text:
Lobbying for Lethargy - the Fossil Fuel Lobby and Climate Change
Mark Jones Jones_M at netcomuk.co.uk
Wed Dec 9 12:53:56 PST 1998
Previous message: Louis Kant
Next message: Bourdieu on neoliberalism
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL
In 1995 the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the official scientific body assigned to investigate climate change and comprising over 2000 of the world´s best climate and social scientists - delivered a stunning verdict on climate change: that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate". This stark conclusion has stimulated a broad scientific and political consensus that climate change is real and that it has to be tackled. And yet, despite this consensus, there are many players in the debate who make it their business to prevent international action at every opportunity - players who will marshal vast resources to frustrate the delicate negotiating process that could lead to binding targets on the emission of the gases that cause climate change.
Some of these players are nation states - especially those who export oil, coal and gas - and a few are simply political ideologues for whom any kind of international regulation is anathema. There is however another, often less visible, lobby which wields huge influence behind the scenes at the negotiations on climate change. This lobby has a clear, vested, financial interest in preventing any action whatsoever - the fossil fuel lobby.
The Fossil Fuel Lobby
The fossil fuel lobby covers a wide range of mostly American industries which either extract, process and sell fossil fuels, generate electricity using coal, oil or gas or engage in commercial activities with high energy demands. Additionally, the automobile lobby often has a major role within this industrial sector. The companies are divided into three industry lobby groups which specialise in intervening in the climate change negotiations:
- The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - The International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP) - The Climate Council
The memberships of the GCC and the ICCP are given in Annex 1 whilst the membership of the Climate Council is a secret. In fact, the Climate Council is essentially a platform for Don Pearlman, who works for the American law firm Patton, Boggs and Blow whose clients are known to include Du Pont, Exxon, Texaco and Shell.
In addition to these industry umbrella groups there are lobbyists acting on behalf of industry trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute. There are also individual company lobbyists as well as politically-motivated organisations which have a broader economic agenda but put considerable effort into working on climate change. These include the US-based Citizens for a Sound Economy which plans to saturate Denver during the 1997 Group of 7 Economic Summit with 500,000 leaflets warning of the dire economic effects of action to combat climate change. It comes as no surprise to discover that Citizens for a Sound Economy contains few genuine citizens but does enjoy massive financing by corporate interests including Amoco, BMW, Boeing, BP, Chevron, Dow, General Electric, General Motors, Honda, ICI, Mobil, Toyota, Unilever and Union Carbide.
Although these different industry groupings display a varied range of behaviours in public they essentially share a common policy goal. Namely the maintenance of a ´business-as-usual scenario´ for as long as possible to allow their members to maximise profits - this means the unimpeded production and use of fossil fuels. Consequently, these bodies are spending literally millions of dollars challenging the science of climate change and disseminating propaganda concerning the allegedly disastrous economic impacts for the developed world (and specifically the United States) if international action is taken to reduce emissions of climate change gases.
The Arguments
The fossil fuel lobby has been active behind the scenes since 1989 and has focussed its efforts on four major arguments:
1. There is no real evidence that global temperatures have risen as a result of human causes 2. Computer models of climate change have predicted far more warming than satellite records actually show 3. Responding effectively to climate change is simply too expensive. It will cost the US economy billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs 4. There´s no point in the industrial world doing anything to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases, since developing countries like China and India will produce most of the heat-trapping gases in the future.
As the science has firmed up through the 1990s and better data sets have become available the first two arguments have effectively collapsed. They are only used for public posturing before poorly briefed audiences while being effectively abandoned within the negotiations themselves. The scientific consensus around climate change is now essentially unshakeable.
The abandonment of effective scientific dissent has forced the fossil fuel lobby to re-emphasise their economic arguments and to point an accusatory finger at the developing world, especially those countries with the greatest industrial potential - India and China (and this despite the fact that per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in these countries is one twentieth of US per capita emissions).
These economic arguments against combatting climate change inevitably conjure up extreme visions of industrial collapse and widespread unemployment (600,000 job losses annually is the favoured figure of the Global Climate Coalition) but show little grasp of real world economics. As the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States has pointed out: "This new myth is being rolled out by a business lobby group, the GCC and its allies, now that their strategy of trying to discredit climate change science has failed...they have switched from promoting junk science to pitching junk economics.
"The economic models that generate these dire forecasts are deeply flawed. They assume that the only way to reduce emissions is by an enormous carbon tax. In reality, the United States and other countries are likely to use a range of fiscal, research, informational, incentive and regulatory policies to achieve cost-effective emissions reductions.
"The models also grossly underestimate the capacity of America´s economy to achieve the kind
of technical innovations that we´ve seen in the past in response to other major environmental problems. Once national standards have been set - whether to reduce air pollution, to clean out our rivers and streams, or to protect the stratospheric ozone layer - American business and industry have proven clever at implementing cost-effective solutions. These solutions have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs and improved many companies´ competitiveness in global markets."
Ignoring the Alternatives
It soon becomes clear, from even the most cursory analysis of the fossil fuel lobby´s economic arguments, that they are all too willing to simply ignore the massive positive job implications of developing renewable energy technologies and increasing energy efficiency. Any business activity that can thrive without fossil fuels is simply discounted. Additionally, the fossil lobby consistently fail to predict the economic losses that would follow from inaction on climate change - for instance, the studies by the insurance industry of mounting losses from climate-related disasters.
As recently as February, 1997, 2000 economists, including six Nobel laureates, signed a statement arguing that the US should join other nations to take measures to slow climate change and agreed that "preventable steps are justified". The economists, who are from across the political spectrum, argued that: "Economic studies have determined that there are many potential policies for which the benefits outweigh the costs. Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or US living standards, and these may be economically beneficial in the long-run."
