text:
Armour: Union lost this battle with NFL three years ago
PHOENIX – The tough talk from the NFL Players Association is about three years too late.
Union leaders did everything but call the NFL's new personal conduct policy illegal Thursday, with president Eric Winston announcing they would fight it "whether through litigation or collective bargaining."
"Very simply put: We have an agreement with the NFL, they have an agreement with us," Winston said, "and we're going to hold them to it."
Whether the union recognizes it or not, this fight was lost back in 2011, when the players caved on neutral arbitration for disciplinary matters in the new collective bargaining agreement. Sure, players forced the owners to concede on an 18-game schedule and got some important protections on health and safety. The NFL also agreed to kick in more money for former players, long overdue.
But by giving in on neutral arbitration -- a basic principle that every other major sports league has -- the union assured itself of being the junior partner in this operation. By allowing NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to continue in his role as judge, jury and executioner, it guaranteed the balance of power would remain tilted in the NFL's favor.
"We were locked out. We made decisions about what we were going to fight about," NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said. "… There are certainly no regrets when a group of football players hung together in a scenario where most of you thought they'd fold like a white paper bag."
That's lovely, and it will probably get Smith a couple of pats on the back or fist bumps from the rank and file. But for there to be strength in numbers, you actually have to show some strength.
Granted, the union had no way of knowing back then that a series of domestic violence cases would spark the greatest crisis the NFL has faced in decades. Or that, in response to fan outrage and sponsor concern, Goodell would try and salvage the league's image with tough new disciplinary measures.
But the union knew full well how heavy-handed Goodell could be following his reaction to Bountygate, when even his old boss said his punishments went too far.
And still the union gave in.
"As players, we're the ones that set the course," Winston said.
Sure. So long as it's the one the NFL wants.
Smith isn't wrong when he says the NFL and NFLPA work best when they work together. There's little doubt, too, that Goodell overreached again in creating the new personal conduct policy.
No matter how good his intentions were, the policy is inherently flawed because the union didn't have a role in its creation. Domestic violence is horrific, causing scars that last long after the bruises and broken bones heal. The union and the league had a chance to make a real difference, providing support for abusers and their victims and addressing the root causes of the violence.
Instead, by acting unilaterally, Goodell ensured that the union will fight him at every turn. The focus will remain on their squabbles rather than setting an example for all of society.
"Are there parts of the personal conduct policy where our player leaders believe we could come together and come to a conclusion to support (it)? Yes," Smith said. "But we also don't have the luxury, because of the way they did it, to cherry pick.
"What we insist on is the process," Smith added. "And they violated the process."
That's what happens when you let someone else have all the power: They're going to use it.


text:
← The Second Battle of Heligoland Bight 16-17 November 1917
Thomas Crisp VC: Father and Son against a U-boat →
21 November 2018 · 11:38 am
The End of the German High Seas Fleet
By late September 1918, the German military High Command (OHL), headed by General Erich Ludendorff, had accepted that the Germans could no longer hold the Western Front. Ludendorff hoped that forming a parliamentary government might enable Germany to obtain better terms.
On 1 October, Prince Max of Baden, a liberal, became Chancellor of Germany at the head of a coalition of the Social Democrats, the Catholic Centre Party and the Liberals. On the night of 4-5 October the new government asked US President Woodrow Wilson for an armistice based on his 14 Points. This enabled Ludendorff and other generals to blame the new government for ending the war rather than admitting that the German army had been beaten in the field.[1]
Wilson insisted on 14 October that the Germans must end unrestricted submarine warfare before armistice negotiations began. Admiral Reinhard Scheer, Chief of the German Admiralty Staff, opposed this, arguing that the U-boat campaign against merchant shipping should not be ended until armistice negotiations had begun. On 20 October, however, Prince Max ordered that it should end. This released the U-boats to support operations by the High Seas Fleet, which had been inactive since April.[2]
Scheer ordered Admiral Franz von Hipper, C.-in-C. of the High Seas Fleet to conduct an operation in the North Sea. Hipper's Plan 19 was to:
Leave the Helgoland Bight during the day, remaining out of sight of the Dutch coast.
Destroyers and light cruisers should attack warships in the North Sea and merchant shipping off the Flanders coast and in the Thames Estuary. The High Seas Fleet's 18 Battleships would cover the operation off Flanders and its five battlecruisers the attack on the Thames.
This was intended to provoke the British Grand Fleet to leave port and head south. It was by this time based at Rosyth in the Firth of Forth.
Cruisers and destroyers would lay mines and U-boats wait in ambush in order to reduce the Grand Fleet's strength as it headed south. About 25 U-boats were to take part and their orders were to take all opportunities to fire on battleships and battlecruisers.
Hipper planed to engage the Grand Fleet on the night of the second or third day of the operation. If no battle had taken place by then, German destroyers would conduct a sweep towards the Firth of Forth.
Scheer approved the plan on 27 October and it was to be launched on 30 October. The British had a good idea that something major was about to happen because they had detected the movements of U-boats by radio direction finding. The Grand Fleet was reinforced by more destroyers.[3]
The operation did not take place. The High Seas Fleet was ordered to put to sea from Wilhelmshaven on the afternoon of 29 October. A large number of men from the battlecruisers Derfflinger and Von der Tann, mostly stokers, did not return from shore leave that day. There was mutiny and insubordination in other ships as the sailors feared that they were going to be sacrificed in a pointless battle intended only to save the navy's honour. Hipper called off the operation the next day and dispersed the fleet, which only carried the mutiny to other ports.[4]
Saving the navy's honour was certainly part of the motivation for the operation. Konteradmiral Adolf von Trotha, Hipper's Chief of Staff, wrote in a memorandum that:
'As to a battle for the honour of the fleet in this war, even if it were a death battle, it would be the foundation for a new German fleet of the future if our people were not altogether defeated; such a fleet would be out of the question in the event of a dishonourable peace.'[5]
There were, however, other motivations. In 1667, towards the end of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch successfully attacked the Medway, which enable them to get better peace terms than had seemed likely until then.[6]
The Germans would have been outnumbered even more heavily than they had been at Jutland, where their 16 dreadnought battleships and five battlecruisers had faced 28 British dreadnoughts and nine battlecruisers
Wikipedia lists the ships that were likely have taken part in any action. The Grand Fleet had 35 battleships, including five from the USN, and 11 battlecruisers, including two that had only four 15 inch guns and very weak armour, to 18 battleships and 5 battlecruisers. Ten British battleships and five battlecruisers had 15 inch guns and many other Allied ships 14 or 13.5 inch guns, with only the oldest ones having 12 inch guns. Only two German battleships had 15 inch guns, with the others and two of the battlecruisers having 12 inch guns and the three oldest battlecruisers 11 inch guns.
The Germans would be using Zeppelins for aerial reconnaissance, whilst the British had a Flying Squadron of three aircraft carriers and three seaplane carriers. Two of the aircraft carriers. HMS Furious and Vindictive, retained their funnels and superstructures with separate flying off and landing decks. This system created turbulence that made landing difficult. The third, HMS Argus, was the first carrier with a single flight deck running her full length.
At Jutland, the British suffered from lax flash protection and ammunition handling procedures, lack of armour, poor armour piercing shells and an inadequate system for passing intelligence on from the Admiralty to the Grand Fleet's C.-C. They believed that these problems had been tackled, although Admiral Sir David Beatty, C.-in-C. of the Grand Fleet, thought that the armour protecting magazines was still inadequate.[7]
The British reforms were untested, the U-boats and mines might have inflicted losses as the Grand Fleet advanced and the battle was to be fought near the German bases. The Germans might have repeated their performance at Jutland, when they claimed a tactical victory after sinking more ships than they lost before withdrawing. However, they might also have been annihilated by a fleet that had an even greater numerical and firepower advantage than in 1916 and had corrected many of its faults.
All that can be said for certain about Plan 19 is that if it had led to a battle, American, Australian (the battlecruiser HMAS Australia was then part of the Grand Fleet) , British and German sailors would have died at the end of a war that Germany had already lost.
The fate of the High Seas Fleet was a major concern for the British at the Armistice negotiations, at which the British delegate was the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Wester Wemyss. The British wanted to eliminate any future naval threat from Germany. They planned to intern the entire U-boat fleet but feared that the Germans could rebuild it. However, without a German battle fleet the British could have cleared German minefields, carried out a close blockade and destroyed the U-boats close to their bases.
Wemyss therefore wanted the Germans to surrender 10 dreadnoughts, six battlecruisers, eight light cruisers, fifty destroyers and 160 U-boats. The number of dreadnoughts and battlecruisers was intended to leave the Germans with eight or nine, the number that Beatty thought that the Grand Fleet would have lost in a decisive battle that destroyed the High Seas Fleet. [8]
Some generals and politicians, including Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, C.-in-C. of the BEF, Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the French delegate to the Armistice negotiations, and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, feared that these terms were too harsh and that the Germans might reject them and fight on. Eventually a proposal by Admiral William Benson, the US Chief of Naval Operations, that the German surface ships be interned in a neutral country was accepted. He feared that the British would get the bulk of them if they were surrendered, whilst the British admirals worried that the Germans might get them back if they were interned in a neutral port.[9]
The Germans claimed that they had fewer than 160 U-boats, so Wemyss asked for all their submarines, which was what he really wanted. They had only five battlecruisers as SMS Mackensen was incomplete. The terms signed on 11 November therefore stated that 10 battleships, five battlecruisers, eight light cruisers, 50 destroyers should be interned in a neutral port and all U-boats surrendered. No neutral country was interested in taking the German ships so they were interned in British ports. [10]
The first group of 20 U-boats left Wilhelmshaven on 18 November. They were met by the Harwich Force of cruisers and destroyers, which them boarded and escorted them into Harwich. Their crews were then transferred to a transport ship, which took them back to Germany. Eventually 176 U-boats were surrendered, including 18 that had been completed in order to make the passage. Seven more sank on the way to Britain.[11]
On 21 November Operation ZZ took place. The Grand Fleet put to sea in order to escort the German surface ships into internment. An Allied force of 370 ships, mainly British but including the American and Australian ships of the Grand Fleet and three French ships, met nine German battleships, five battlecruisers, seven light cruisers and 49 destroyers: a battleship and a light cruiser were in dock and did not come until December and a destroyer struck a mine on the way and sank.[12]
The two forces met at 9:30 am. The Germans the sailed into the Firth of Forth in a single line between two lines each of over 30 battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers. The Allied ships were all at action stations but there was no last minute gesture of defiance by the Germans. The Firth was full of all sorts of vessels carrying civilian spectators. At 11 am Beatty signalled that the German flags should be hauled down at sunset and should not be raised again without permission. This was done at the exact time: 3:57 pm. The German ships were escorted to Scapa Flow on 24 November.[13]
The Germans later scuttled their ships on learning the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty. This will be described in a later post.
Film of the German surrender from YouTube. You may have to watch an add at the start. The submarines flying British White Ensigns are surrendered U-boats.
[1] D. Stevenson, 1914-1918: The History of the First World War (London: Allen Lane, 2004), pp. 466-71.
[2] A. J. Marder, From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow; the Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904-1919, 5 vols (London: Oxford University Press, 1961-70). vol. v, pp. 170-71.
[3] P. G. Halpern, A Naval History of World War I (London: UCL Press, 1994), pp. 445-46; Marder, From. vol. v, p. 171
[4] Marder, From. vol. v, pp. 172-74.
[5] Quoted in Halpern, Naval, p. 445.
[6] J. S. Corbett, H. Newbolt, Naval Operations, 5 vols (London: HMSO, 1938). vol. v, p. 369.
[7] Marder, From. vol. ii. pp. 260-70.
[8] Ibid. vol. v, pp. 177-78.
[9] Ibid. vol. v, pp. 177-81,
[10] Ibid. vol. v, pp. 183-89.
[11] Corbett, Newbolt, Naval. vol. v, p. 380; R. H. Gibson, M. Prendergast, The German Submarine War, 1914-1918 (London: Constable, 1931), p. 364.
[12] Marder, From. vol. v, p. 190.
Tagged as armistice, First World War, German navy, Great War, internment, Royal Navy, surrender, war at sea, World War 1, World War I
2 responses to "The End of the German High Seas Fleet"
David Gunn
Marvellous summary Martin! David Gunn (whose dad was a leading seaman in the Harwich Naval Force)
Thanks. I should have mentioned that Admiral Tyrwhitt ordered the Harwich Force to meet the U-boats in silence.
The Times has been reprinting articles from 100 years ago daily since 2014. Today's is about the surrender of the first 20 U-boats to the Harwich Force.
Twenty U-boats given up
The first 20 of the German submarines to be given up to the Allies under the terms of the armistice surrendered to Rear- Admiral Sir Reginald Tyrwhitt soon after daybreak yesterday at a point about 35 miles from the Essex coast. The U-boats, escorted by British warships, proceeded in the charge of their own crews nearly to Harwich, where they were boarded by British seamen and taken into harbour. The crews afterwards embarked in transports and returned to their own country. More enemy submarines will be surrendered today, tomorrow, and on Saturday, by which time the total number will have reached 96.
The occasion had no parallel in history, and yet the most enduring impression is that the surrender was completed in silence. Even those nearest to the submarines report that not one voice was heard. On the lower deck of the cruiser Dragon the men puffed at their pipes and watched the passing pests of the sea with scarcely a word. If the craft so ignominiously handed over had been destroyers there might have been a little sympathy for the officers and men who had to give up their ships, but these were boats whose like had fouled the traditions of the sea, and humiliation was a light punishment for those who manned them.
At five minutes past 7 we were at the rendezvous, and the Germans were punctual. The U-boats were dark lines on the sea, with their conning towers showing like humps. As a blood-red sun rose out of the haze an amazing procession set a course towards the Essex coast. The Dragon led, the transports — rather uncertain in keeping line — steamed behind. Then came a destroyer with five enemy submarines in her wake; beyond our vision more destroyers and more submarines. A British rigid airship of the Zeppelin type, R 26, came out from Harwich, and at a height of 800ft sailed majestically down the line. A silvery Blimp followed, and later three flying boats. For the next two hours the aircraft kept company with the procession, flying low, and passing and repassing over the German ships.
Generally, the situation was accepted meekly, but I hear of one German who wept. All the Germans, except those required below, stood on deck as the squadrons passed towards the river. Altogether the crews numbered well over 500 men.
Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/register/twenty-u-boats-given-up-tgc98mr72. Accessed 21 November 2018

