their spouses. However after that, despite Maria's wishes for further contact, Dickens was so put off that he avoided her.
Shortly after his reunion with Maria, Charles Dickens started work on the novel Little Dorrit. He would use the feelings he had towards her to inspired him to base the character of the giggling childish Flora Finching on Maria.
Little Dorrit. Book 1, Chapter 13.
Maria Beadnell is buried at Highland Road Cemetery, Southsea.
See more nearby areas associated with Charles Dickens in our Portsmouth trail.


text:
Collection "Publishing statistics of Latvia 2018" released
For the first time the annual collection of the National Library of Latvia (NLL) "Publishing statistics of Latvia 2018" is released also in English and contains information on the number and print runs of publications of 2018 in an aggregate form.
Read more about Collection "Publishing statistics of Latvia 2018" released
Exhibition "The Steffenhagens of Jelgava 1769–1919"
Exhibition "The Steffenhagens of Jelgava 1769–1919". Publicity picture
Johann Friedrich Steffenhagen (1744–1812) became the court printer for the Duke of Kurzeme (Courland) in 1769. By introducing new business principles he soon also became the leading publisher in the region and especially a leading figure in publishing books in Latvian. His and his descendants' ability to choose which books to print and perceive readers' wishes, to keep up with the latest in contemporary printing and book design, as well as his energetic, entrepreneurial temperament made the Steffenhagen publishing and printing house one of the success stories of its time.
Read more about Exhibition "The Steffenhagens of Jelgava 1769–1919"
The NLL invites applications to the Baltic Summer School of Digital Humanities
The National Library of Latvia welcomes novice digital humanists to enrol in the Second Baltic Summer School of Digital Humanities that will be held in July 23–26, 2019, at the National Library of Latvia (Riga, Latvia). The registration will be open until June 30.
Read more about The NLL invites applications to the Baltic Summer School of Digital Humanities
Exhibition "Five Homes. Stories About Adapting"
NLL reading room at Jēkaba iela 6/8 (1969). Picture from NLL collection
From its foundation in 1919 until 2014, when the move to the new building designed by Gunnar Birkerts took place, the National Library of Latvia never had its own home. The construction of this home had been planned since 1928, but for almost a century, the Library was forced to adapt to a range of architecturally diverse historical constructions – imposing bank buildings, apartment buildings, factories, cellars – a total of 38 addresses, none of them suitable for library operations. People moved from one place to another, but the collection was sorted and moved even more frequently.
Read more about Exhibition "Five Homes. Stories About Adapting"
Exhibition "Inventory"
Photo by Kristians Luhaers
The exhibition addresses the working conditions and objects in the environments of the Library's historical homes. It reveals the world of objects as a part of human social life, prompting us to think about the institutional and the personal, the unnecessary and that still useful, the valuable and the sentimental.
Read more about Exhibition "Inventory"
Photo exhibition "Swedish Dads – Latvian Dads"
Photo: Johan Bävman
A photography exhibition about the men of today – "Swedish Dads – Latvian Dads" (Tētis Zviedrijā – Tētis Latvijā) – by Swedish photographer Johan Bävman will be opened at the Level 7 gallery of the National Library of Latvia at 17.00 on 9 April. Its content is adapted from the exhibition Swedish Dads, which portrays men who have taken paternity leave. The exhibition will be open 6-30 April and entrance is free.
Read more about Photo exhibition "Swedish Dads – Latvian Dads"
Archaeology exhibition about the history of Latvia and Poland
The opening of the international archaeology exhibition entitled "Latvia and Poland: So Far Away and Yet So Close. More Than 100 Years of Common History" will take place on 7 March at 16.00 at the National Library of Latvia (Gallery on level M).
Read more about Archaeology exhibition about the history of Latvia and Poland
Social anthropologist Tobias Köllner on the interplay between the Orthodox religion and politics in contemporary Russia
Tobias Köllner. Publicity photo
On Tuesday, February 26, at 18.00 social anthropologist Tobias Köllner will give a public talk "On 'Entangled Authorities': The Interplay between Orthodox Religion and Politics in Contemporary Russia". The event will take place at the Baltic Research Centre for East Asian Studies (ASIARES) Reading Room (Level M), National Library of Latvia. Event language: English. Admission free.
Read more about Social anthropologist Tobias Köllner on the interplay between the Orthodox religion and politics in contemporary Russia
Excursions at the exhibition "Paintings for Latvia"
Artist Janeric Johansson. Publicity photo
This weekend, 12 January at 12.00 and 13 January at 14.00, Swedish artist Janeric Johansson will be in Riga and will offer two guided excursions at his exhibition Paintings for Latvia. The exhibition can be viewed at the Conference Centre (level -1) of the National Library of Latvia. Language: English. Free entrance.
Read more about Excursions at the exhibition "Paintings for Latvia"
NLL maintenance days and public holidays in 2019, and summer opening hours
The National Library of Latvia (NLL) is closed to visitors on public holidays, on the second Monday of each month (Maintenance day) and during diplomatic events. Summer opening hours apply from 1 July until 31 August.
Read more about NLL maintenance days and public holidays in 2019, and summer opening hours