The last argument deployed by the fossil fuel lobby - that action is pointless in the face of growth in the developing world - is simply a red herring. Firstly, it is obvious to all parties to the climate negotiations that the developing world will postpone action until convinced that the industrialised nations are serious about tackling climate change. International action must start with the West. Secondly, developing nations currently make relatively small per capita contributions of climate change gases and are not responsible for the historic burden of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere (which was generated by Western nations during industrialisation). So from a perspective of political pragmatism, equity or simple justice, it seems clear that the industrialised world must take the lead in combatting climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Taking the Gloves Off
Although the fossil fuel lobby are capable of producing superficially sophisticated arguments about economics and the minutiae of climate change, they are also willing to tackle the dirty business of discrediting opponents and spreading disinformation. Most aggressive among the groups is the GCC, which argued in 1995 that the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change was making a "political judgement" when stating that there was a discernable human influence on global climate. The GCC then went on accuse the IPCC of "scientific cleansing" in 1996 - claiming that chapter eight of the IPCC´s report had been changed between draft and final version in order to suppress scientific uncertainty and pursue a political agenda. The accusations soon acquired a nasty personal edge with allegations being made against Dr Santer, the lead editor of chapter eight. The accusations were in fact unfounded and the GCC has lost credibility as a result of its tactics. As one climatologist pointed out: "They can´t attack the science, so they attack the scientists".
Yet despite the millions of fossil fuel dollars spent lobbying for inaction, the GCC has yet to derail the international negotiations and is beginning to suffer attacks from senior sources. Timothy Wirth, US Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, has dismissed the GCC and the other fossil fuel lobby groups as "naysayers and special interests bent on belittling, attacking and obfuscating climate change science" while the New York Times described the GCC as waging a "systematic campaign of disinformation". And even more troubling than the loss of credibility is the recent defection of two prominent GCC members - BP America and the Arizona Public Service Company - who seemed to find the street-fighting style of GCC ill-tuned to their own corporate positions.
But the in-your-face tactics of the GCC are not necessarily a guide to effectiveness and the other key umbrella body, the ICCP, may well prove to be the more damaging in the long term. The ICCP employs a distinctively less aggressive and confrontational style in its lobbying but shares exactly the same policy agenda as the GCC and uses considerable cunning and guile to get its own way. The secretive Climate Council is also working hard to ensure that little international action will be taken on climate change and can be expected to be active throughout 1997 and beyond.
Lobbying for a Future
In contrast to the ´lobbying for lethargy´ conducted by the fossil fuel lobby there are alternative business groupings which are actively working for real action to control the gases which cause climate change. These groupings - including the US Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (BCSEF) and the European BCSEF - represent industries that will thrive under a tough international regime for controlling greenhouse gases such as industries working in renewable energy and energy efficiency. There are also lobbyists working on behalf of commercial sectors which believe themselves to be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially the insurance and reinsurance industries with their need to assess the frequency of extreme weather events. However, whether these lobby groups can successfully counter the influence of the fossil lobby in 1997, fuelled as it is by millions of dollars, remains an open question.
1997 is a critical year for international negotiations on climate change. It culminates in the Conference of Parties in Kyoto in December where binding commitments to targets and timescales for reducing the emissions of climate change gases are meant to be agreed. The fossil fuel lobby will be there in force, as they will at every preliminary meeting and other international conferences including the Group of 7 Economic Summit in Denver and Earth Summit II in New York. The fossil lobby will argue in the face of scientific consensus that climate change science is flawed, that the industrialised world will be bankrupted if it takes action and that the developing world is the major villain. None of these positions are true and the real price of taking no action to combat climate change will be catastrophic for our civilisation, leaving millions dead, homeless or impoverished. Ultimately, the governments of the world must decide whether to allow the suicidally short-term interests of the coal, oil and gas lobby to prevail or whether a sustainable future based on renewable energy technology is something worth working for. The future of our civilisation is in their hands.
FURTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM DR PATRICK GREEN, TONY JUNIPER OR BLAKE LEE-HARWOOD AT FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL: 0171-490-1555 OR 0171-566-1649 (UK OFFICE)
ANNEX 1
Global Climate Coalition Membership
Air Transport Association Allegheny Power Aluminium Association Inc American Automobile Manufacturers Association American Commercial Barge Line American Forest and Paper Association American Iron & Steel Institute American Petroleum Institute American Portland Cement Alliance Association of American Railroads Association of International Automobile Manufacturers Atlantic Richfield Coal Company Chemical Manufacturers Association Chevron Chrysler Corporation Cinergy Council of Industrial Boiler Owners CSX Transportation Inc Cyprus-Amax Drummond Company Duke Power Company Edison Electric Institute Exxon Ford Motor Company General Motors Greencool Illinois Power Company Mobil Corporation National Association of Manufacturers National Lime Association National Mining Association National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Process Gas Consumers Southern Company TECO Energy Inc Texaco Inc US Chamber of Commerce USX Corporation Union Electric Company Western Fuels Association
BHP Minerals CONRAIL Consumers Power Dow Chemical Company ELCON Eastman Chemical Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group Kaiser Aluminium & Chemical Corp McDonnell-Douglas Norfolk Southern Northern Indiana Public Service Co Ohio Edison Shell Oil Company Society of the Plastics Industry Union Carbide
International Climate Change Partnership Membership (1996)
3M Company AB Electrolux/White Consolidated Industries Aerospace Industries Association Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy Alliance for Responsible Environmental Alternatives - Canada Allied Signal American Standard/Trane Assn of Home Appliance Manufacturers AT&T BP America Carrier/United Technologies Celotex/Centre for Applied Engineering Dow Dresser Industries Dupont Elf Atochem Enron European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) - European Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFTEC) Sector FMC Corporation General Electric ICI Klea Japan Fluorocarbon Manufacturers Association Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association York International
Copyright © Friends of the Earth / Contact Us / Support FOE!