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Background images for code listings I've been searching around but I can't find any info for adding an image background for my code listing using the listings package. Is there a way to do this?

A: As PolGab says, there is always a tikz way. Here is one that uses the infamous \tikzmark to mark the begin and end of the listing, and then adds an image clipped to the size of the listing:

Note:

*

*This does require two runs. First one to determine the locations, and the second to do the drawing.

*The \tikzmark is from Adding a large brace next to a body of text.
Issues:
This however has some serious issues:

*

*A blank line is required before the listing (surprising result otherwise).

*Not sure why the fudge facts were required, but they end up aligning the frame to pretty close to where the fram=tb option would have drawn the horizontal lines.
Code:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{calc}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.pathreplacing}

\newcommand{\tikzmark}[1]{\tikz[overlay,remember picture] \node (#1) {};}

\newcommand*{\AddBackgroundImage}[4][]{%
%\pgfmathsetmacrp{\height}{}%
    \begin{tikzpicture}[overlay,remember picture]
    \coordinate (VCenter) at ($(#2)!0.5!(#3)$);
    \coordinate (Fudge) at (-\pgflinewidth,0);
    \coordinate (VFudge) at (0,\baselineskip);
    %\draw [red, thick,fill=yellow, fill opacity=0.2]% for debugging
    \clip
            ($(#2)+ (Fudge) - 0.50*(VFudge)$) --
            ($(#2) + (\linewidth,0) - 0.50*(VFudge)$) --
            ($(#3) + (\linewidth,0) + 1.25*(VFudge)$) --
            ($(#3)+ (Fudge) + 1.25*(VFudge)$) -- cycle;
    \path (VCenter) -- ++($(0.5*\linewidth,0)$)
    node [opacity=0.3, #1] {\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{#4}};
    \end{tikzpicture}%
}%

\lstset{
    language=C,
    basicstyle=\small\sffamily,
    %frame=tb,
    numbers=left,
    xleftmargin=5.0ex,
    numberstyle=\tiny,
    numbersep=4pt,
    stepnumber=2,
    keywordstyle=\color{blue}\bfseries
    }

\lstset{emph={%  Adjust any special keywords
    printf%
    },emphstyle={\color{red}\bfseries}%
}%

\begin{document}
\noindent
Here is an example of listings with a background image:

\noindent% Line above MUST be blank
\tikzmark{Start}%
\begin{lstlisting}
/* Hello World program */