Original research from Robert Walters has revealed that projects professionals are enjoying high demand for their skills in the City of London.
The results of the Robert Walters City Jobs Index, which tracks the number of jobs available and candidates seeking jobs in the City of London month-by-month, show the number of projects roles rose by 8%"
"Despite the usual summer lull, the demand for projects professionals has continued to grow with both employers and candidates remaining active in the jobs market," said James Murray, associate director, projects recruitment at Robert Walters.
The number of candidates also grew 9% compared to last year, but despite this employers are still facing a skills shortage with 1.6 roles per candidate.
Commenting on the kinds reasons behind the high demand, James Murray said, "MiFID2, the fundamental review of the trading book (FRTB), bank ring fencing and front office controls projects have all driven demand for Assistant Vice President and President level professionals in business analyst and project manager roles."
Projects professionals working within financial services will continue to be in high demand in the second half of 2016.


Organics is a question of priorities to me: What we put in our bodies has such an important impact on our physical and mental fitness during the course of our development and lives. The harmful effects of refined food, pesticides and preservatives can no longer be ignored and we have to find ways to move away from those foods – for us and for our poor planet. It is expensive though, and with Sydney being an ex-y town as it is, I thought i'd list some tips, not all of which are location based. Feel free to add your city or town's great places to save in the comments.
Grow your own: Whether it's an assortment of herbs or a full veggie patch, if you get yourself a green thumb the savings are enormous. Learn the pest fighting tips of organic gardening and reap the rewards of a tasty little crop. My mother in law keeps us well stocked in zucchini, squash and spinach several weeks of the year which we love, so maybe if you don't have the space, find someone in your family or a friend who does, and work together to get it happening on some level! Kids love gardening too and it's an awesome way to get them interested in veggies!
Growers Markets: Buying direct from your farmers and butchers will often save you plenty. I adore Marrickville Markets in Sydney, on a Sunday. You get a brilliant sense of community and it's actually very humbling. The family from picton that sell their chemical free produce there aren't certified so it's very, very affordable and beautiful produce to boot! For kiddies, it gets the message going early that "we know the people who produce our food and we appreciate them". Every time we make an effort to take the focus off products and put it on produce instead, is a step in the right direction. If jumping straight in there freaks you out, just 'visit' and check it out. Do an experiment. See how you feel and let yourself get addicted!
Buy in Bulk: If you have good storage containers, why buy 200g when you can buy 1kg? If it's something you use a lot and the organic version is a pinch (like for me coconut oil, flour or almonds), you can save many dollars by buying big on items that don't spoil!
Co-ops and bulk stores – So many co-ops are popping up all over the place and you can save so much by shopping there. Wonderful also is that you have to bring your own jars and tubs for things, so the packaging is minimised and we save the world from a few more bits of plastic – Always a good thing! Feel free to share your favourites wherever you live!
Shop in season only. Organic strawberries in season will be $5 AUD a punnet and $13-14 out of season. Eating in season makes fruit and veg exciting and keeps it special AND saves you money!
More loyalty programs: Find your organic loyalty programs around you. Google works a charm! Use them. You will save.
Cook more: When you get good at cooking, you become more resourceful and things go further in different incarnations. The bones of your roast chook become a flavourful stock to use for a whole new dish the next day or later from the freezer. As a cook you can also discover the joys of secondary cuts such as shoulder and neck. A couple of lamb necks are around $12 together, and slow cooked in water and stock veggies, the result 10 hours later is superb! As you hopefully know by now, cooking doesn't have to be time consuming either. A 10 minute prep in the morning and into a low oven or slow cooker, is an instant ready dinner for the evening when you get home! Check out my lamb shoulder recipe here.
Get into community savings near you. I'm in Sydney and my butcher of choice is GRUB up on New South Head Road, Sydney. He often does a grass fed cow share program, where you save loads buying in bulk.
Meal plan: People throw so much food out it's crazy! Put a value to that waste and plan a bit better to minimize it, then inject that capital back into your organic food budget!
Oops there's a last one! Buy less packets. A lot of people firstly swap all their non organic packet foods to organic packet snacks… Not only are they usually double the price, but products attract 10% GST and Produce is G.S.T FREE! There's a 10% saving right there already!
The most important thing is to relax. Do the best you can. Start with what you have, wherever you are – that is indeed the only way we have ever effected change! If focusing on one 1 trolley item a week is all you can manage, then that's your pace and any pace and progress is a good thing indeed!
Real Food. Happy Bodies. Share your tips!
Image coutresy of greenorganicdevotion.wordpress.com – so pretty!
Such great tips! Organic is expensive but essential! Amy saving suggestions help make it all more accessible. …!
Darwin – Naturally Wicked Co-Op. Find them on facebook. Fabulous. Do a bulk order of organic wholesome goodness every 3 – 4 months. Have to buy in bulk so good idea to share with a friend.