text:
Opinion: Man United's 5-0 loss To Liverpool Should Be The Match That Finally Gets Ole A Sack.
By Mediatek (self media writer) | 2 months ago
Manchester United recorded the biggest loss of their Premier League campaign this season with a humiliating 5-0 defeat to Liverpool in front of a full Old Trafford under the Manchester Evening sun.
United was at their poorest tonight as goals from Jota, Keita and a hat trick from Salah sent the Red Devils to hell under the nose of big names like Alex Ferguson, who could not hide his disappointment at the Ferguson stand.
It's two big losses in a row for Solskjaer and his job could very be at the brink of termination after tonight's embarrassment. In my view, this could be the match that finally gets Ole sacked. It has reached the point where the board should consider and sanction his sack as the fans and probably the team has lost confidence and faith in him.
They started the season well, with Ronaldo poised to lead them to glory, but with just four wins in nine matches in the Premier League so far, even Ronaldo's poise is seeming to fade each week that passes.
Spending so much in the transfer window and acquiring a squad tagged as the second biggest in the World, United fans expected this season to show strong titles contention from the team, but instead, they are finding themselves in a worse position than they were in last season.
It would be well said if Ole's hand is taken off the wheel as has been widely clamoured for in recent days by pundits and fans worldwide. He came in as a caretaker after Mourinho's sack and he has done the work of a caretaker. He has built the team to a strong level, the hope is revived at least before the last three games, and the players are available in their quality.
A title-winning coach is very much needed at this point to salvage the situation. It is never too late to pick up the pieces. Chelsea sacked Lampard and brought in Tuchel mid-season. By the end of that season, they won the Champions League and went on to also win the Super Cup title.
Content created and supplied by: Mediatek (via Opera News )
Liverpool Manchester United Ole Premier League Ronaldo