#include<stdio.h>

struct cpu_info {
    long unsigned utime, ntime, stime, itime;
    long unsigned iowtime, irqtime, sirqtime;
};

main()
{
    printf("Hello World");
}\end{lstlisting}
\tikzmark{End}
\AddBackgroundImage{Start}{End}{images/EiffelWide}%
%
\noindent
Some text afterwards.
\end{document}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Challenges to equitable access to medicines
By: University of Auckland
Published: Wed 11 Jun 2014 05:25 PM
Access to medicines by vulnerable groups in the community, increasing medicine costs, and the demand for new medicines are some of the challenges identified in an independent study of priority medicine policy issues in New Zealand.
The study, led by Dr Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar from the University of Auckland's School of Pharmacy, also identified issues with access to prescribers, budgetary constraints, cultural and health literacy, patient medicine affordability and the evidence required for gaining subsidy for medicines.
These findings come from the first independent study to identify medicine policy issues in New Zealand. The study consulted 20 stakeholder groups from a broad range of healthcare and policy institutions.
"While overall there was reasonable satisfaction with the availability of subsidised medicines, there were some major challenges", says Dr Babar.
"In the context of PHARMAC's fixed budget for procuring and subsidising medicines, there was reasonable satisfaction with the range of medicines available—rare disorder medicines being the clear exception," he says. "There were concerns raised about the decision making process and whether desired health outcomes are being measured."
"Despite attempts to improve the situation, there are challenges of access to medicines for people in lower socio-economic groups, Māori and Pacific Island people and those with rare disorders," says Dr Babar.
Other barriers to access to medicines included convenience to and affordability of prescribers, and the increase of prescription fees from NZ$3 to NZ$5.
"The study shows that low socio-economic groups, (encompassing Māori and Pacifica people) were continuing to have access issues related to financial, structural, educational and cultural barriers," he says.
Concerns relating to PHARMAC included budget constraints, a lack of transparency of in-house analysis, and a lack of consistency in recommendations between the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committees.
"Constraints and inefficiencies also exist in the submission process to access high-cost medicines," says Dr Babar.
The study identified many of the reservations held by healthcare groups about the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and its impact on Pharmac and the availability of high cost medicines.
"There was concern from stakeholders that already 'big amounts' are being spent on healthcare and the 'benefits are low' and if there was a resultant increase in the cost of medicines, where the resources would come from to offset any cost increases," he says.
"Very few participants were familiar with the TPPA," says Dr Babar. "There was scepticism voiced about the driving force behind the agreement and what the benefits would be for NZ when the USA was a heavily subsidised protected market."
"Most participants considered that New Zealand's ability to access generic medicines or independence in procuring medicines should be upheld," says Dr Babar. "If not, funds may need to be redirected from other services, or patient co-payments would need to rise, to compensate a likely increase in the cost of medicines."
The full study report is available at this link
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/5/e004415.full?sid=676fc65f-3b8a-431a-aada-fc3866faa1bd
Notes to Editors (From the study report)
Just under 83% (82.7%) of health expenditure in New Zealand is publicly funded.
New Zealand's health and disability budget at the starting of this research is NZ$13.983 billion.
In comparison with other OECD countries, as a percentage of total expenditure on health, New Zealand spends less on pharmaceuticals. Approximately NZ$795 million and NZ$280 million are available for procuring community/cancer and hospital pharmaceuticals, respectively. This compares with a reported estimated spend of NZ$880 million on medical devices.
Approximately 1848 medicines are subsidised by PHARMAC, as listed on its Pharmaceutical Schedule, for use in the community and are largely accessible via prescription from a medical doctor.
Medicines make a significant contribution to health outcomes.
In 2007, 'Medicines New Zealand' New Zealand's medicines policy, was launched in response to access concerns from the public.The aim of the policy is to promote quality, effective and optimally used medicines. To guide decisions, the policy states principles of affordability, equity and need.
Medicines New Zealand aims to ensure that the decisions made about prioritisation and funding are as transparent as possible, understood and open to debate.
Next in Lifestyle
1917's 1,000 Yard Stare
By: Howard Davis
The benchmark for all anti-war films remains Lewis Milestone's 1930 nihilistic masterpiece, All Quiet on the Western Front , a Best Picture winner that followed a group of German students whose teacher rallies them into enlistment. They are lead ...
New Zealand set to host World Cup of Floorball in 2022
By: International Floorball Federation
In a major coup for a minnow nation in the European-dominated sport of floorball, New Zealand has won the rights to host one of the sport's marque international events.
Tuia 250 Voyage ends but Tuia - Our Future is Unstoppable
By: Tuia 250
Tuia 250 has unleashed an unstoppable desire to keep moving forward and continue the kōrero about who we are, say the co-chairs of the Tuia 250 National Coordinating Committee, Dame Jenny Shipley and Hoturoa Barclay-Kerr.
NZ Fringe 2020 has launched
By: New Zealand Fringe Festival
Hold onto your creative bits! The NZ Fringe is turning 30, and it's the largest, most diverse festival ever! We're Thirty. We're Flirty. And We're Thriving. That's right, for three decades New Zealand Fringe Festival has been supporting ...
Tuia 250 ending is just the beginning
The telling of our history that has been encouraged by Tuia – Encounters 250 must continue and the Government will play its part, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.
Final stop for Tuia 250 Voyage celebrates past and future
The Māhia Peninsula, where the land speaks to both voyaging and space-travel innovation, will provide a fitting backdrop as the Tuia 250 Voyage comes to a close this weekend, say the co-chairs of the Tuia 250 Coordinating Committee, Dame Jenny Shipley and ...
Tuia 250 Voyage flotilla arrival in Capital
By: Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Credit: Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage A glorious Wellington day greeted the Tuia 250 Voyage flotilla arrival into the Capital as the vessels made their way into berth at Queens Wharf. They mustered at Matiu / Somes Island off of ...
Courtney Johnston will lead Te Papa into a new era
By: Te Papa
Courtney Johnston has been appointed as the new Chief Executive of Te Papa. Ms Johnston will take up the role in December 2019.
Creative NZ board appointments
By: Creative New Zealand
Janine Morrell-Gunn, Riria Hotere-Barnes and John Ong have been appointed to the board of Creative NZ (the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa) and Roger King has been appointed for a further term, Manatū Taonga Ministry for Arts, Culture ...
Auckland Fringe Announces New Festival Director
By: Auckland Fringe
The feisty open-access arts festival Auckland Fringe are delighted to welcome Borni Te Rongopai Tukiwaho as the newly appointed Director ahead of the 2020 festival. Auckland Fringe runs 25 February – 7 March, bringing all corners of Tāmaki Makaurau ...
2019 NZ Comedy Guild Awards handed out
By: New Zealand Comedy Guild
Rose Matafeo was the big winner at the annual NZ Comedy Guild Awards that took place on Tuesday (10 December). Comedians from all over the country gathered at The Classic in Auckland to celebrate a big year for the local industry, recogniSing huge successes ...


text:
package com.technicat.boardgame;

import com.technicat.games.*;
import com.technicat.automata.*;

import java.util.*;

abstract public class BoardGame extends Game {

    final static public int PLAYER0 = 1;
    final static public int PLAYER1 = 2;

    final public State STATE_THINKING;

    final public State STATE_MOVING;

    final public State STATE_SWITCH_PLAYER;

    private Vector boardListeners;

    /**
     * Current player who's turn it is
     */
    private BoardPlayer currentPlayer;

    /**
     * pending move
     */
    private Vector pendingMoves;

    /**
     * The current state of the game board.
     */
    private Board gameBoard;

    /**
     * precreated Moves
     */
    private Move[][] moves;

    MoveIterator hasMoveIterator;

    /**
     *
     */
    public BoardGame() {
	super();
	// create the board
	gameBoard = createBoard();
	boardListeners = new Vector();
	STATE_THINKING = new ThinkState(this);
	STATE_MOVING = new MoveState(this);
	STATE_SWITCH_PLAYER = new SwitchPlayerState(this);
	pendingMoves = new Vector(1);
	moves = new Move[gameBoard.size][3];
	for (int i=0; i<gameBoard.size; ++i) {
	    moves[i][PLAYER0]=new Move(i,PLAYER0);
	    moves[i][PLAYER1]=new Move(i,PLAYER1);
	}
	hasMoveIterator = new MoveIterator(this);
    }

    public Move getMove(int square,int side) {
	return moves[square][side];
    }

    abstract public Board createBoard();

    // FSM

    public State getStartState() {
	return STATE_THINKING;
    }

    // pending move queue

    synchronized public void queueMove(Move move) {
	pendingMoves.addElement(move);
    }

    synchronized public Move peekPendingMove() {
	if (pendingMoves.size()==0) {
	    return null;
	} else {
	    return (Move)pendingMoves.elementAt(0);
	}
    }

    synchronized public Move getPendingMove() {
	Move move = peekPendingMove();
	if (move != null) {
	    pendingMoves.removeElementAt(0);
	}
	return move;
    }

    protected void notifyBoardChanged() {
	for (int i=0; i<boardListeners.size(); ++i)  {
	    BoardListener listener = (BoardListener)boardListeners.elementAt(i);
	    listener.boardChanged();
	}
    }

    public void addBoardListener(BoardListener listener) {
	boardListeners.addElement(listener);
    }

    public Board getBoard() {
	return gameBoard;
    }

    /**
     * game is over when player can't make a move, i.e. board is full
     */
    public boolean isGameOver(BoardPlayer player, Board board) {
	return  // isWon(player,board) ||
	    isWon(getOtherPlayer(player),board) ||
	    !hasMove(player,board);