A privately owned, fully licensed and insured estate agency, providing property near Bergerac, Eymet, or Lot et Garonne regions.
Richard Immobilier recommend obtaining a quote from Currency Index, for the transfer of Euros to France.
Not only will using Currency Index to send money to France save you up to 4% on your property purchase (compared to using an uncompetitive exchange rate from your bank), but we will liaise directly with Richard Immobilier, their local contacts and your lawyer, to ensure that the process of transferring currency is as quick and simple as possible.
Currency Index are FCA regulated for your security, and will offer you one point of contact for your transactions, rather than the call centre environment of the banks.


text:
Q: Can't find server side Perl script I am running Mopidy on a Raspberry Pi with the latest Raspbian Wheezy.
I am trying to call a server side Perl script from Javascript like this:
var addToPlaylist = function() {
    var xmlHttpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
    xmlHttpRequest.open("POST", "addToPlaylist.pl?uri=" + encodeURI("testuri") + "&&name=" + encodeURI("testname"), true);
    xmlHttpRequest.send();
}

But I get the error:
POST http://192.168.0.10:6680/addToPlaylist.pl?uri=testuri&&name=testname 404 (Not Found)

However, if I navigate my browser to:
http://192.168.0.10:6680/addToPlaylist.pl

I can see the script in plain text.
I have tried moving the file to where Mopidy gets it's Javascript files from and to various other places, and the file has a full set of permissions.
Is this likely to be something Mopidy specific or is this a general web server thing? Obviously I don't want to be able to access the R-Pi's whole file system, so is there somewhere where I need to whitelist what can be seen from the client? I am new to Javascript and Web Servers so I do not know the terminology to search for. Could you point me in the right direction?
Thanks