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Three exciting new stallion prospects further strengthen Windsor Park's stallion roster for 2017.
Triple Group One winner Turn Me Loose (Iffraaj), one of Australasia's foremost miler's will stand for $15,000 and will be joined by Australian Group One winning 3YO Vanbrugh (Encosta De Lago) and fellow Group One 2YO Rageese (Street Cry) with their service fees to be confirmed at the completion of their current racing campaigns.
European triple Group One winning miler Charm Spirit, the highest earning son of 'boom' sire of sires Invincible Spirit, returns to stand alongside last season's Horse Of The Year Mongolian Khan (Holy Roman Emperor), the only horse in history to win the Australian and New Zealand Derbys as well as Caulfield Cup.
Completing Windsor Park's schedule of stallions are Group One Newmarket winner ShamExpress (O'Reilly), the Leading First Season sire at Karaka this year with a Premier Session yearling average of $192,500 and Champion European miler and Group One sire Rip Van Winkle (Galileo), sire of five Group winners from his first southern hemisphere crop.


Ruger RPR Gen 2 vs. Gen 3?
So, I have a chance to get a Ruger RPR 6mm Creedmoor in either Gen 2 or Gen 3. The Gen 2 is approx. $300 cheaper. The Gen 2 has Keymod not Mlok, and the Handguard has a slightly bigger diameter, which in theory could cause an issue with scope bells. What are the opinions on the Differences?, the Caliber? and the Price?
Aside from price, which one will interface better with the gear you have. Or are you going outfit the rifle with all new equipment?
Given a choice between the Ruger RPR Gen 2 or Gen 3, I would spend an extra three hundred dollars and buy the Tikka TAC A1 in 6.5 Creedmoor. But that is me.
That aside, you asked about caliber. What do you plan to do with the rifle? Does 6mm CM cover that need?
With the RPR you are getting a $350 barreled action in a chassis stock. With the Tikka TAC A1, you are getting an $850 barreled action in a chassis stock. So the cost of the chassis is about the same. You are paying more for a better barrel, better action, and arguably a better magazine system.
If you are dead set on getting a RPR, there is no question, buy the cheapest one you can find. Don't spend any more than you have to on a Ruger RPR.
Make sure the recall tags are still in the box. Ruger is usually pretty good about including those as needed.
If you can't tell, I have been less than impressed with the RPR rifles I have been around.
The Gen3 has an M-LOK handguard, ambi safety, and the bolt is nitrided.
The 6 CM's are going cheap as I do not believe they sold as many as they tooled up for. At one point they were on sale for $750.
I have a Gen1 in 6.5 CM. It is nothing special but with factory match ammo it will easily cloverleaf @100 yards.


The first nose is mineral and flowery (Iris bloom) followed by aromas of small red fruit and freshly pressed citrus (grapefruit, mandarin orange). On the palate: Very harmonious. The Chardonnay brings minerality and freshness, blended with more intense notes of wild strawberries. The finale is long and delicious.
Grapes Blend of 2 grape varieties: Chardonnay 70% - Pinot Noir 30% (including 6% of Bouzy Rouge from "Clos Pierre Paillar").


Founded in 1999, first schools opened in 2000.
More than 17 years of track record of running successful schools.
The structured model for personalized learning 'The KED Program' puts the student at the center of the school.
Currently, more than 80 schools, 25,000 students and 2,000 teachers are using the KED Program across Sweden, UK, the Netherlands, India, USA and the Middle East..
Network of ….schools with more than 15,000 students and 1,500 employees over three continents.
Kunskapsskolan (KED) schools consistently achieve academic results above comparable schools and national averages, and our students attend colleges and universities at a higher rate than their peer schools.
Joint processes, bench-marking and best practices are strongly emphasized both in the company and the schools.
Our schools in Sweden, UK and U.S are publicly financed and open to all, regardless of income or ability.
Nün Academy's vision is to develop an educational model to be aspired to and replicated throughout the MENA region that nurtures compassionate students that are connected with their past, empowered to master the challenges of today and motivated to shape the world of tomorrow.