    }

    public boolean isGameOver() {
	return isGameOver(currentPlayer,gameBoard);
    }

    public boolean isWinner(Player player) {
	return isWon((BoardPlayer)player,gameBoard);
    }

    abstract public boolean isWon(BoardPlayer player,Board board);

    public boolean hasMove() {
	return hasMove(currentPlayer,gameBoard);
    }

    public boolean hasMove(BoardPlayer player,Board board) {
	hasMoveIterator.reset(player,board);
	return hasMoveIterator.hasMoreElements();
    }

    /**
     *
     */
    public void makeMove(Move move) {
	// update player's move history
	currentPlayer.addMove(move);
	makeMove(currentPlayer,move,gameBoard);
	notifyBoardChanged();
    }

    public void makeMove(BoardPlayer player, Move move, Board board) {
	board.setPiece(move.square,move.piece);
    }

    public void setCurrentPlayer(BoardPlayer player) {
	currentPlayer = player;
    }

    /**
     * Set initial board configuration
     */
    public void reset() {
	gameBoard.reset();
	super.reset();
    }

    public Player getWinner() {
	Enumeration it = getPlayerIterator();
	while (it.hasMoreElements()) {
	    BoardPlayer player = (BoardPlayer)it.nextElement();
	    if (isWinner(player)) {
		return player;
	    }
	}
	return null;
    }

    public BoardPlayer getCurrentPlayer() {
	return currentPlayer;
    }

    public BoardPlayer getOtherPlayer(BoardPlayer player) {
	return (BoardPlayer)getNextPlayer(player);
    }

    public void switchPlayer() {
	currentPlayer = getOtherPlayer(currentPlayer);
    }

    /**
     * @return whether move is legal
     */
    public boolean isLegal(Move move) {
	return isLegal(currentPlayer,move,gameBoard);
    }

    public boolean isLegal(BoardPlayer player,Move move,Board board) {
	return board.isEmpty(move.square);
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


US and Russia shy away from serious action in Syria. Meanwhile, here's the fight to pay attention to.
The attack order came down late Friday night. The US, France and Britain launched a total of 105 missiles at three chemical weapons facilities deep inside Syria. Explosions could be seen and heard inside the Syrian capital of Damascus, with coalition firepower making a complete mockery of Syrian air defense.
The attack went down like this: While Syria scrambled to hide their military hardware within the safety of Russian bases, all eyes went to the growing US Naval build-up in the Mediterranean. One Russian admiral even threatened to fire a torpedo at the USS Donald Cook, which was parked alongside the USS Winston Churchill. Both US destroyers appeared to be holding the fort until the cavalry, or in this case, armada arrived. It was all a ruse.
As the attack order was given, US Naval ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf went into action. At the same time, B1 bombers launched from Qatar began dropping air-launched cruise missiles that are so state-of-the-art they've never been used before in combat. It was a masterstroke in precision modern warfare, and exactly what you'd expect from someone like Defense Secretary Mattis.
So, after nearly a week of the coalition threatening a possible strike, and an equal amount of time hearing Russia threaten "grave consequences," we're left with a few realities. First, nothing has really changed. This attack, although impressive, won't stop Assad from killing his own people, and it definitely won't scare Russia and Iran from supporting him.
Second, both the US and Russia came out of this looking kind of silly. While we're fighting like school children at the UN, the hard reality is that neither of us really has either the motivation or the balls to go "all in" when it comes to Syria. For several days after the April 7th chemical attack, the West went all Wyatt Earp in the movie Tombstone… "I'M COMING… AND HELL'S COMING WITH ME!" And then Russia barked back as if they were Curly Bill.
At the end of the day, our attack was VERY minimal and borderline symbolic, and — for Russia — they got their bluff called and got punked in front of the entire world. But both countries just aren't willing to go to the mattresses over Syria. Russia has threatened a response, but you can pretty much take it to the bank that the "response" will come in the form of a cyber attack. When and where it happens is anyone's guess, but THAT is Russia's main strike weapon.
Meanwhile, the REAL war in the Middle East continues to build. Iran's biggest goal in being in Syria is to encircle Israel. The longer Assad stays in power, the larger the Iranian presence will grow on Israel's border. The Israelis will be forced to strike. Russia and the US don't have much of a dog in the Syria fight, but for Israel and Iran, Syria is EVERYTHING. It is THIS fight that everyone should be looking at.
The coming Iranian-Israeli conflict could affect the entire world. Pray for Israel, and pray that our leaders make the right decisions.


text:
/**
 * List all technologies based on in database
 * @module controllers/parameters/listTechnologies
*/

const logger = require('../../../tools/logger');
const database = require('../../models/database');
const constants = require('../utils/constants');

/**
 * Return a list of all technologies using based on in the database
 * @return {json} - Returns the technologies list
 * @throws {json} - Throws a title and body with the error info
 *
*/
module.exports = (req, res) => {
  database.technology.findAll({
    attributes: ['id', 'name', 'skillId']
  }).then(technologiesList => {
    if (!technologiesList)
      return res.status(404).json({
        msg: constants.message.error.TECHNOLOGIES_NOT_FOUND
      });
    return res.status(200).json({
      msg: technologiesList
    });
  }).catch(err => {
    logger.error(err);
    return res.status(500).json({
      msg: constants.message.error.UNEXPECTED
    });
  });
};


text:
THE WEEK IN REVIEW
CWCB director
Jennifer Gimbel was chosen as the new executive director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. She replaced Rod Kuharich, who retired in July.
Gimbel said she will work on balancing conservation goals with development.
Leadville tunnel
Gov. Bill Ritter has asked Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne to cooperate in finding a long-term solution to lowering groundwater tables believed to be elevated by blockage in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.
The Bureau of Reclamation has agreed to cooperate in short-term solutions, which include increasing the capacity of the treatment plant it operates at the mouth of the tunnel north of Leadville, Ritter acknowledged in a letter sent last week.
Secretary of State Mike Coffman recertified some electronic voting machines last week, but he imposed some conditions on their use.
As a result of a new state law that allowed Coffman to reopen testing of voting machines he declared unusable last year, the secretary announced that the Edge II and Edge II Plus electronic voting machines used in Pueblo, Elbert, Denver and Arapahoe counties could be used during this year's election.
Bombing sites
Owners of land where three World War II bombing ranges operated have denied the Army Corps of Engineers access to check for old munitions sites.
\"We don't trust you,\" people living in the area told officials at a meeting last week.
John Miller, Corps project manager, said last week that, \"After taking several questions and talking to the people, it was obvious that landowners in this area don't trust us because of the taking of their land in the original bombing ranges and the taking of the land for the current Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. They indicated that they have been misled too many times.\"
State Rep. Buffie McFadyen and Leena Mather are trying to slow traffic through the state's highway construction zones.
The Pueblo West Democrat and the Beulah widow are doing that in the name of Charles Gabriel Mather, the Colorado Department of Transportation worker killed while on the job on Interstate 25 in 2006.
HB1036, which was heard last week by the House Transportation and Energy Committee, calls on the Colorado State Patrol to contract with a private vendor to use photo radar vans in random locations around the state where highway construction is going on. Tickets would be mailed by the vendor.
Boettcher scholarships
Three Pueblo students are among eight high school seniors from the Southern Colorado area who have earned coveted Boettcher Foundation scholarships.
The awards cover all expenses at any Colorado college or university that the students choose to attend.
The Pueblo recipients are East High School seniors Maleah Gregory and Johnny Stewart, and Matthew Bravo of Pueblo West High School.
City Council work session, 5:30 p.m., council chambers, City Hall.
District 70 school board, 6 p.m., Pueblo West High School.
Pueblo Human Relations Commission, 6 p.m., 1001 N. Santa Fe Ave. Information, 542-0112.


text:
<!DOCTYPE html>

<meta charset="utf-8">

<link rel="stylesheet" href="chrome://resources/css/chrome_shared.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="uber_frame.css">

    <button class="custom-appearance"
        i18n-content="historyDisplayName"></button>

    <button class="custom-appearance"
        i18n-content="extensionsDisplayName"></button>

    <button class="custom-appearance"
        i18n-content="settingsDisplayName"></button>