A: You need to run something that can run Perl scripts, e.g. Perl Dancer, on another port.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Senior officer denies gardai squandered evidence
Central Criminal Court
Eoin Reynolds
A senior investigating officer who oversaw part of the investigation into the murder of Detective Garda Adrian Donohoe has rejected suggestions that gardai "squandered" leads and failed to follow up on obvious lines of inquiry.
Retired former detective inspector Mr Pat Marry denied that gardai had "tunnel vision" and described as "unfair" a suggestion that anyone who has any understanding of how an investigation is carried out would have followed up on matters that counsel said gardai, in this case, had failed to investigate.
Aaron Brady (28) from New Road, Crossmaglen, Co Armagh has pleaded not guilty to the capital murder of Det Gda Adrian Donohoe who was then a member of An Garda Siochana on active duty on January 25, 2013 at Lordship Credit Union, Bellurgan, Co Louth. Mr Brady has also pleaded not guilty to a charge of robbing approximately €7,000 in cash and assorted cheques on the same date and at the same location.
Michael O'Higgins SC for the defence yesterday began his cross examination of Mr Marry by saying he wanted to examine whether his client could have been laundering diesel on the evening Det Gda Donohoe was shot dead.
Today Mr O'Higgins went through phone records showing numerous contacts between Mr Brady and a group of people that includes two known fuel launderers on the day of the shooting and the following day.
Mr Marry agreed there was a lot of contact but added that there is no way to know what was discussed. He pointed out that a number of those phones were inactive from 8pm to about 10.30pm on the night of the robbery which happened at about 9.25pm. He said this inactivity informed his thinking about the investigation.
Mr O'Higgins also pointed out that there was a garda report suggesting that the two known diesel launderers travelled from Monaghan to Dublin and back again in a trailer that could have been carrying laundered diesel on the day of the shooting. Mr Marry said phone analysis suggested such a journey but he couldn't say whether they were in a trailer.
Mr O'Higgins also put it to him that gardai learned in March 2018 of an allegation that one of the fuel launderers was, in January 2013, renting a diesel laundering site on Concession Road in Armagh where Mr Brady says he was at the time of the shooting.
Counsel asked why gardai didn't take any further steps to establish if these people were involved in fuel laundering on the day of the shooting. Mr Marry said that the phone contacts among the group might have nothing to do with fuel laundering. He said that gardai took a statement from one of the known fuel launderers in February 2013 and at the end of that interview the man said he wanted nothing more to do with the investigation and would not speak to gardai again. He said the man was asked to account for his movements but when it came to the "nitty gritty" he refused to go any further.
He disagreed that gardai "rolled over", insisting that the man was giving a voluntary statement and he didn't want to go any further.
Mr O'Higgins said these matters in relation to fuel laundering were "self-evidently screaming to be followed up". Mr Marry said that he is not saying that those people are not involved in fuel laundering, but added that they may not have been on that night. He said the phone records, which showed that Mr Brady's phones and phones belonging to other associates of Mr Brady including three named suspects for the robbery at Lordship, were inactive for about two and a half hours around the time of the robbery. Among the inactive phones was one belonging to the fuel launderer. Mr Marry said people involved in fuel laundering don't turn off their phones. They keep them on so that they can be contacted by scouts looking out for customs officers.
Mr O'Higgins said there were "screamingly obvious lines of inquiry which ought to have been followed up and weren't." Mr Marry replied: "I hear what you are saying but I disagree with you."
Mr O'Higgins continued: "This was approached with tunnel vision and very obvious matters which required to be followed up were not."
Mr Marry again disagreed. When Mr O'Higgins said that "anybody who has any understanding of how an investigation is carried out" would agree with him, Mr Marry replied: "I totally disagree with that. It is an unfair comment. I was involved in a capital murder not a revenue offence."
He said gardai investigated the crime for which Mr Brady is before the court, adding that he makes no apology for it and believes the investigation took the right path. He said fuel laundering is mostly investigated by customs and excise. The murder investigation took precedence over fuel laundering, he said, adding that the investigating team didn't believe that fuel laundering was taking place in the yard on Concession Road on the night Det Gda Donohoe was shot.
Mr O'Higgins said: "When you want to get to the bottom of something you don't go on what you believe, you investigate."
"That's exactly what we did," said Mr Marry. "That is exactly what you did not do", counsel said. "I disagree with you," Mr Marry responded.
Mr O'Higgins pointed to a tip-off from a member of the public who contacted gardai in May 2016 to say there was a rumour going around that Aaron Brady was dumping cubes of laundered diesel sludge on the night of the shooting. Mr Marry said that gardai deal in facts, not rumours. Mr O'Higgins said that the garda who followed up on the tip-off didn't name Mr Brady in his follow-up report after speaking to the source.
Counsel said this was a lead that was "squandered" and that if a solicitor was sent out to investigate and came back with such a report he would be "sent packing".
Mr Marry said the garda did follow it up but the source changed his story and was no longer naming Mr Brady as loading cubes that night. He said the initial tip-off didn't carry any weight.
Mr Justice Michael White apologised to the jury of six men and seven women for telling them that the prosecution evidence would end this week and asked them to return next week.