text:
5 Things: Final Four To Bring Even More Madness
Filed Under:ACC, Duke, Five Things You Missed, kansas, Loyola Chicago, March Madness, Matt Citak, Michigan, NCAA Tournament, Villanova
By Matt Citak
The 2018 NCAA Tournament can be described as nothing short of madness. History was made in several ways, as a No. 16 seed upset a No. 1 seed for the first time, while two No. 9 seeds made it to the Elite Eight, a feat that had never been accomplished before. With three more games to go, and a somewhat surprising Final Four, there's likely more chaos to come.
Adarius Avery (Photo Credit: Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
No. 11 seed Loyola-Chicago still dancing
From their Cinderella run to Sister Jean's smiling face, the Ramblers have won over the country's heart. Entering the tournament as a No. 11 seed, Loyola-Chicago has pulled off upset after upset to ensure their spot in San Antonio next weekend.
After beating No. 6 seed Miami and No. 3 seed Tennessee by a combined three points, the Ramblers had another extremely close game against No. 7 seed Nevada on Thursday. Leading by one with six seconds remaining, Marques Townes drilled a three-pointer in front of his own bench to give Loyola-Chicago a four-point lead. Nevada would make a three-pointer to bring the game back within one, but with only two seconds remaining on the clock, it came a little too late.
Saturday's Elite Eight matchup against No. 9 seed Kansas State was not nearly as close, as the Ramblers shot 57.4 percent from the field and 50.0 from the three-point line while cruising to a 78-62 victory. Loyola-Chicago is in just their second Final Four in school history. For those needing quick refresher course, their first appearance in 1963 resulted in a National Championship.
>>MORE: Loyola-Chicago Ramblers Road To The Tournament
Michigan keeps winning streak alive
Michigan entered the tournament as one of the country's hottest teams, winning nine consecutive games, including a Big Ten Tournament Championship. The Wolverines needed some last-second heroics from Jordan Poole to make it into the Sweet 16, but the team followed that up with two performances strong enough to punch their ticket to their first Final Four since 2013.
The Wolverines absolutely dominated No. 7 seed Texas A&M in the Sweet 16, defeating the Aggies 99-72. Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman led the way with 24 points, seven assists, and five rebounds, but the entire team played great basketball. Michigan shot 61.9 percent from the field, while finishing with a 58.3 shooting percentage from long range.
Their Elite Eight matchup against No. 9 seed Florida State did not come as easy. Michigan seemed to lose their shooting touch, finishing with a 38.8 shooting percentage from the field. Things didn't get any better from behind the three-point line, as the Wolverines made only 18.2 percent of their threes. But at the end of the day, the Wolverines did just enough to outlast the Seminoles, setting up a Final Four battle against Loyola-Chicago.
Donte DiVincenzo (Photo Credit: Elsa/Getty Images)
Villanova makes second Final Four in three years
Any concerns about just how good this Villanova team is have been put to rest. The Wildcats cruised into the Sweet 16 after two big victories over No. 16 seed Redford and No. 9 seed Alabama. Things got a little tighter this past weekend, but Villanova continued its superb play, beating two very good teams to ensure the school's second Final Four appearance in just three years.
First up was No. 5 seed West Virginia and their tough, full-court press. While the Mountaineers wreaked havoc for their first two opponents, their press couldn't stifle the Wildcats' offense. Jalen Brunson poured in 27 points, while three other starters hit double-figures, as Villanova shot 50.0 percent from the field on their way to a 90-78 victory.
The 2016 National Champions enjoyed their fourth consecutive double-digit victory on Sunday, defeating No. 3 seed Texas Tech 71-59. It wasn't the prettiest day for Villanova's offense, as the team shot just 33.3 percent from the field and 16.7 percent from deep, but the Wildcats did enough to book their trip to San Antonio.
>>MORE: Keidel: What Have We Learned About March Madness?
Kansas enjoys first Final Four in six years
The Jayhawks had to sweat through their first two games of the 2018 NCAA Tournament. No. 16 seed Penn led for a large portion of the first half of the opening game before the Jayhawks turned things around in the second half. Then No. 8 seed Seton Hall caused headaches for Kansas until the final buzzer, even as Bill Self led his squad to a 83-79 win. Things didn't get any easier this past weekend.
First up was a talented No. 5 seed Clemson. The Tigers mounted a second-half comeback against the Jayhawks that fell just short, as Kansas came away with a 80-76 victory in the Sweet 16. Malik Newman went 4-for-7 from long range, finishing with a team-high 17 points, as Self led his team to their third straight Elite Eight appearance.
The toughest test for Kansas came yesterday against Coach K's mighty Duke squad. In a back-and-forth battle that featured 18 lead changes and 11 ties, the Jayhawks outlasted the Blue Devils in overtime, winning, 85-81. Newman once again led Kansas with 32 points, shooting 11-of-12 from the free-throw line. The Jayhawks will battle the Wildcats in San Antonio in a clash of the two remaining No. 1 seeds.
ACC features zero teams in Final Four
Heading into the Round of 64, it seemed inevitable that the Atlantic Coast Conference would have at least one representative in the Final Four. Virginia was the top overall seed in the tournament, while Duke and North Carolina were considered two of the best teams in the country.
Overall, the ACC had nine teams in the Big Dance — Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Clemson, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, Florida State, and Syracuse. After the opening weekend, four of the conference's teams remained. While Virginia and North Carolina were both on the losing sides of big upsets, Duke, Clemson, Florida State and Syracuse made it to the tournament's second weekend. But the ACC's good fortunates would not last long.
Duke fended off Syracuse to make it to the Elite Eight, while Florida State pulled off the upset against Gonzaga, leaving the ACC with two of the eight teams remaining. However FSU fell to Michigan on Saturday before Duke lost to Kansas on Sunday, leaving the ACC with zero teams in the Final Four for the first time since 2014.
>>MORE: NCAA Tournament Coverage
Matt Citak is a contributor for CBS Local Sports and a proud Vanderbilt alum. Follow him on Twitter.