    <button class="custom-appearance"
        i18n-content="helpDisplayName"></button>


text:
Chon Buri eases curbs; bars allowed to reopen
A health worker measures the temperature of a motorcyclist at a screening checkpoint in Chon Buri on Saturday. (Photo by Chaiyot Pupattanapong)
CHON BURI: Authorities have eased Covid-19 restrictions in this eastern province and Pattaya City, with more businesses allowed to resume on Monday, including restaurants, pubs and bars.
The change was made after the area's status was changed from red to orange, where fewer restrictions apply. Similar easing has been approved in a number of other provinces as well.
However, hotels in the province have been ordered closed — at the request of the hard-hit industry so that they and their workers can officially qualify for state financial assistance.
The provincial communicable disease committee, which also has jurisdiction over Pattaya, announced the easing of restrictions on Saturday. Business operators, however, will be required to comply with the Public Health Ministry's preventive measures.
Schools and other educational institutions will also be allowed to reopen, with standard measures such as mask-wearing, social distancing and hand washing in place. The number of students per classroom must be limited to 25.
Restaurants, pubs, bars and karaoke shops are allowed to stay open until 11pm. Convenience stores must close between 11pm and 5am.
Activities with more than 300 people are still not allowed. Officials will be sent to conduct health screening tests at entertainment venues every 14 days. Screening checkpoints at 17 locations in the province have been scrapped, but movements of migrant workers are still prohibited.
The governor of Chon Buri signed the hotel-closure order on Thursday, at the request of industry associations. If the hotels had closed voluntarily, they would not be eligible for compensation. With the formal order in place, hotel staff can now seek up to 3 months of unemployment benefits from the Social Security Office.
The Centre for Covid-19 Situation Administration approved the closure.
Operators were asked to provide assistance to employees in a bid to encourage them not to travel outside the province.
Any hotels that still have guests in residence or want to stay open could make a special request to authorities in their district, according to the order.
Chon Buri has seen no new coronavirus cases since Jan 21. It has reported one death and 648 cases in total, with four remaining in hospitals.
Article source: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2059723/chon-buri-eases-curbs-bars-allowed-to-reopen
Previous article What is behind the renewed violence in CAR?
Next article 96 foreigners, including Australians, caught breaching lockdown at Austrian ski resort


text:
September 24, 2018 / Latest Thoughts
Success Through Service
Flick through your newsfeed and you'll find no shortage of articles and expert on advice on how to be more successful.
How to position yourself to get the next rung up the ladder.
How to build a better investment or property portfolio.
How to find the partner, or purchase the home, of your dreams.
How to get abs to die for or build a seven-figure online business. All in 30 days.
How to become a world-class writer, presenter, podcaster, designer… the list goes on.
But what does it really mean to be 'successful'?
There is no shortage of answers. But deciding how you will define and measure success is one of the most important exercises you can ever do.
Why? Because unless you take the time to decide what it truly means for you to live a successful life you can wind up spending your entire life working desperately hard to never measure up to the definitions that others have created for you . Most of which are entirely dependent on accruing more and 'looking good' in the eyes of those around you. Nearly all of which will also leave you forever striving, never feeling like you've ever truly arrived, never successful enough.
It explains why there are many people who, from the outside, appear to have 'made it' but who find themselves desperately lonely, unhappy and wrestling with a deep void in their lives. You may have met a few. They're often the ones with a burning need to let you know how successful they are. It also explains why, despite being wealthier than at any point in human history, more people today rely on anti-depressants to get by and more take their own lives because they see no future meaningful enough to live for.
Which brings us to the heart of what it means to live a truly successful life.
That is, to live a deeply meaningful one.
Of course what is 'meaningful' is a personally created construct. Yet while we can each draw meaning from different things, we all know it when we feel it and it is always connected to something which in some way, shape or form, serves and elevates those around us.
Leading an organization whose products or services fulfill a core need or desire.
Empowering people to live their potential and become 'change agents' for good.
Resolving conflicts that divide people and create untold suffering.
Expressing our creativity in a way that adds beauty to the world.
Designing systems and technology that help people connect better.
Educating people with information that helps them make better choices.
Finding cures for diseases that will alleviate suffering and enhance life.
The list goes on.
Which begs the question, how might your current measures of success actually be keeping you from experiencing greater fulfillment and a more intimate connection with the people in your life, today and in the future?
Certainly, any measure that is limited to money inevitably leaves a void. Research has found that once our basic needs and desires are met (recently estimated to require a salary of $83,000), greater wealth has diminishing incremental returns on our happiness.
Likewise, if you think that having a million Twitter followers or a New York Times Bestseller or Olympic Gold will finally do the trick, you're also on a one-way path to disillusionment.
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the world-renowned spiritual leader who was instrumental in brokering the historic peace deal between the Columbian militia and FARC guerillas believes that service to others is the only true pathway to a genuinely successful life:
"Every moment you spend on this planet, remember that you are here for a unique purpose and cause. Work for good things for others and good things will come back to you ," he shared during our podcast interview, "This is the law of nature. So if it appears as though you are failing, that failure is only to help you move you towards higher success, toward greater service."
Sri Sri's teachings, shared through his Art of Living Centers have helped millions to find greater meaning and peace in their lives. His advice aligns with that of the physician and theologian Albert Schweitzer who once said, "I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve." It also aligns with what Marianne Williamson, another spiritual leader, shared with me during our recent interview. "We've brought into a culture of self-absorption," she said. " You cannot separate a life of meaning and a life of purpose from a life lived in service to those who suffer."
As you are reading this now you may feel little in common with a spiritual guru or theologian. Yet we human beings have far more in common than what sets us apart; at the core of our being we all long to live a life that matters. So as you think about where you are right now in your life, and the future that you have yet to create, consider how reframing how you measure success through the lens of service may spare you an enormous amount of 'striving' and fuel your courage to take the leap of faith required to be a greater force for good in the lives of others.
It is part of the human condition to live with an internal tug of war between doing what feeds a sense of significance and doing what feeds our spirit. By defining success through the lens of service to others it sets you on a more purposeful path ; one that is not driven by 'looking good' in the eyes of others but by 'doing good' in the world. Studies have found that 'purpose driven' people are four times more likely to be engaged at work, 50% more likely to be a leader and have a 64% higher level of career satisfaction. Not only that but they also have a higher income and have a higher net worth and live up to 7 years longer.
By committing to a purpose greater than propping up our social identity or stroking our ego (which is, after all, an insatiable beast) you will discover within yourself more courage, creativity, resilience, and resourcefulness than you ever knew yourself to have. But don't get hung up trying to nail your purpose which we often think must be some grand and noble enterprise. Rather simply ask yourself, "How may I best serve?" and then take a brave step in whatever direction your answer beckons .
You may never reach the top of the ladder, you may never see your name in lights, and you may never own a villa in the south of France (though if you do, enjoy and share it!). But you will almost certainly enjoy greater contentment in your days and arrive at the twilight of your life with people you love by your side and an infinitely fuller heart.
Surely that is a far greater measure of success than a five-car garage.
Love some guidance to help you redefine success and reset your life compass on a truly meaningful vision for your life? Check out my 7 week Life Compass course
Embracing Tears
Tears. I've shed a few lately. While I've lived a long way from my parents for many years, the miles have never tugged so hard on my heartstrings than in the last few years as the thickening fog of dementia has rolled in over my
How might you be wrong? Chances are, in more ways than you'd like to think
Which do you value more: the truth or your own beliefs? Because they are not synonymous. It's pretty safe to assume that people reading this will have different opinions about many topics. Fiscal policy. Abortion. Parenting. Education. Climate change. Racism. Religion. Gun control. The leadership


text:
Q: Control item count in a row with flexbox I want to show 4 items in 1st row as it is, but only 3 in second line, and then 4 in 3rd line and 3 in 4th line and so on...
I have achieved this by nth-child but code was too much and not flexible and expandable.
Is it possible by flex? or grid?

* {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

.grid-wrapper {
  display: flex;
  flex-wrap: wrap;
  justify-content: center;
}

.grid-wrapper .grid-item {
  width: 25%;
  text-align: center;
  padding: 5px;
}

p {
  background: #ddd;
  padding: 15px;
}

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

A: You only need to consider one rule like below:
 /*7 = 4 (1st row) + 3 (2nd row) and 5 = 1st element in 2nd row (4 + 1)*/
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n + 5) {
  width: calc(100%/3);
  flex-grow:0;
}

The trick is to make one element bigger to trigger the wrap then rely on flex-grow to fill the space.
Full code

* {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

.grid-wrapper {
  display: flex;
  flex-wrap: wrap;
  justify-content: center;
}

.grid-wrapper .grid-item {
  width: 25%;
  text-align: center;
  padding: 5px;
  flex-grow: 1;
}

.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n + 5) {
  width: calc(100%/3);
  flex-grow:0;
}

p {
  background: #ddd;
  padding: 15px;
}

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

A:
Is it possible by flex? or grid?