text:
Cultural Heritage in Transit: Intangible Rights as Human Rights
Kapchan, Deborah
University of Pennsylvania Press
Are human rights universal? The immediate response is "yes, of course." However, that simple affirmation assumes agreement about definitions of the "human" as well as what a human is entitled to under law, bringing us quickly to concepts such as freedom, property, and the inalienability of both. The assumption that we all mean the same things by these terms carries much political import, especially given that different communities (national, ethnic, religious, gendered) enact some of the most basic categories of human experience (self, home, freedom, sovereignty) differently. But whereas legal definitions often seek to eliminate ambiguity in order to define and protect the rights of humanity, ambiguity is in fact inherently human, especially in performances of heritage where the rights to sense, to imagine, and to claim cultural identities that resist circumscription are at play.
Cultural Heritage in Transit examines the intangibilities of human rights in the realm of heritage production, focusing not only on the ephemeral culture of those who perform it but also on the ambiguities present in the idea of cultural property in general—who claims it? who may use it? who should not but does? In this volume, folklorists, ethnologists, and anthropologists analyze the practice and performance of culture in particular contexts—including Roma wedding music, Trinidadian wining, Moroccan verbal art, and Neopagan rituals—in order to draw apart the social, political, and aesthetic materialities of heritage production, including inequities and hierarchies that did not exist before. The authors collectively craft theoretical frameworks to make sense of the ways the rights of nations interact with the rights of individuals and communities when the public value of artistic creations is constituted through international law
Archaeological Ethics - Other
Decolonizing Archaeology
Destruction of Cultural Heritage
Heritage and Archaeological Tourism
Heritage Erasure
Heritage Management
Human Rights and Social and Economic Inequalities


text:
<Alloy>
  <!-- <TableViewRow id="row">
    <ImageView id="icon"/>
    <View class="vgroup">
      <Label id="title"/>
    </View>
  </TableViewRow> -->
  <TableViewRow id="row">
      <View id="rowView">
          <ImageView id="icon" />
          <Label id="title" />
      </View>
      <View id="separatorLine" />
  </TableViewRow>
</Alloy>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Der Kanton Dinan-Ouest war bis 2015 ein französischer Wahlkreis im Arrondissement Dinan, im Département Côtes-d'Armor und in der Region Bretagne; sein Hauptort war Dinan. Vertreter im Generalrat des Départements war von 2004 bis 2015 André Calistri (PS).

Lage

Gemeinden
Der Kanton Dinan-Ouest umfasste einen Teil der Stadt Dinan und weitere zwölf Gemeinden:

Bevölkerungsentwicklung

Dinanouest
Aufgelöst 2015

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Tully was residing at an assisted care facility at 6420 S. 22nd St., Phx, AZ. He walked out on Halloween and left all his belongings behind and has not been seen since. He is a chronic alcoholic. He may be near the CASS homeless shelter.
Before arrest, please verify warrant through NCIC or call MCSO-OIC at 602-876-1061 to confirm the warrant.