text:
/*
 * To change this template, choose Tools | Templates
 * and open the template in the editor.
 */
package edu.mit.ll.nics.processor.collab.feed;

import com.vividsolutions.jts.geom.Envelope;

import edu.mit.ll.nics.common.geoserver.api.GeoServer;
import edu.mit.ll.nics.common.entity.CollabRoom;
import edu.mit.ll.nics.common.entity.Incident;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;

/**
 * CollabFeedGeoserver extends the Geoserver class from the geoserver rest api.
 * Compounds a variety of geoserver methods for collab feed specific functions.
 * @author LE22005
 */
public class CollabFeedGeoserver extends GeoServer {

    private String workspaceName; //The Geoserver workspace to use, this should be unique per NICS server instancve
    private String dataStoreName; //The datastore used to store NICS incident and room information (the SACORE database)
    public static int SRID = 3857;
    public static String SRS_STRING = "EPSG:3857";
    //Initialize the max extent of the projection {minx maxx miny maxy}
    //Layer extents are hard coded to the extents of the USA so the bounds don't need be repeatedly updated
    public Envelope maxExtent = new Envelope(-14084454.868, -6624200.909, 1593579.354, 6338790.069);
    public Envelope maxExtentLatLon = new Envelope(-126.523, -59.506, 14.169, 49.375);

    /**
     * Constructor for CollabFeedGeoserver
     * @param url The web URL for the geoserver instance to connect to
     * @param username for the Rest interface
     * @param password for the Rest interface
     * @param workspaceName The Geoserver workspace to use, this should be unique per NICS server instancve
     * @param dataStoreName The datastore used to store NICS incident and room information (the SACORE database)
     */
    public CollabFeedGeoserver(String url, String username, String password, String workspaceName, String dataStoreName) {
    	super(url, username, password);
        this.workspaceName = workspaceName;
        this.dataStoreName = dataStoreName;
    }

    /**
     * Adds a SQL view layer of an incident view (polygons representing the bounds of the collab rooms) to the geoserver
     * @param incident Incident entity for the incident to be added
     * @return success of adding layer to geoserver
     */
    public boolean addIncidentView(Incident incident) {
        return this.addIncidentView(incident.getIncidentname(), incident.getIncidentid());
    }

    /**
     * Add a SQL view layer of an incident view (polygons representing the bounds of the collab rooms) to the geoserver
     * @param incidentName name of the incident to be added
     * @param incidentId id of the incident to be added
     * @return
     */
    public boolean addIncidentView(String incidentName, int incidentId) {
    	String layerName = "I" + String.valueOf(incidentId);
        if (this.addFeatureTypeSQL(workspaceName, dataStoreName, layerName, SRS_STRING, "SELECT * FROM collabroom where incidentid=" + incidentId, "bounds", "Geometry", SRID)) {
            this.updateLayerStyle(layerName, workspaceName, "incidentOverviewStyle");
            this.updateFeatureTypeTitle(layerName, workspaceName, dataStoreName, incidentName);
            this.updateFeatureTypeBounds(workspaceName, dataStoreName, layerName, maxExtent, maxExtentLatLon, SRS_STRING);
            this.updateFeatureTypeEnabled(workspaceName, dataStoreName, layerName, true);
            this.updateLayerEnabled(layerName, workspaceName, true);
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        }
    }

    /**
     * Adds a SQL View layer of the collaboration room
     * @param room Room entity for the room to be added
     * @return success of adding layer to geoserver
     */
    public boolean addCollabRoomView(CollabRoom room) {
        return this.addCollabRoomView(room.getIncident().getIncidentname() + "-" + room.getName(), room.getCollabRoomId());
    }