Here is a solution using grid which is easier to construct:

*

*consider a 12-column grid layout using grid-template-columns: repeat(12, 1fr),

*place each grid-item into 4 columns by using grid-column: span 3,

*7 grid-items are repeating in a pattern; which means every even row has 3 items with nth-child indices 7n, 7n - 1 and 7n - 2.
See demo below:

* {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

.grid-wrapper {
  display: grid; /* grid container */
  grid-template-columns: repeat(12, 1fr); /* 12-column layout */
}

.grid-wrapper .grid-item {
  text-align: center;
  padding: 5px;
  grid-column: span 3; /* 4 items in a row */
}

.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n - 2),
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n - 1),
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n) { /* even row */
  grid-column: span 4; /* 3 items in the even row */
}

p {
  background: #ddd;
  padding: 15px;
}

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Flexbox solution
And I'd use just about the same nth-child logic in the case of a flexbox and the only change in your code would be the below:
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n - 2),
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n - 1),
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n) { /* even row */
  width: 33.33%;
}

See demo below:

* {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

.grid-wrapper {
  display: flex;
  flex-wrap: wrap;
  justify-content: center;
}

.grid-wrapper .grid-item {
  width: 25%;
  text-align: center;
  padding: 5px;
}

p {
  background: #ddd;
  padding: 15px;
}

/* ADDED THESE */
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n - 2),
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n - 1),
.grid-wrapper .grid-item:nth-child(7n) { /* even row */
  width: 33.33%;
}

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

Grid Item

On a separate note, if you interested in having n items in a row with flexboxes, the below answers may give you more information:

*

*5 items per row, auto-resize items in flexbox

*How to start a new line with a particular item with Flexbox?


SRC has received ISO 9001:2015 certification. This certification demonstrates SRC's long-term commitment to delivering the highest levels of quality and world-class client services. View our Quality Policy.
ISO 9001:2015 is the world's most widely recognized standard for Quality Management Systems (QMS).


text:
Von Diepenbrock (ook: Van Gronsfeld Diepenbrock) was een (oorspronkelijk uit Duitsland afkomstig) Nederlands geslacht waarvan een lid in 1814 in de Nederlandse adel werd opgenomen en dat met hem in 1827 uitstierf.

Geschiedenis
De stamreeks begint met Gert von Diepenbrock die in 1326 met het slot Diepenbroick bij Bocholt werd beleend. Nazaten van hem werden op 5 oktober 1652 verheven tot baron des H.R.Rijks, op 22 juli 1719 tot graaf des H.R.Rijks en op 27 januari 1813 tot baron de l'Empire. Op 28 augustus 1814 werd Willem Anne Lodewijk van Gronsfeld Diepenbroeck-Impel benoemd in de ridderschap van Brabant met homologatie van de titel van graaf op allen. Met hem stierf in 1827 dit Nederlandse adellijke geslacht uit.

Diepenbrock

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
NGC 7462 ist eine Balken-Spiralgalaxie vom Hubble-Typ SBbc im Sternbild Kranich am Südsternhimmel, die schätzungsweise 47 Millionen Lichtjahre von der Milchstraße entfernt ist. Im selben Himmelsareal befinden sich u. a. die Galaxien NGC 7412, NGC 7424, NGC 7456.

Das Objekt wurde am 16. Oktober 1834 von dem Astronomen John Herschel mit seinem 18,7 Zoll-Spiegelteleskop entdeckt und später von Johan Dreyer in seinen New General Catalogue aufgenommen.

Weblinks
 SIMBAD Astronomical Database

Einzelnachweise


text:
Homage to Wilson and CallaghanRoss McKibbin
Homage to Wilson and Callaghan
Ross McKibbin
Power, Competition and the State. Vol. II: Threats to the Post-War Settlement, Britain, 1961-1974, Vol. III: The End of the Post-War Era, Britain since 1974
by Keith Middlemas.
Macmillan, 480 pp., £50, March 1990, 0 333 41413 6Show More
Labour's Economic Policies, 1974-1979
edited by Michael Artis and David Cobham.
Manchester, 310 pp., £40, June 1991, 0 7190 2264 9Show More
The clamorous whispers of an impending election remind us that the present government must soon devise a plausible electoral campaign. Given the events of the last four years, this will not be easy: on any objective reckoning, almost no government this century will present the electorate with such a record of wilful failure. But, of course, objective reckonings matter little in the outcome of British general elections, and 'failure' has several definitions: even from failure many gain, or think they gain, which is why the political system devised by the Conservatives in the Eighties will long outlive Mrs Thatcher. Nonetheless, there will be some testing moments for Central Office, and their campaign is likely to be dominated by a combination of audacity and reticence.
They will certainly follow international fashion and pretend that what they were a year ago they are not today. Just as many of the neo-Brezhnevites who ran the old Soviet Union have miraculously metamorphosed into radical democrats, Ukrainian nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists or Christian mystics, so will the Conservative Party not be the party which almost unanimously supported Mrs Thatcher's legislation (including the poll tax) until at the eleventh hour the normally docile backbenchers realised the electoral consequences of their actions. We can also be certain that the Party, and its legion of apologists in both the polite and tabloid press, will assure the electorate (once again) that there is no alternative. In an ideological sense this is now probably a rather tatty argument, since the policies with which 'no alternative' is associated are themselves largely discredited. The Conservative strategy is, therefore, more likely to take a folk-historical turn: that the alternative to any sort of Conservative government is impossible and that this is historically demonstrated by the disasters of the Wilson and Callaghan governments from 1964 on. This is a powerful argument because it has only to be insinuated, not made explicit; it needs merely to reinforce what are already a number of conventional wisdoms. It will be the Conservatives' trump.
What has been constructed is a kind of folk memory of decline and disorder which has been wholly disadvantageous to the Labour Party. Such contrived history is of great political significance since much of the present electorate has in fact little or no actual memory of what happened in the Sixties or Seventies and is largely dependent on this received view for its image of Labour as a governing party. Had such a view simply been created by the Conservative Party's engines of propaganda we might expect time to diminish its force. As a political imperative, however, it is powerful precisely because so many in the Labour Party (both right and left) helped create it or acceded to it. The Labour Party has been peculiarly disabled in the last ten years because so many of its own members have written off its history. Thatcherism was in practice distinctly vulnerable to attack – but not by a party which had denied its own past. How people choose to 'remember' the Wilson and Callaghan governments is consequently something to which the Labour Party should urgently attend: only if they 'remember' them benevolently (or at least not malevolently) can Labour hope to re-establish itself securely as a governing party. Yet there is still no evidence that the Labour leadership wishes to attend: on the contrary – as Mrs Thatcher did with the Heath government – they seem either to pretend that the Wilson and Callaghan governments did not exist or that they were mistakes for which the Party must endlessly atone.
This received view need not go uncontested. In the first place, we have had 12 years of the Conservative 'alternative': the critics of Wilson and Callaghan have had their go and must in turn be judged. In the second, we now have a significant scholarly literature on the Sixties and Seventies. Keith Middlemas, for example, has completed his remarkable study of Britain's post-war political economy (a remarkable study even if the conclusions the reader draws from this mass of material are – as in my case – not always Professor Middlemas's), while Michael Artis and David Cobham have edited a detailed and careful examination of the 1974-1979 governments which replaces all previous accounts. What conclusions might the reader draw from all this kind of evidence? Negatively, the historical record suggests that, as against the post-1979 Conservative governments, Wilson and Callaghan glow with a particular lustre. It is true, as the pure-school free marketeers have begun to argue, that Thatcherism was polluted by electoral calculation and a fear of offending vested interests, and to that extent is not the real thing. But it defies sense to believe that a patient who was nearly killed by half a dose would be cured by a whole one. In any case, the real thing has been administered to the Australian and New Zealand economics, and if any free marketeer wishes to see the consequences of that historic 'betrayal'* he should go and look. Furthermore, given how favourable international circumstances were throughout the Eighties (as compared to the Seventies), it makes what has happened to the British economy even more astonishing.
The reasons for observing the Wilson and Callaghan governments benevolently, however, are not simply that their critics have made an even greater mess – true though that is. Both governments, particularly the 1964-70 government, deserve a much more positive evaluation than they have usually received. Indeed, apart from Attlee's, the 1964 government is probably the only post-war British government whose record we can read with some satisfaction. While it would be too much to say that in 1970 the horizon was cloudless – among other things, as Middlemas emphasises, the relationship of the trade unions to society and the Labour Party remained highly problematic – the sky was pretty blue. Unemployment and inflation were low, the balance of payments was in equilibrium, productivity growth was by British standards high, it was a peculiarly good period for British manufacturing industry, infrastructural investment remained high, there were important social and institutional reforms. The Government had a discernible sense of the national interest, of what was possible: but there was also a discernible sense of direction and control – a sense fully shared, as Roy Jenkins's memoirs perhaps surprisingly confirm – by Wilson himself. Within two years – before the 1973 oil crisis overwhelmed the Heath government – many of these gains had been thrown away.
The case for the 1974 government is obviously more difficult: for most people (insofar as they remember anything), it represents exclusively what it to some extent undoubtedly was – low growth, poor productivity, high inflation, strikes, 'chaos'. But the 1974 government was left as wretched an inheritance as any modern British government – much worse than that left to Wilson in 1964 – which operated insidiously throughout its whole term. Nor, putting it delicately, was the government much helped either by its enemies or friends. Yet Artis and Cobham's argument that institutionally and politically (despite its well-publicised blemishes) it coped surprisingly effectively is difficult to deny. One way of seeing that government is to imagine what might have happened had it won the 1979 Election and remained in office throughout the Eighties. It seems reasonable to suppose that the great majority of the British people would have (at least) the same standard of living as they do today, the health and education systems would be in significantly better shape, there would not have been two grinding recessions, unemployment would be lower while inflation could scarcely have been higher, there would have been fewer beggars in the streets of all our major towns, the government would have exercised some responsible control of our financial system, thousands of our fellow citizens would not now hold mortgage debts on houses that greatly exceed the value of the houses themselves, manufacturing industry would not now be so skeletal, a working relationship between industry and the government (towards which the Callaghan government was slowly moving) might have partly compensated for the deficiencies of our existing capital market, the very rich would have been less rich and the very poor less poor. Not all these things would have happened, perhaps, but it is a fair bet that some would, and even if only one of them had happened we would be better-off than we are.
One conclusion that we can therefore draw is that since 1945, Labour governments have left the country better than when they found it, and Conservative governments worse. Should the Conservatives lose the next election that conclusion, I think, will still hold. But does it matter? It is not a conclusion that the electorate has drawn, or been allowed to draw. The implication of Middlemas's study is that it does not much matter. His is a story of an economically-emancipated 'public' declining to accept the social foundations of the Keynes-Beveridge settlement, and of an increasingly weak state unable to modernise in unfavourable international conditions and capitulating to powerfully asserted sectarian interests. There are reasons, however, for thinking that it does matter and that we need not read the past quite so pessimistically.
The first is that what appears to be a result of long-term developments is much more historically specific. Contemporaries often see fundamental (sometimes revolutionary) change in events which in hindsight were very much less than that: the French in 1936 after the victory of the Popular Front, or the Americans during the industrial conflicts of 1936-37, are examples. This country in 1978-79 is another: there was a clear tendency to see in trade union behaviour (particularly that of public-sector trade unions) one of these fundamental changes – John Goldthorpe argued then that the 'phenomenon of prestige' had 'decomposed' and Middlemas seems to agree. It would be unwise to reject this argument entirely: but we might equally suggest that what happened was almost inevitable in the circumstances, particularly given the Government's decision (which most of its members probably now think to have been a mistake) to hold wage increases to a 5 pet cent norm. The 'winter of discontent' ranks high in the demonology of the last Labour government, but we should be careful before accepting it.
There is also a moral argument for thinking that it matters, even if it does not carry much weight with the electorate. Many of the policies of the present government – its housing policies, for instance, or the establishment of the Social Fund – have been tantamount to the creation of poverty and deprivation. The transformation, say, of Central London has been one of the most depressing developments of the last ten years. No doubt the Government did not intend this, and homeless teenagers on innumerable doorsteps are not its responsibility alone: but it is hard to know what else it thought would happen when it concocted the policies in question. The Government's defenders have implied that we can divorce the moral from the social sphere, that even if we all agree to deplore homelessness, there are no social implications. But we cannot make such a distinction: sooner or later, if we continue on this path, society simply falls apart.
Whether Mrs Thatcher did or did not believe that there was no such thing as society, she certainly acted as if social cohesion had nonetheless to be preserved. For one thing, property becomes threatened if it is not. Her way of securing this increasingly relied upon patriotism and xenophobia, on the one hand, and coercion, on the other. It did her no good. While it is clear that much of the present social dislocation is common to all Western societies and probably beyond the reach of their governments, it is also clear that the 'alternative' social cohesion which Mrs Thatcher brought to 'ungovernable' Britain has disastrously failed. The quite conscious attempt to replace one form of social relationship by another (and thus one form of social cohesion by another) has had all too practical consequences: we are now very much more likely to be burgled or mugged. Mr Major, to his credit, appears to understand this but it is hard to see what he, as leader of a party very largely shaped in the Eighties, can do about it.
There are two other reasons why it matters whether the present regime survives or not. The first is that the Conservative Government has enormously increased the force of inertia in British society, and the Conservative Party as it is at present constituted depends for its existence on perpetuating that inertia. The Conservative Party has in the past had its share of movers and shakers, and both Mrs Thatcher and those around her, at least in the first years, wished, or said they wished, to move and shake. In practice, however, that was not their primary concern, and the saturnalia of attempted electoral manipulation which characterised her last years further constricted Britain's social and economic flexibility. A deliberate attempt to purchase social inertia through housing policy, through its encouragement of owner occupation at almost any cost, has also had the effect of making the economy more unstable and more difficult to manage. It might not have been inevitable for the Conservative Party to have gone this way, but by associating herself with its most powerful tendencies, by giving them their head, Mrs Thatcher ensures that the Party now (and Mr Major's government) is Thatcherite in everything but name. The result is that the Conservative Party and much of British society cling to each other in a kind of dying embrace and the only way to save them both is by uncoupling them.
The second reason is that the state can be restored to its proper place in the British economy only – and perhaps not even then – if the Conservatives are required to leave office. The ideological corollary of structural inertia is the predominance of a narrow and futile orthodoxy of which the Conservative Party is (at the moment) the principal political vehicle. This orthodoxy demands the expulsion of the state from any active part in the country's economic life, despite the transparent foolishness of this aspiration. The orthodoxy has assumed a quasi-religious aspect, as free trade did before 1914.
We now find ourselves in a position analogous to Edwardian Britain, where it was political death to question the wisdom of free trade despite ubiquitous evidence of the destructive consequences of this: but, unlike the Edwardians, we are without a government able to construct a coherent compensating policy. It is thus impermissible to argue that British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Rover or Jaguar should not have been privatised, or that one of them should never have been encouraged to buy another. The result of this silence is that a paralysed government stands helplessly by hoping that what is all too likely to happen does not. But in Britain the degree of inertia is now such that the state, for all its past failings, is one of the few dynamic economic agents which remain. By denying this, the present government has abandoned any kind of responsible action: it is one thing to say that the state cannot pick winners, quite another that it should let winners go bankrupt.
Which returns us to Wilson, Callaghan and the Labour Party, since the current orthodoxy is justified almost exclusively by the apparent 'failure' of the state-interventionist policies they practised. If an ideological alternative to the Conservative Government is to be made acceptable to the electorate, both folk memory and the Labour Party will have to change their minds about the 1964 and 1974 governments and the Labour Party will have to do it first. The Labour Party has committed the cardinal rhetorical error of any political party by apologising for its own past: the Conservatives may ignore their own past, but they never apologise for it. Labour has done this partly because of the utopianism of many of its activists – to them the best is always the enemy of the good – and partly because of a certain timid and innocent defensiveness. Labour always plays the game by other people's rules. A measure of this defensiveness is the extent to which the Labour Party is happy to be thought the 'caring' party but is plainly less happy to be thought the 'competent' party, even though there seems no logical reason why it could not be both. It thus apologises for the Wilson and Callaghan governments because the activists said they fell below perfection while those in economic and cultural authority said they failed. But there are entirely adequate justifications for these governments which the Labour leadership should start making. Although it seems scarcely possible, the majority of the electorate still believes that the Conservatives are more 'competent' economic managers than Labour, and this basically means that they think the Tories are more fit to govern. We can be fairly certain that as an election approaches this belief will become more intense – much to Labour's detriment. The Labour leadership must, therefore, assert that the Wilson and Callaghan governments were more 'competent' than their predecessors and successors, which they were, and sound as though they mean that as a compliment, and also recognise that their policies, though indeed imperfect, were better suited to a sluggish, rather uncohesive society than the alternatives. They might then be able to argue that the rather rough-hewn social democracy with which the Labour Party is historically associated has worked very much more in the national interest than anything else we are likely to have. And that we are more likely to have a productive capitalism under Labour than under its principal opponent. A Labour Party which restores itself to its own past might, having perceived its strengths, accept its weaknesses: namely, that under our present institutional and constitutional arrangements its spells in office may be fitful and unrewarding.
Ross McKibbin is an emeritus research fellow at St John's College, Oxford.
Osborne's Ambition
Brought to you by the Conservative Party
A Hopeless Way to Run a Country
More by Ross McKibbin
The word is that of Tom Fitzgerald, doyen of Australian financial journalists, in Between Life and Economics (Sydney, 1991). This book should be read by free marketeers of all parties.
You sent me Ross McKibbin's piece (LRB, 24 October), which I naturally read with a lot of interest. Perhaps he gives too much credit to Harold Wilson and myself: but we have suffered too long from gross exaggeration the other way, so I certainly do not complain about Ross McKibbin's contribution. I always thought, if only from an electoral point of view, how foolish was the attitude of many Labour activists in the Eighties in disowning the previous Labour government. When I listen to the radio I frequently find myself contrasting their attitude with that of present-day Tory backbenchers, who even now are capable of defending what is clearly indefensible to everyone else, when our record was so much better. However, it is rather nice to cease to be a kind of non-person.
James Callaghan
Now that Neil Kinnock has managed to rid the Labour Party of most of its ideological baggage and thus solved Wilson's problem of a divided party, the danger is that, however well his government administers things, the style will once again be bland. What Thatcher seems to have taught us in the Eighties is that the excitement of ideology, though it often makes an appalling mess of good government, seems a necessary component to the winning of elections. If, therefore, Labour is to rediscover and celebrate the history of 1964 to 1979, it must look to the exciting radical peaks, like the abortion, divorce and homosexual reforms of the Sixties, as well as to the technically successful but politically grey Callaghanesque administrative track record.
Vol. 13 No. 23 · 5 December 1991
Is Ross McKibbin (LRB, 24 October) correct when he says that the Tory Party does not apologise for its own past? I would have thought that the massive re-orientation of Tory thinking undertaken by Butler, Maudling, McLeod and others after 1945 represented a clear repudiation of a recent Tory past. And nothing Kinnock has said about Wilson or Callaghan corresponds to Churchill's denunciation of Baldwin and Chamberlain. Churchill's two successors, 'Munich' Eden and 'Middle Way' Macmillan, were both living embodiments of how the Tory Party can reject its past when it is a political burden. The problem for Major, Patten et al is that none had the moral or political bravery of a Macmillan or an Eden to stand up to the follies of Thatcherism, and have only discovered the courage of their centrist convictions once she was gone.
I also think there is a clear difference between the rehabilitation of Wilson and that of Callaghan. I was at school when Wilson won in 1964 but by the time Callaghan took office I was a union official and Labour Party activist in the West Midlands. All I can remember, long before the Winter of Discontent, were dog days in which we lost the safest of safe seats in by-elections, alienated most of the intelligentsia (not just the effortless condescenders in the posh media circles of London), drove people mad with illiberalism in areas of freedom of information and harassment of journalists, and gave rise to syndicalist militancy because of an incoherent industrial and social policy.
Perhaps future historians will find greatness in the Callaghan government, and certainly if comparison with the Eighties is the only criterion the economic and social achievements of Labour in the Seventies appear stupendous. But if the comparison is with what other European countries achieved the story looks worse, much worse. The main difference is that neither Wilson nor Callaghan took the political process seriously, other than in an élite Westminster sense, and let the Labour Party rot and become infected by the élite arrogances of SDPers or Militants. Nor did they bother to try to build a broader political coalition in the country. Kinnock is more modern and European, in the sense of ruthlessly making the Labour Party fit to govern in the style of a Mitterrand, Gonzalez or Brandt, and gingerly opening the way to challenging the 'present institutional and constitutional arrangements' which McKibbin rightly identifies as being the main block to Labour ever enjoying more than a half decade in office at a time. In that sense, Kinnock and his team, rather like the Tories who reshaped Conservatism in the late Forties, do represent a break with the past of quite a fundamental nature. And just as it would have been a bold Tory who invoked Baldwin in the Fifties, I expect we shall wait a good while before Callaghan's administration evokes much excitement in Labour's heart.
Denis MacShane
Divonne, France


text:
Soft infrastructure is all the services which are required to maintain the economic, health, and cultural and social standards of a population, as opposed to the hard infrastructure which is the physical infrastructure of roads, bridges etc. It includes both physical assets such as highly specialised buildings and equipment, as well as non-physical assets, such as communication, the body of rules and regulations governing the various systems, the financing of these systems, the systems and organisations by which professionals are trained, advance in their careers by acquiring experience, and are disciplined if required by professional associations. It includes institutions such as the financial system, the education system, the health care system, the system of government, and law enforcement, and emergency services.

The essence of soft infrastructure is the delivery of specialised services to people. Unlike much of the service sector of the economy, the delivery of those services depends on highly developed systems and large specialised facilities, fleets of specialised vehicles or institutions.

Governance
The system of government and law enforcement, including the political, legislative, law enforcement, justice and penal systems, as well as specialised facilities (government offices, courthouses, prisons, etc.), and specialised systems for collecting, storing and disseminating data, laws and regulation, such as civil registration, business and company registries, land registration, and maintenance of other government databases.
Emergency services, such as police, fire protection, and ambulances, including specialised vehicles, buildings, communications and dispatching systems
Military infrastructure, including military bases, arms depots, training facilities, command centres, communication facilities, major weapons systems, fortifications, specialised arms manufacturing, strategic reserves

Economic
The financial system, including the banking system, financial institutions, the payment system, exchanges, the money supply, financial regulations, as well as accounting standards and regulations
Major business logistics facilities and systems, including warehouses as well as warehousing and shipping management systems
Manufacturing infrastructures, including industrial parks and special economic zones, mines and processing plants for basic materials used as inputs in industry, specialised energy, transportation and water infrastructure used by industry, plus the public safety, zoning and environmental laws and regulations that govern and limit industrial activity, and standards organisations
Agricultural, forestry and fisheries infrastructure, including specialised food and livestock transportation and storage facilities, major feedlots, agricultural price support systems (including agricultural insurance), agricultural health standards, food inspection, experimental farms and agricultural research centres and schools, the system of licensing and quota management, enforcement systems against poaching, forest wardens, and fire fighting

Social
The health care system, including hospitals, the financing of health care, including health insurance, the systems for regulation and testing of medications and medical procedures, the system for training, inspection and professional discipline of doctors and other medical professionals, public health monitoring and regulations, as well as coordination of measures taken during public health emergencies such as epidemics
The educational and research system, including elementary and secondary schools, universities, specialised colleges, research institutions, the systems for financing and accrediting educational institutions
Social welfare systems, including both government support and private charity for the poor, for people in distress or victims of abuse.

Cultural, sports and recreational

 Sports and recreational infrastructure, such as parks, sports facilities, the system of sports leagues and associations
 Cultural infrastructure, such as concert halls, museums, libraries, theatres, studios (film studios and recording studios), and specialised training facilities
 Business travel and tourism infrastructure, including both man-made and natural attractions, convention centres, hotels, restaurants, amusement parks, and other services that cater mainly to tourists and business travellers, as well as the systems for informing and attracting tourists, and travel insurance

References

Bibliography
 Larry W. Beeferman, "Pension Fund Investment in Infrastructure: A Resource Paper", Capital Matter (Occasional Paper Series), No.3 December 2008
 A. Eberhard, "Infrastructure Regulation in Developing Countries", PPIAF Working Paper No. 4 (2007) World Bank
 M. Nicolas J. Firzli & Vincent Bazi, "Infrastructure Investments in an Age of Austerity : The Pension and Sovereign Funds Perspective", published jointly in Revue Analyse Financière, Q4 2011 issue, pp. 34– 37 and USAK/JTW July 30, 2011 (online edition)
 Georg Inderst, "Pension Fund Investment in Infrastructure", OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions, No. 32 (2009)

External links

 Body of Knowledge on Infrastructure Regulation
 Next Generation Infrastructures international research programme
 Report Card on America's Infrastructure

Construction
Infrastructure


text:
Заречный — посёлок в Смоленском районе Алтайского края. Входит в состав Линёвского сельсовета.

География
Расположен на левом берегу реки Песчаная, в 5 км к юго-западу от центра поселения — посёлка Линёвский.

Население

 Национальный состав
Согласно результатам переписи 2002 года, в национальной структуре населения русские составляли 91 %.

Примечания

Населённые пункты Смоленского района (Алтайский край)


Abstract: Non-lipid and β-d-glucopyranoside, β-d-galactopyranoside and α-d-mannopyranoside directly functionalized polydiacetylenes were modified by using methylphenyl as electron donating groups to investigate their optical properties and detection ability in the presence of lectin and Escherichia coli. Direct functionalization of sugar molecule provided a much simplified and rapid platform for lectin and E. coli detection as the incorporation of two or more components was not required. The results showed that the polymerization was possible by attaching methylphenyl as an electron donating group in polydiacetylene formation instead of a long alkyl group. After UV irradiation, a yellow solution was obtained and the molecular weight of this system was 80,500 ± 500 g/mol. Concentration-dependant quenching experiments demonstrated that only α-d-mannopyranoside functionalized polydiacetylene showed significant quenching with Concanavalin A (Con A) and E. coli. However, no colour change could be observed during Con A and bacteria detection. Polydiacetylene has a much better quenching effect if compared with the respective monomeric form. Hysteresis studies were performed which confirmed that this system could be used as a simplified biosensor for bacteria detection. This α-d-mannopyranoside functionalized polydiacetylene with electron donating group of methylphenyl developed in this study has future potentials for the development of simple and rapid biosensors. © 2013 Elsevier B.V.