Welcome to the Freethinkers of UTA!
Freethinkers of UTA is a group where atheists, agnostics, skeptics, humanists, freethinkers, and anyone who promotes science and reason can come together.
We are a student organization on the campus of the University of Texas at Arlington. We hold meetings every other Friday during the semester. Meetings usually have a discussion topic that is decided on before the meeting. We encourage open dialogue on issues such as: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, the Secular Roots of the American Founding, Church/State Separation, Secular vs. Religious Ethics, the effect of Religion on Society, and much more.
- To establish a positive social environment for UTA students who consider themselves atheists, agnostics, skeptics, rationalists, humanists, and/or freethinkers.
- To enrich the UTA campus life by sponsoring educational events and fostering student dialogue on matters of faith, science, and reason.
- To engage UTA students in issues of national and international importance surrounding freedom of conscience and secular education.
Past events have included: Darwin Day events, a Superstition Bash, a trip to a local Hell House, a viewing of "A God Who Wasn't There", a field trip to the Creation Evidence Museum and the Dinosaur Valley State Park, talks by Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Lori Lipman Brown of the Secular Coalition for America, D.J. Grothe from the Center for Inquiry and "Point of Inquiry" podcast, Ellery Schempp, and much more.
While the majority of our members are current or recent students of UTA, our meetings and events are not limited to students only. All of our meeting and events are open to the public, unless stated otherwise. If you are interested in becoming a member of Freethinkers of UTA, please contact freethinkersofuta@gmail.com or check out our "News" and "Events" pages for updates.
Players (Especially Females) Needed for our Oozeball Team!!!
****UPDATE**** We will not be participating in Oozeball this year as we did not get enough people to signup.
Fees and What I Need from YOU!
It is $15 per person and I must have your payment by this Tuesday, September 20 at 11am. This is first come, first serve. You can reach me at 214-385-0680.
Wear clothes you don't mind getting muddy and bring extra clean clothes to change into after the game. There will be showerheads to wash off a lot of the mud though. Even if you're not playing and not being a backup, be sure to wear shoes you don't mind getting muddy because they WILL get muddy!!! If you're not playing and don't want to cover yourself with mud, consider bringing sunscreen. Otherwise, mud serves as a natural sunblock.
Oozeball will hopefully be done by 4:30 so don't forget we have a general discussion meeting right after this at 5pm upstairs in the UC.
Friday, September 23 Should we get rid of the 2 party system and nations?
The point of general meeting discussions: To have logical and thought provoking discussions on various topics. Each meeting is given a topic (that was decided the previous meeting) for us to discuss.
We don't mind if you have to leave early or come in late. The meeting starts at 5pm and from about 5-5:30, we'll be discussing upcoming events before we get started in the actual discussions. After the meeting ends, (around 7) we usually go out to eat and have a few drinks.
As always our meeting are open to anyone while being centered around the idea of people who are willing to have an open mind, share some jokes, and present both logical and thought provoking ideas.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10am-2pm in front of the Central Library- Voter Information Table - We will be handing out voting information including what we be on your ballot besides the presidential candidates and who are these other people on the ballot as unbiased as possible. There might be brownies so be sure to check us out!
October 24-28 - 10 Year Anniversary! - Stay tuned for our events on that week. It will include an Interfaith Panel at the MAC on Monday, Oct 24 at 2pm where a representative from many faiths will talk about what they believe, their experiences, and misconceptions they have frequently faced.
Members (Especially Females) Needed for our Oozeball Team!!!
It is $15 per person and I must have your payment by this Friday, September 11 at 4pm if you want to guarantee a T-shirt that is your size. People who message me first and are paid members will get priority. If you're not a paid member, you can pay the $5 fee at the same time you give us the $15. Also, if you become a paid member, you will get $5 back after you show up and participate in the Oozeball games. So, if you're interested, message me with your first and last name, email, phone number, T-shirt size, when you want to meet, and if you are also going to pay the $5 membership fee. I'm available now until 7pm today, 11am-4pm tomorrow,8am-7pm Thursday, and 10am-4pm Friday. If none of those times work, tell us when you're available and I'll see if another officer is available at that time.
Oozeball will hopefully be done by 4:30 so don't forget we have a general discussion meeting right after this at 5pm upstairs in the UC in San Jacinto room.
Breaking! "Stone"-a-Heathen Rescheduled Due to Inclement Weather!
Yep! This Wednesday WFAA is predicting a 90% chance of thunderstorms in the AM which would put quite a damper on our fundraiser. In light of this, we have rescheduled our event for the 23rd of September. The good news about this is it gives YOU another opportunity to take part! It's great fun and heretically delicious!
Also don't forget our team, the Filthy Heathens will be playing Oozeball (let us know if you want to participate ASAP) on Friday, September 18, and our second meeting is later that same day in San Jacinto (upstairs of the UC).
We look forward to seeing your lovely face!
We don't mind if you have to leave early or come in late. The meeting starts at 5pm though you are welcome to hang out with everyone in the UC first, some people show up as early as 4. We play games and chat. From about 5-5:30, we'll be discussing upcoming events before we get started in the actual discussions. After the meeting ends, (around 7) we usually go out to eat and have a few drinks.
This is the first of a couple opportunities to come out and make some posters for heathens to hold up during the event. There will be at least one other event later this week and/or early next week to make posters and water balloons. So come out with some stone-able offenses in mind and a marker in hand. I plan to be upstairs in the UC on Monday at 3:00pm til at least 6pm but probably longer. I'll have the Freethinker T-shirt on so you guys can find me. We'll have some markers on hand but feel free to bring you own crafting supplies to make a stellar stoning sign.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014 – Concho, U.C.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 – Concho, U.C.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014 – Blanco, U.C.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014 – Concho, U.C.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014 – San Jacinto, U.C.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014 – Blanco, U.C.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014 – Palo Pinto, U.C.
On Saturday, October 2nd, we will be taking our annual trip to Glen Rose, in which we will attend the Director's Lecture Series at the Creation Evidence Museum at 11:00am. Admission is $2/person.
Following the lunacy, we will head down the road to Dinosaur Valley State Park where we will see some of the best preserved dinosaur tracks in the world.
We will be meeting at 9:00am at the University Center by the Starbucks to figure out carpool info, etc. Our goal is to leave UTA at 9:15am.
Our first meeting of the Fall semester will be on Tuesday, August 31st at 6:00pm in the Palo Pinto room of the University Center.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - Palo Pinto, U.C.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - Palo Pinto, U.C.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - Red River, U.C.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - Palo Pinto, U.C.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - Palo Pinto, U.C.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - Palo Pinto, U.C.