    /**
     * Adds a SQL View layer of the collaboration room with the "collabRoomStyle"
     * @param roomName name of room being added
     * @param roomId Id of room being added
     * @return success of adding layer to geoserver
     */
    public boolean addCollabRoomView(String title, int roomId) {
    	String layerName = "R" + String.valueOf(roomId);
        if (this.addFeatureTypeSQL(workspaceName, dataStoreName, layerName, SRS_STRING,
        		"SELECT f.* from Feature f, CollabroomFeature cf WHERE cf.featureid=f.featureid and cf.collabroomid=" + roomId + " and deleted='f'",
        		"the_geom", "Geometry", SRID)) {
            this.updateLayerStyle(layerName, workspaceName, "collabRoomStyle");
            this.updateFeatureTypeTitle(layerName, workspaceName, dataStoreName, title);
            this.updateFeatureTypeBounds(workspaceName, dataStoreName, layerName, maxExtent, maxExtentLatLon, SRS_STRING);
            this.updateFeatureTypeEnabled(workspaceName, dataStoreName, layerName, true);
            this.updateLayerEnabled(layerName, workspaceName, true);
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        }
    }

    /**
     * Returns the list of current layers in the workspace and datastore
     * @return list of layers/featuretypes
     */
    public List<String> getFeatureTypeList() {
        List<String> list = this.getFeatureTypeList(workspaceName, dataStoreName);
        if(list == null){
        	list = new ArrayList<String>();
        }
        return list;
    }

    /**
     * Adds a new SQL view layer for a user's MyMaps room.
     *
     *
     *
     */
    public boolean addMyMapsView(int userId)
    {
    	final String query = "SELECT f.* from Feature f, UserFeature uf WHERE uf.featureid=f.featureid and uf.userid="+userId  + " and deleted='f'";
    	final String featName = userId + "_MyMap";
    	if (this.addFeatureTypeSQL(workspaceName, dataStoreName, featName, SRS_STRING, query, "the_geom", "Geometry", SRID))
    	{
            this.updateLayerStyle(featName, workspaceName, "collabRoomStyle");
            this.updateFeatureTypeBounds(workspaceName, dataStoreName, featName, maxExtent, maxExtentLatLon, SRS_STRING);
            this.updateFeatureTypeEnabled(workspaceName, dataStoreName, featName, true);
            this.updateLayerEnabled(featName, workspaceName, true);

            return true;
    	}

    	return false;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


My friends, I'm having a health event and I could use your prayers and good thoughts this week. All signs point to my gallbladder being the culprit, but I'm waiting for my doctor to call about lab results.
I've had several attacks of significant upper abdominal pain over the past several years. Recently, the pains became frequent, so I saw my doc. He said it was suspicious for gallbladder, but prescribed a powerful antacid in case it was gastritis. A few days later, I started getting jaundice (my eyes and skin are yellowish), which generally means that the gallbladder is blocked.
Yesterday I had an ultrasound, which confirmed the presence of stones in my gallbladder. But to rule out other causes, the doctor also sent me to the lab for blood work. That's what I'm waiting for now.
The good news is that I've had no pain in several days, because I've stopped eating fat, gone pretty much Vegan. But I've never had a health problem that wasn't solved with medicine and rest. I've never been in a hospital as a patient.
It looks like I'll need surgery for this. If so, hopefully, I'll have the laproscopic option. I've heard that's much less of a trial. And I understand that gallbladder surgery is very common and safe. But I'm still anxious — understandably, I think.
At the moment I feel OK. I'm just waiting for more to be revealed. In the meantime, I can use all the prayer and good energy from you that I can get … thanks!
Thanks for your comments and support, everyone! It really helps.
Jessica, I have been drinking cranberry. In fact, I just had a glass before coming to the computer.
I'm really hoping for laproscopic, and I don't have a problem with needles. My concern with that is my weight: I'm very overweight. I hope it will still work for me.
Have you been drinking any cranberry juice..it's a diarretic and can help in the inflammation department. Hope you are feeling better soon.
You have my thoughts that all goes well and you leap this hurdle. It is not easy to face these things, so of course, we all wish you the best and to know that people care. Keep us informed.
I had my first and last gall bladder "attack" in 2003. They did an ultrasound and the gall bladder had so many stones the tech could not count them. I had surgery several days later – laproscopic – went in, only problem was the IV which is historically a huge issue for me with needle phobia and hard to find veins – so the doc had me stay overnight b/c of my needle trauma. The surgery went perfectly and I was literally riding my horse w/in ONE WEEK. I so hope you have a good experience. Sending good thoughts and big hugs for quick recovery and an end to the pain!!


Belarusian black metal duo Khandra challenge the boundaries of consciousness and reality on their new EP.
Full Album Stream Belaris, black metal, full album stream, Khandra, premiere, Redefining Darkness.
It's nice to have bands like Khandra around. The Belorussian duo has been quiet on personal details, but loud on creating quality, memorable black metal.