text:
CNET: San Francisco's Smart City Challenge submission is a networked transit utopia
SF is one of seven finalists in a contest where the winning city receives $50 million to transform into a city of the future.
by Andrew Krok
@andrewkrok
May 19, 2016 12:18 PM PDT
Now that the US Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge announced its list of seven finalists, each city still in the running has a chance to submit a full, proper pitch for how it would turn a $50 million grant into a city that reflects the future of transportation. San Francisco presented its idea this week, and it's both surprisingly inexpensive and fairly comprehensive.
This reminds me of that promotional video in an episode of "The Simpsons," where a town is beautified and a homeless person morphs into a mailbox.
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Francisco's plan involves taking 10 percent of single-occupant cars off the road, replacing them with a thoroughly networked system of smart transit options, including autonomous buses that talk to one another, shared bikes and loads of ride-sharing. There would also be city-owned electric vehicles and shuttles that connect bus lines to neighborhoods far away from the city center.
All of these options would be lumped together in a single app that works across the city, similar to Go LA being implemented downstate. Even more promising is the plan to replace all the parking structures and parallel-parking lanes with green space and affordable housing. If you've seen home prices in San Francisco, you'd know that the latter is sorely scant, thanks largely to the tech boom and all the venture capital that comes with it.
While the whole project would cost about $149 million, or way more than the Smart City Challenge grant provides, San Fran is teaming up with a number of companies to scrounge up the remaining dough. Companies pledging to help San Francisco achieve its goals include Ford Motor Company and local startups.
None of this would happen overnight. The San Francisco Examiner notes that new transit options would be rolled out in three-year phases taking up the better part of a decade. Thankfully, even if San Francisco doesn't win the grant, there's a good chance that many of these ideas will continue to move forward. After all, it's not like traffic disappears when the grant money does.
(Source: http://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/san-francisco-smart-city-challenge-submission-a-networked-transit-utopia/)