No matter how much we want to do something, the cost is always the deciding factor, and it works just the same for SEO. How much time do I have, do I outsource the work or do I do it myself? I'll look at the 3 best options you have for organizing your SEO work.
I'm a strong, independent person who can do this all by myself!
I know, 'doing it yourself' may seem scary and that you've just added another chunk of work into your already busy schedule but it's still very much a viable option if you have the time to do it yourself.
how many websites do I have to optimize?
how many keywords will I want to track?
how many pages will I analyze?
how many backlink analysis' do I want to be able to do?
These factors will determine what type of package you'll pay for in an SEO tool. From here you can start looking at what tools exist in the market. Fortunately for you I created a list of my top 10 tools to give you a head start in your research . You'll see that tools range from $0 to $1000 depending on the criteria (some can be more and often require a quote) that I mentioned above. Although the cost is important, it's also just as important that you get along with tool. What I mean here is that you understand the data, you find it easy to navigate and it allows you to be efficient in your optimization work. It's not valuable or cost-efficient for you to pay for a tool and end-up only using 35% of the features it offers, when you can pay for a tool that you 100% understand (even 80% is pretty good).
If you decide that you're going to do this yourself with an SEO tool, planning and organization is ESSENTIAL! You need to set time aside every week where your focus is fully SEO. It's not just the tool that will cost you but also your time, and if you're not using your time efficiently then your optimization won't be either. For example, as a minimum put two hours aside per week for your SEO and take it page by page of your site, even noting down in your agenda what you plan to do each week will make you more organized.
SEO is a long-term game so everything can never be done all at once and you can't expect results straight away either. You need to see it as a long-term investment for your business and be patient, results might only start to come through after six months.
You have a website and to get noticed you need search engine optimization but like everyone, sometimes you're just too busy to do it yourself. This is where an SEO agency steps in to take that load off you!
Most agencies provide a free SEO audit for your website so that you can get a better understanding of the performance of your site. From there, that's when they create a plan for the next steps.
They will look at the issues found from the audit that will impact your rankings the most and work on fixing them as a priority.
Agencies are experts in their field so if you don't know what you're doing, they certainly do! They know what will work or not in your industry and the best strategy to put in place for you to achieve optimal optimization.
Agencies put all the pieces of the puzzle together in a simple and comprehensive way so you can in a way 'sit back and relax'. For example, they'll tell you which keywords that'll perform well and therefore prepare the work for that, rather than providing a report for you to then take on some of the work as well.
You need to avoid hurting your rankings as much as possible i.e. using a keyword too much (keyword stuffing) and so agencies are there to make sure you've got the right optimization balance.
Now, to the cost . On average hiring an agency will cost you $134.66 per hour and $2,819.87 per month. If you don't have time to do SEO yourself and require as little involvement as possible then hiring an SEO agency is a good option. As they handle everything, there's very little to do except from admire the results!
Choose wisely or forever rest in peace.
Some wonder what's the difference between hiring an agency and hiring an SEO consultant, they both do the same thing right? Well yes and no! Apart from the cost of course, the two have different ways of working.
Hiring an SEO consultant will take the workload off you and give you involvement in the work just like an agency, but working with a consultant provides a 'closer, more hands-on' approach to the work needed to be carried out.
They study exactly what your company needs and the challenges it faces in terms of the optimization work needed to be done to make the process as efficient as possible for both parties.
Rather than hand over your whole SEO project to someone and check the results 3, 4, 6 months later, SEO consultants inform and advise clients about the overall SEO strategy that needs to be put in place rather than just implementing it themselves.
Hiring a consultant is a way of outsourcing your work but at the same time a way of learning about all the in's and out's of SEO. Often consultants provide training to employees to explain how to best implement the strategy. They're there to tell you everything that needs doing and make the process a team effort.
Consultancy is a little cheaper than hiring an agency. On average it would cost you $122.33 per hour or $1,906.48 per month. Choosing this option is ideal if you don't have the time to do it all yourself but you still want regular communication and involvement in the progress of your site's optimization.
There are several factors to take into account when deciding how to organize your SEO work; time, budget, motivation, involvement…But it's important to understand that there are so many SEO tools, agencies and consultants available that it can take a lot more time than planned to even start the optimization process.


text:
Q: CSS3 selector link text node I have the following Bash pipeline:
curl -sL ... 'http://example.com' | css3selector 'table > tbody > tr > th > a'

which returns the following HTML output:
text

css3selector is a tool which extracts HTML elements using a CSS3 selector.
I would like to add another CSS3 selector to the expression table > tbody > tr > th > a in order to extract only the text node text.
Is it possible and if so how?
Regards, Stefano

A: Not with a selector, as selectors only match elements.
You will have to process the output of css3selector differently, e.g. by using an HTML parser.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange