Twellium industries have pledged their continuous investment in sports.
According to them, they were happy with the professionalism attached to the management of disciplines like Weightlifting, Tennis, Table Tennis and Armwrestling thus their continuous support to sports development.
Head of Marketing at Twellium, Ali Ajami said there are lots of potentials in sports investment in the country and as a company they will take advantage of the system to make Ghana sports grow.
He said they have been involved in the development of sports like Weightlifting where the national team, Black Cranes won Commonwealth medals in Malaysia last year as well as continental medals in Congo in the same year.
They have also been partnering McDan for the annual McDan West African Open Tennis Championship at the Tennis Court of the Accra Sports Stadium.
Kofikrom Pharmacy who have also supported the development of armwrestling from the scratch also said they want to promote healthy sportsmen and high level performance thus their desire to grow with armwrestling.
The National Armwrestling team is sponsored by TT Brothers, Mama Vits, Paradise Pac Mineral Water, Henry's Inn Restaurant, Joy Herbal Industries, Awards Center, Event Factory and Vitamilk.
President of the Ghana Armwrestling Federation, Mr Charles Osei Asibey, who is also Communications Director of the Ghana Olympic Committee (GOC) said his federation is grateful to all the sponsors and called on corporate bodies to invest in sports development.
He commended Ghana sports lovers and sponsors for supporting a worthy course and said the Arm Wrestling Federation will in the coming months visit other regions to decentralise the sport and form a stronger team for the next African championship to be hosted in Ghana.


Owners of Sunshine Mint SMI security feature products will want to ensure they have an official SMI Security Decoder Card Lens.
This official SMI decoder lens validates genuine Sunshine Mint products containing the MintMark SI microengraving security feature.
Simply place the decoder lens over the circular MintMark to authenticate.
Genuine SMI products will display a "Valid" marking under the decoder lens.


Who Is Responsible When Work Equipment Defects Hurt Employees?
Tools are what help us do our jobs every single day. There are millions of tools of every shape and size from a simple pencil to a huge crane, designed to lift thousands of pounds at a time. While life can be made easier with the use of these tools, sometimes the unthinkable happens and a defect causes the tool to malfunction. That's when people get hurt.
What Types Of Equipment Defects Cause Accidents?
Did you know that the companies who manufacture and sell a product are responsible for putting warning labels on their goods so that consumers know how to safely use it? For example, one commonly known warning is to not use a hairdryer while in water. On equipment that might be used for work, the warning might include things like the maximum weight that a machine can manage.
If there is a risk associated with using a specific type of equipment, then the manufacturer must provide that warning, otherwise, they may be liable for any injuries that occur.
Just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it will function the way that it was designed to. It is the responsibility of the designer and manufacturer to test their products before putting them on the market so that consumers are safe and a redesign can fix any potential defects that might cause someone harm.
In the moments after an accident, most people aren't thinking about what caused their injuries and are, as they should be, more focused on seeking the medical care that they desperately need.
In one case, a carpenter who had been working in his industry was seriously injured by a defective nail gun.
On the day of his accident, he was using a Hitachi pneumatic nail gun on the roof of a home when the gun recoiled. The recoiling motion caused the gun to rotate towards his face and it hit him on the upper lip. What he didn't realize that when the gun hit his lip, it also discharged a nail.
He had a nail in his skull and the point was penetrating the front of his brain.
Today, even after successful removal of the nail, he continues to experience debilitating headaches, impaired memory, and numbness in his limbs. He has been unable to return to the work he enjoyed for 40 years.
The last thing that most work accident victims are thinking about when they are rushed into the ER is how much their medical bills will be, but shortly after the dust has settled, financial stress usually becomes prominent.
Workers' compensation insurance is required by the majority of all employers in New York. This policy is supposed to cover all workers who are injured on the job, even if the accident which caused them injuries was caused by their own mistake.
Once a claim has been made, the policy should provide coverage for the worker's' medical expenses and a fraction of their lost wages, yet time and time again, denials are issued because of a simple mistake made on a claim form, an employer who is contesting the claim, or medical records that aren't complete, leaving the patient to fend for themselves.
If a defect causes an injury, the designers and manufacturers of the defective product can be sued. Lawsuits can provide the victim with compensation that cannot be obtained through a workers compensation claim alone. Compensation may cover medical bills, the full amount of lost wages both past and expected future, physical pain and suffering, and emotional trauma.
There are strict time limits on filing each of these claims which is why it is best to contact an attorney as soon as possible.
What Information Do I Need To FIle?
Taking photographs of the scene of the accident and of the defective equipment.
Keeping the defective equipment to be examined.
Taking photographs of the injuries sustained – both immediately after the accident and as the healing process progresses.
Obtaining a copy of medical records from all treating physicians.
Keeping copies of any claims that have been filed.
Collecting the names and contact information of anyone who may have witnessed the accident.
Copies of anything that is sent from the insurance company.
All of this evidence can be used by an attorney to build a successful case.
Does A Product Recall Mean I No Longer Have A Case?
Absolutely not. Just because a company has recognized that a product is dangerous doesn't mean they are no longer liable for the damage it has caused.
How Do I Know If A Defect Caused My Injury?
It may be unclear at first what caused the injured worker harm. Even if you suspect that you may only have a workers' compensation claim, an attorney can still help.
A workers' compensation claim and personal injury lawsuit can be filed at the same time. While an attorney assists with filing the workers' comp claim, they can review the accident, consult with specialists, and determine if other negligent parties are at fault. Then the lawsuit can be filed.
You already have enough to handle – let us help.
Are Injuries Sustained While Traveling Covered By Workers' Compensation?


text:
Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD was speaking about when he said, 'All who serve me must respect my holiness; I will reveal my glory to my people.' " But Aaron remained silent.
These men assembled their fellow Levites, and they all made themselves ritually clean. Then, as the king had commanded them to do, they began to make the Temple ritually clean, according to the Law of the LORD.
Since there were not enough priests to kill all these animals, the Levites helped them until the work was finished. By then more priests had made themselves ritually clean. (The Levites were more faithful in keeping ritually clean than the priests were.)
Gather the people together; prepare them for a sacred meeting; bring the old people; gather the children and the babies too. Even newly married couples must leave their homes and come.
The priests, serving the LORD between the altar and the entrance of the Temple, must weep and pray: "Have pity on your people, LORD. Do not let other nations despise us and mock us by saying, 'Where is your God?' "

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
State v. Bowman, 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 116
Defendant: Bowman
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
November 14, 2016, Oral Argument; January 23, 2017, Filed
No. 73069-0-I
2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 116 | 2017 WL 325700
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Thomasdinh Newsome Bowman, Appellant.
For Appellant: Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA; Kevin Andrew March, Nielsen, Broman & Koch, PLLC, Seattle, WA.
For Respondent: Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, Seattle, WA; Donna Lynn Wise, King County Prosecutor's Office, Seattle, WA.
Authored by James Verellen. Concurring: Mary Kay Becker, Michael Trickey.
Opinion by: James Verellen
Verellen, C.J. — Thomasdinh Bowman appeals his conviction for first degree murder. He argues that the State's peremptory challenge of Juror 5, an African-American woman, violated the equal protection clause. We conclude the trial court correctly applied the existing legal standards, and the record supports the finding of no purposeful discrimination.
Bowman also argues his counsel was ineffective for deferring to the client the final decision whether to pursue lesser offenses. But defense counsel conferred with Bowman and agreed with the tactical decision not to pursue lesser offenses.
Bowman's other issues are not compelling. His constitutional challenge to the reasonable doubt instruction has recently been rejected, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objections to Bowman's closing arguments misstating the law and referring to facts not in evidence. However, as required by a recent decision of our Supreme Court, the trial court should have considered his ability to pay before imposing any discretionary legal financial obligations.
Therefore, we affirm Bowman's conviction and remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct an on-the-record inquiry consistent with State v. Blazina. [1]
Around 7:30 p.m. on August 31, 2012, witnesses heard five gunshots at the intersection of 15th Avenue N.E. and N.E. 75th Street in Seattle's Roosevelt neighborhood. They heard an engine accelerate and saw a silver BMW Z4 convertible with the top down speed off southbound.
Police responded to reports of multiple gunshots and a male bleeding inside a red Subaru. The male, identified as Yancy Noll, was sitting in a normal position in the driver's seat with his hands on the steering wheel. He had four fatal gunshots to the head. The Subaru's windows were intact, but there was glass in the street on the Subaru's driver's side. Investigators concluded the glass came from the shooter's car window.
A description of the silver BMW, a still image of the car taken from a nearby surveillance video, and a sketch of the suspect BMW driver based on witness descriptions were released to the public. As a result of a tip, police began investigating Thomasdinh Bowman, who had a silver BMW in his driveway less than 10 blocks from the scene of the crime.
On the night of the killing, Bowman turned off his cellphone and purchased a new one that he registered using a false identity, Peter Nguyen. Using that name, Bowman called a BMW store and an auto glass company the following morning to ask about having a window replaced on his 2006 silver BMW Z4. That day, Bowman and his wife drove the BMW to Portland and had the passenger window replaced. Bowman paid the $250 bill in cash.
After the window was replaced, Bowman kept the BMW in his garage. Between September 12 and September 20, 2012, Bowman spray painted the silver BMW wheels black. On September 20, Bowman purchased four tires for his BMW from Big O Tires in Lynnwood, paying in cash. Bowman did not bring the car to the store; he only brought the wheels. The sales manager was surprised the tires were being replaced because they were like new.
Police searched Bowman's workplace and found a slide from a Glock handgun inside a storage container. Forensic experts concluded the cartridge casings found at the scene of the shooting were fired from that particular Glock slide. Bowman's workplace computer contained a collection of documents relating to the investigation of shootings: "Forensic Gunshot Residue Analysis," "Chemical Analysis of Firearms, Ammunition, and Gunshot Residue," "Gunshot Wounds—Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques," "Advances in Fingerprint Technology," "Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems," "Forensic Interpretation of Glass Evidence," and "Arrest-Proof Yourself." Two more documents found on the computer were guides to committing murder.
The State charged Bowman with first degree murder. At trial, Bowman admitted to shooting Noll in self-defense. He testified that he cut Noll off in traffic; Noll became angry, pursued Bowman, yelled a threat, and threw a water bottle onto Bowman's car as they drove onto the freeway. Bowman claimed he tried to get away from Noll, but Noll pursued him off the freeway and to the intersection where the shooting occurred. Bowman testified that Noll threw another bottle at his BMW that hit Bowman in the back of the head. Bowman claimed he saw Noll searching for something in the passenger seat, and it was then that Bowman pulled his Glock handgun out of his bag and shot Noll.
Bowman admitted going out to dinner with his wife after killing Noll. Later that night, he disassembled his handgun and disposed of the barrel because he thought it could be used to link the gun to the killing. [2] Bowman claimed he also disposed of the bottles Noll threw at him.
The jury found Bowman guilty as charged. At sentencing, Bowman argued that the trial court should consider as mitigation that he acted in self-defense. The court responded, "The jury rejected it as do I." [3] The court observed that Noll had his hands on the steering wheel when he was shot. It further observed that Bowman's actions after the shooting were inconsistent with a person who had just escaped serious injury by an enraged motorist, specifically going out to dinner and disposing of the only evidence that would support his version of events. The court imposed a sentence within the standard range.
Bowman's appeal primarily concerns the State's peremptory challenge of Juror 5, an African-American woman. The court began jury selection by asking the entire panel of prospective jurors whether they had a friend or close relative accused of a crime, "either rightly or wrongly." [4] Juror 5 responded affirmatively. She said she had a 50-year-old nephew in California who had been serving time since he was a teenager for murder. Juror 5 also replied that this situation would not impact her ability "to judge this case on its merits." [5]
The court allowed the State and defense counsel two alternating 30-minute rounds of questioning. During its first round, the prosecutor asked Juror 5 her reaction when she heard Bowman's charge. Juror 5 said she did not have a strong reaction. Then the following exchange occurred:
STATE: Do you believe [your nephew] was rightfully or wrongly accused?
JUROR 5: That's hard because I don't know.
STATE: Okay.
JUROR 5: I don't know that I'll ever know for sure. I know what I'd like to believe, but I don't know for sure.
STATE: From knowledge of that situation, do you have an opinion about how the justice system works?
JUROR 5: Not really. Because we were here in the Northwest and it was—it was in California, so we didn't attend any of the trials, any of that. But hearing from relatives, of course you're going to get their side of it. But what it did for me was that at one time I thought everything was black and white, and then I see that there are gray areas, you know, because there has to be an assurance when you make a decision, you know, there has to be an assurance so you have to look at it.
So for me, I'm not sure what kind of juror I'd make even because I want to see, you know, let me see, and then let me experience this and go through the process, because even coming in saying, yeah, that's even like saying—you know, making a decision right there. But, yeah, I had that—that experience. I've talked to that family member and my love goes out to him, and, of course, he was quite young. So—but I don't know. [6]
Bowman's counsel did not talk to Juror 5 during his first round of questioning. During the State's second round of questioning, the prosecutor asked Juror 5 about her job. Juror 5 said she was in "administrative consulting" and self-employed. [7] She explained, "Just I call it bringing an order out of chaos. … The most recent [client] is a person who is very close to me and was in hospice at home, in-home, and just putting everything together for her was a challenge. But it's something I do." [8] The prosecutor then asked about Juror 5's nephew in prison:
STATE: I got the impression, and tell me if this is correct, one of the things you said was "I know what I'd like to believe," which I assume you'd like to believe that he's innocent.
JUROR 5: Exactly.
STATE: Okay. But you're not sure?
JUROR 5: One thing, and maybe I should have responded also to your first question, in that one thing that impacted me quite a bit yesterday was to put it in my head about the defendant coming in innocent, not guilty, whichever way you want to phrase it, and in that the reason I raised my hand about process—you know, being a prosecutor is the challenge of maintaining—no, the defendant's attorney maintains his innocence. The onus is on you to provide evidence to—it's hard to put into words, but I understood the challenge.
STATE: Uh huh.
JUROR 5: And that is what I haven't seen in my nephew's case. I haven't seen enough, you know, putting aside Forensic Files that I watch or whatever.
STATE: Which I have to tell you has nothing to do with what happens in real life.
JUROR 5: I understand that. I understand that.
STATE: So …
JUROR 5: But that's what I mean, is that the challenge is to be sure.
JUROR 5: And about life experience, this might seem a little asinine, but what comes to my mind is that old commercial, Apple commercial, where this person, this woman comes in with this ball of some sort and just breaks down whatever it is that's been held in, for example, my origin to that I should have an attitude about life, but then there's that — that moment that comes where it breaks down all of those things. You know, breaks down even traditions sometimes.
So you have to be optimistic about life, be open to whatever it is that comes in front of you. And that's where you have to be unbiased.
STATE: So do you believe that there's a chance that your nephew is in prison unjustly?
JUROR 5: I don't believe that. I don't. I don't believe that. [9]
The prosecuting attorney also asked Juror 5 what she meant the prior day when she said, "I'm not sure what kind of juror I'd make":
STATE: Okay. Now, yesterday when [co-counsel] was talking to you about case proof, you said "I'm not sure I'd make a good juror." And the reason was you said "I need to see." Can you expand on that a little bit more?
JUROR 5: What did I say?
STATE: You need to see is what you said. And just I'm not saying specifically that sentence because in context it doesn't make a lot of sense, but were you concerned about your ability to sit? What do you think about having to see things?
JUROR 5: Well, maybe it is I have to believe. So that's why prosecution is so—I mean, the role of a prosecutor is so important because it has to be enough evidence and collective input in order to make a good decision. And I'm not sure.
STATE: About what?
JUROR 5: About my ability. I think I better be honest.
STATE: Uh huh, please do.
JUROR 5: Okay. Because I did think about it last night. The defense attorney had mentioned that. And that is because—I think my nephew is a good example of me not being able to say, well, for sure because there are times that I say he should be where he is if all of this is right, and then my heart says that's not what I would want for his life or anyone's life. But then I've been through grief. So I understand the part of a person who's lost someone.
STATE: So it would be–it sounds what you're saying, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that it would be difficult for you to sit in judgment?
JUROR 5: Thank you.
STATE: To make that—
JUROR 5: That's correct. [10]
During the defense's second round of questioning, Bowman's counsel addressed Juror 5 about her reluctance to sit in judgment:
DEFENSE: [The State] asked you whether you'd feel uncomfortable judging a person, and you said after some thought yes, right?
JUROR 5: Yes.
DEFENSE: Yeah. There's no—I'm just remembering what you said. Right? Is it clear to you, and this is probably the most important question, from my perspective, of course, that you'll hear in this whole process, do you think you are here to judge Dinh Bowman, or do you think you're here to judge their case? …
JUROR 5: I think I'm here to judge to the best of my ability the evidence that's presented about the young man and—and to determine whether I feel he did it or if there are extenuating cir—I don't know. You'd have to put it all together. [11]
During a sidebar conference after the defense's second round of questioning, the State indicated it intended to exercise a peremptory challenge to Juror 5. Bowman's counsel responded that he needed to think about whether he would raise a Batson v. Kentucky [12] challenge. At a subsequent sidebar, Bowman's counsel indicated he wanted to make a record as to a Batson challenge, and the court excused the jurors.
Without prompting from the court, the State set forth its reasons for requesting the challenge:
She has a nephew … in prison for murder. She would like to believe that he's innocent. In which case she believes she has an innocent nephew in prison for murder.
Her statement yesterday was "I'm not sure I would make a good juror." She said today that she wasn't sure about her ability to follow things and it will be difficult for her to sit in judgment.
She—frankly, we have found it a little hard to track what she was saying in a lot of cases. Her sentences stopped halfway, but she talked about the old Apple commercial where a woman comes in in a ball and breaks the ball and that seemed to have nothing to do with anything. She defined herself as being an administrative consultant, but she was not—the way she described that was that she pulls things together and puts a system together, and the example she gave was helping someone who is in hospice. … We are not exactly sure what she does. We have concerns about her ability to track in a whole.
But the two main reasons, Your Honor, are the relationship to someone in her family who is in prison for murder, which is what this crime is, that she would like to believe that he's innocent. She thinks he probably isn't, but she would like to believe that. And that means that she believes that there are innocent people in prison for murder in her family.
The second thing is that she would find it difficult to sit in judgment, and in talking to her it was clear, it seemed clear to us that she would be probably unable to reach a verdict at all. Certainly a verdict of guilty because that would be sitting in judgment. And it would be sitting in judgment on someone who is charged with the same thing her nephew is in prison for. I think that's far and away enough to validate the fact that we are not excusing her based on her race in any way, that's the bottom line question, and I would note that there are numerous minorities on this panel.
There are one or two in the box itself. There[ ] [are] several who are going to be coming up. This has nothing to do with Juror 5's race. I actually think she's a pleasant and intelligent woman, but given her perspective on the world and criminal justice system, we cannot keep her. [13]
Neither defense counsel nor the trial judge disputed the State's observation that there were other potential jurors who were minority members; one or two were in the box already and several were in position to join the panel when peremptory challenges were exercised. Defense counsel's argument was brief. Counsel criticized the State for saying Juror 5 was not intelligent, and the trial court clarified that the State had said she was intelligent. Defense counsel noted the Apple computer commercial Juror 5 referenced "was basically about how your world changes when you learn things." [14] Because Juror 5 "could be only an African-American woman even close to being seated in this case has a relative who is in prison perhaps wrongfully," Bowman's counsel questioned the prosecutor's motive.
The trial court noted the seriousness of excluding jurors based on race:
[I]t's been particularly disturbing because … there's a high percentage of minority people that are charged with crimes and yet predominantly we have nonminorities sitting on juries. So the Court is certainly sensitive to the issue. [15]
The court also noted the distinction between whether the court agrees with the State's doubts about Juror 5 versus whether "the grounds that are being given are a pretext for what is essentially a challenge based on race." [16] The court concluded that "the reasons that have been provided by the State … are not racially-based and … they're not a pretext for race." [17] It identified as the most important factor Juror 5's statement that
she would have trouble sitting in judgment of somebody … And it seems to me that a completely race neutral reaction to that statement would be this is a person who might have difficulty finding a judgment of guilt against Mr. Bowman regardless of the evidence. That is a legitimate concern. [18]
As to the juror's feelings about her nephew, the court noted Juror 5 "never said that she thought her nephew was innocent. She said she would like to think he's innocent." [19] The court observed that it probably would not be as bothered by that, but "it's not a pretext for racial challenge … reasonable people could differ about what inferences they drew from that statement." [20] Juror 5 was excused from the jury panel.
I. Batson Challenge
Bowman assigns error to the trial court's determination that the State did not engage in purposeful discrimination. Bowman fails to demonstrate reversible error.
We review Batson challenges "for clear error, deferring to the trial court to the extent that its rulings are factual." [21] "Clear error exists when the court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." [22]
The United States Supreme Court in Batson established the test to determine whether a juror was peremptorily challenged pursuant to discriminatory criteria. First, the defendant must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination; [23] second, the burden shifts to the State to articulate a race-neutral explanation for challenging the juror; [24] and third, the trial court must decide whether the defendant has demonstrated purposeful discrimination. [25] The ultimate burden of persuasion that there has been purposeful discrimination rests with the defendant. [26]
In State v. Saintcalle, our Supreme Court recognized a need to change the existing Batson procedures in Washington but declined to do so on the briefing before it. [27] The court found that "Batson … is failing us" because modern day racism is not overt but rather is embodied in "stereotypes that are ingrained and often unconscious." [28] "Unconscious stereotyping upends the Batson framework," which is "equipped to root out only 'purposeful' discrimination, which many trial courts probably understand to mean conscious discrimination." [29]
Nonetheless, the lead opinion applied Batson, leaving it as the controlling authority we must follow. The lead opinion confirmed the deference a reviewing court must give to the trial court under the existing Batson "purposeful discrimination" standard:
A trial court's decision that a challenge is race-neutral is a factual determination based in part on the answers provided by the juror, as well as an assessment of the demeanor and credibility of the juror and the attorney. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n.21. The defendant carries the burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Id. at 93. The trial judge's findings are "accorded great deference on appeal" and will be upheld unless proved clearly erroneous. Hernandez [v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991)]. Deference to trial court findings is critically important in Batson cases because the trial court is much better positioned than an appellate court to examine the circumstances surrounding the challenge. Further, deference is important because trial judges must have some assurance that the rest of the trial will not be an exercise in futility if it turns out an appellate court would have ruled on a Batson challenge differently. [30]
Under the existing Batson standard, where the State articulates a race-neutral explanation for its challenge, the trial court is not required to analyze the first step whether the defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. [31] Here, the State mentioned four grounds for challenging Juror 5: she would not be able to sit in judgment of others; she would like to believe her nephew in prison for murder is innocent and therefore believes he is innocent; it was a "little hard to track what she was saying," noting her reference to the Apple computer commercial; and the State did "not feel like she was being completely forthcoming" about her job. [32]The State believed Juror 5 was "a pleasant and intelligent woman," but was concerned about "her perspective on the world and criminal justice system." [33]
The second step of the process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive or plausible:
"At this [second] step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." [34]
Bowman's argument that the State's proffered reasons were pretextual and mere proxies for race concerns the third step, which requires the trial court to consider the State's explanations and determine whether the defendant has demonstrated purposeful discrimination. [35] The State's explanations "must be viewed in the totality of the prosecutor's comments." [36] The reviewing court considers the overall circumstances, including any red flags of a discriminatory motive. [37]
If a State's proffered reason for striking a minority panelist applies just as well to an otherwise similar nonminority panelist who is permitted to serve, "that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination to be considered at Batson's third step." [38] Here, however, there is no meaningful record of the makeup of the jury panel or the ultimate jury other than the prosecutor's mention that several members of the panel were minorities, including "one or two in the box itself." [39] Therefore, on this record, it is not possible to conduct any comparability analysis.
Bowman argues the trial court erred by accepting the prosecutor's challenge of Juror 5 based on her inability to sit in judgment of others. He emphasizes that Juror 5 repeatedly said she was capable of being a juror, describing herself as "analytical," not in a "rush," and that she "would be as fair as I know how to be," and that she had no concern over her nephew's conviction. [40]
But Juror 5's exact statements about her ability to sit as a juror provided a race-neutral basis for the State a to exercise a peremptory challenge: "I'm not sure … . [a]bout my ability. I think I better be honest." [41] Using her nephew as an example, Juror 5 noted, "he should be where he is," but on the other hand, "my heart says that's not what I would want for his life or anyone's life." [42] She agreed it would be difficult for her to sit in judgment. Therefore, the record does not support Bowman's argument.
Bowman also argues the State distorted Juror 5's statements about her nephew into a conclusion that she did believe her nephew was innocent. But the trial court clearly recognized that Juror 5 had merely stated she wanted to believe her nephew was innocent.
The State's other concerns relating to the ability to communicate with Juror 5 here do not appear to be race-based. While Juror 5's statements about the Apple commercial ultimately led to a conclusion about the importance of not being biased, the path to that conclusion was meandering. Thus, the State's difficulty in being able to track her responses was not a remark on her intelligence but rather her communication skills. And while the State's concern that Juror 5 was not being forthcoming about her job is perhaps strained, it also suggests the State was concerned about communicating well with Juror 5. We conclude the State's concerns were not on their face racially-motivated observations.
Bowman argues the amount of time spent questioning Juror 5 reveals the State was on a fishing expedition for pretextual reasons to exercise a peremptory challenge. Although Saintcalle recognized that prosecutors cannot go fishing for race-neutral reasons for using a peremptory strike and then hide behind the legitimate reasons they do find, [43] that does not mean that merely asking follow up questions is a red flag for purposeful discrimination.
Although implicit bias in jury selection of minority jurors in the criminal setting is problematic, Bowman does not establish that the trial court applied the wrong standard or should not be entitled to deference when analyzing whether the State purposefully discriminated. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the prosecutors' demeanor, and there were no red flags suggesting racial motives as were present in State v. Cook. [44] The record supports the trial court's determination that the reasons offered by the State for exercising a peremptory challenge of Juror 5 were race-neutral.
II. New Standard
Bowman alternatively proposes an entirely new limitation on peremptory challenges exercised by the State, to be applied retroactively to his case. Although our Supreme Court in Saintcalle advocated a change to the existing Batson procedures in Washington, it has not made any such change. [45] The lead Saintcalle opinion applied Batson, leaving it as the controlling authority we must follow.
III. Lesser Included Offenses
Bowman next argues his counsel was ineffective for deferring to the client the decision whether to pursue lesser offenses. We disagree.
We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo. [47] To prevail, a defendant must show that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced his trial. [48]
The decision not to request a lesser included offense instruction is a tactical one. "Although risky, an all or nothing approach was at least conceivably a legitimate strategy to secure an acquittal." [49] Here, Bowman's counsel consulted with Bowman on this issue "many times in depth," advised Bowman the defense could offer the jury lesser included offense options, and acknowledged the decision not to seek lesser included offenses "could be characterized easily as a tactical decision" and "I agree with it." [50]
Defense counsel's approach is appropriate under State v. Grier:
Even where the risk is enormous and the chance of acquittal is minimal, it is the defendant's prerogative to take this gamble, provided her attorney believes there is support for the decision. … [A] criminal defendant who genuinely believes she is innocent may prefer to avoid a compromise verdict, even when the odds are stacked against her. Thus, assuming that defense counsel has consulted with the client in pursuing an all or nothing approach, a court should not second-guess that course of action. [51]
There is nothing in the record to suggest that defense counsel believed Bowman's decision was unreasonable in this case. And the fact that the strategy proved unsuccessful is irrelevant because "hindsight has no place in an ineffective assistance analysis." [52] Defense counsel's performance here was not deficient.
IV. Reasonable Doubt Instruction
Bowman claims the jury instruction defining "reasonable doubt" used at his trial is constitutionally defective. [53] But in State v. Lizarraga, [54] State v. Bennett, [55] and State v. Kalebaugh, [56] the use of the instruction has been affirmed. Because controlling authority approves the use of this standard instruction, we reject Bowman's claim.
V. Objections to Defense Closing Argument
Bowman next claims the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to the defense's closing argument that "[t]he State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find, and keep in mind this is all subjective, because you have to view things from Mr. Bowman's standpoint." [57] But the justifiable homicide standard is not all subjective. [58] Because the defense's statement was misleading, [59] we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
We also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining an objection to defense counsel's closing argument about Bowman's books:
So I'm going to somehow arrange for Mr. Noll to have this road rage incident with me. And then he's going to go on … and do what the State believes he did as a student of murder. The thrill kill concept makes no sense in light of the facts. And I don't mean to be condescending because I'm not at all. … But if we can—if you can focus on the facts. The thrill kill thing makes no sense at all.
If Dinh Bowman was a student of murder because he possessed this manual, and this book, he certainly did not follow the lessons, all the lessons prescribed in those books. [60] Don't do anything in broad daylight. Two, don't do anything in heavy traffic. Three, don't do anything in a flashy car. [61]
Because the portions of those books admitted into evidence did not include the lessons defense counsel listed as "prescribed in those books," the defense's argument improperly relied on information outside the record. [62]
VI. Discretionary Legal Financial Obligations
Bowman argues that the trial court imposed $665 in discretionary legal financial obligations without considering his present or future ability to pay. Based on our Supreme Court's recent decision in Blazina, which held that "RCW 10.01.160(3) requires the record to reflect that the sentencing judge made an individualized inquiry into the defendant's current and future ability to pay before the court imposes [legal financial obligations]," we agree. [63] We remand for a hearing limited to this issue.
VII. Cumulative Error
Finally, Bowman asserts that cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial. But the cumulative error doctrine applies only when there have been several errors that standing alone, may not justify reversal, but in combination, have the effect of denying the defendant a fair trial. [64] Here, because Bowman has not shown several errors, the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.
VIII. Statement of Additional Grounds
Bowman filed a 41-page single-spaced pro se statement of additional grounds. Many of his challenges are to the sufficiency of the evidence and credibility claims. He ignores that this court reviews a sufficiency challenge viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State and that credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and not subject to review. [65] And when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Bowman raises several challenges to the admissibility of evidence. Bowman ignores that "[d]ecisions involving evidentiary issues lie largely within the sound discretion of the trial court." [66] He also raises several other issues related to the court's discretionary rulings, including impeachment, lack of proper foundation, and relevance. But he fails to establish that any of the challenged rulings were unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. [67]
Bowman makes several prosecutorial misconduct claims. Prosecutorial misconduct allegations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. [68] Where a defendant fails to object to the challenged conduct, he must show that the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that a jury instruction could not have cured any resulting prejudice. [69] Bowman fails to make such a showing here.
Finally, Bowman argues ineffective assistance of counsel, but only as a general proposition. [70] He thus fails to inform the court of the nature and occurrence of counsel's alleged errors. [71] Further, he ignores that ineffective assistance claims do not relate to counsel's tactical decisions, and that this court strongly presumes counsel's conduct constituted sound trial strategy. [72] Further, if Bowman "wishes to raise issues on appeal that require evidence or facts not in the existing trial record, the appropriate means of doing so is through a personal restraint petition." [73]
Accordingly, we affirm and remand to the trial court to make an individualized finding on Bowman's ability to pay the discretionary legal financial obligations.
Trickey, A.C.J., and Becker, J., concur.
Reconsideration denied February 15, 2017.
1. 182 Wn.2d 827, 832, 344 P.3d 680 (2015).
2. Bowman testified that he kept the slide of the gun because he did not believe it could be used to match ballistic evidence to the gun.
3. Report of Proceedings (RP) (Jan. 2, 2015) at 42.
4. RP (Nov. 18, 2014) at 58-59.
5. Id. at 60.
6. Id. at 112-13 (emphasis added).
7. Suppl. RP (Nov. 19, 2014) at 18.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 19-21 (emphasis added).
10. Id. at 21-22 (emphasis added).
12. 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986).
13. Suppl. RP (Nov. 19, 2014) at 66-68.
14. Id. at 69.
16. Id.
18. Id. at 70-71.
21. State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34, 41, 309 P.3d 326 (2013); accord State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 699, 903 P.2d 960 (1995); Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991)).
22. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d at 41; accord Ass'n of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 141 Wn.2d 185, 196, 4 P.3d 115 (2000).
23. Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-96.
26. Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338, 126 S. Ct. 969, 163 L. Ed. 2d 824 (2006) (citing id.).
27. 178 Wn.2d 34, 52-55, 309 P.3d 326 (2013).
31. State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 699, 903 P.2d 960 (1995) (citing Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359).
34. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 131 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1995) (alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360).
35. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98; see also Reed v. Quarterman, 555 F.3d 364, 368 (5th Cir. 2009); Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768 ("implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination").
36. State v. Cook, 175 Wn. App. 36, 43, 312 P.3d 653 (2013).
37. See id. at 43-44 (prosecutor's peremptory challenge based in part on defense counsel's use of the term "brother" when speaking to an African-American juror and prosecutor's purportedly "confusing" one African-American juror with another "raises a red flag that there is some discriminatory intent").
38. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 241, 125 S. Ct. 2317, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2005).
39. Suppl. RP (Nov. 19, 2014) at 68.
40. Suppl. RP (Nov. 18, 2014) at 115.
41. Suppl. RP (Nov. 19, 2014) at 21-22 (emphasis added).
43. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d at 43.
44. 175 Wn. App. 36, 43, 312 P.3d 653.
45. Efforts are pending to dramatically alter the standard applied to the exercise of peremptory challenges of minority panel members. We note the proposed rule would preclude the type of opening questioning made by the court here. See Proposed adoption of GR 36 cmt. 4(c), Wash. St. Reg. 16-23-014 (Nov. 2, 2016), http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/23/16-23MISC.pdf.
46. State v. Pedro, 148 Wn. App. 932, 950, 201 P.3d 398 (2009) ("It is error for the Court of Appeals not to follow directly controlling authority by the Supreme Court.").
47. State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 883, 204 P.3d 916 (2009).
48. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Nichols, 161 Wn.2d 1, 8, 162 P.3d 1122 (2007).
49. State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 42, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011).
50. RP (Dec. 9, 2014) at 5.
51. Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 39 (emphasis added).
53. See 11 Washington Practice: Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 4.01, at 93 (4th ed. 2016).
54. 191 Wn. App. 530, 567, 364 P.3d 810 (2015), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1022 (2016).
55. 161 Wn.2d 303, 318, 165 P.3d 1241 (2007).
56. 183 Wn.2d 578, 585-86, 355 P.3d 253 (2015).
57. RP (Dec. 9, 2014) at 104 (emphasis added).
58. See State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 474, 932 P.2d 1237 (1997) (the defense of justifiable homicide includes both objective and subjective elements).
59. See State v. Perez-Cervantes, 141 Wn.2d 468, 474, 6 P.3d 1160 (2000) (closing argument by counsel "must be restricted to the facts in evidence and the applicable law, lest the jury be confused or misled").
60. The "books" defense counsel referenced were the two guides to committing murder found on Bowman's work computer.
62. See Perez-Cervantes, 141 Wn.2d at 474.
63. 182 Wn.2d 827, 839, 344 P.3d 690 (2015) (emphasis added).
64. State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 345, 290 P.3d 43 (2012).
65. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980); State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874-75, 83 P.3d 970 (2004) (the panel defers "to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence").
66. State v. Nava, 177 Wn. App. 272, 311 P.3d 83 (2013).
67. See Falk v. Keene Corp., 53 Wn. App. 238, 247, 767 P.2d 576 (1989).
68. State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 460, 258 P.3d 43 (2011).
69. State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994).
70. Statement of Additional Grounds at 4 (arguing that "an [i]neffective [a]ssistance of [c]ounsel claim will be held for all issues of this case as the record should have been protected").
71. RAP 10.10(c).
72. Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 33 (quoting State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 225-26, 743 P.2d 816 (1987)).
73. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).


text:
Q: react-router-dom and express, main.js file fetching gone wrong I`m using express, webpack and react client.
I made the route for the html as in the example, so I have this in my server.js:
const DIST_DIR = path.join(__dirname, '../dist');
const HTML_FILE = path.join(DIST_DIR, 'index.html');

app.use('/api', apiRouter);

app.get("*", (req, res) => {
    res.sendFile(HTML_FILE);
});

With simple routes in react-router-dom, like "/home", "/" it works fine, but when I add second level  to path - "/s/page", getting this error - Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token '<' (at main.js:1:1)
In network I see that it tries to get main.js from http://localhost:3000/s/main.js and got index.html file (because of "*" route I think).
How can I handle this properly
Also, webpack config, maybe it helps:
const HtmlWebPackPlugin = require("html-webpack-plugin");
const path = require('path');

const htmlPlugin = new HtmlWebPackPlugin({
    template: "./src/index.html",
    filename: "./index.html"
});

module.exports = {
    mode: "development",
    entry: "./src/index.js",
    output: {
        path: path.join(__dirname, 'dist'),
        filename: "main.js"
    },
    target: 'web',
    plugins: [htmlPlugin],
    module: {
        rules: [
            {
                test: /\.(js|jsx)$/,
                exclude: /node_modules/,
                use: {
                    loader: "babel-loader"
                }
            },
            {
                test: /\.s?css$/,
                use: ['style-loader', 'css-loader', 'postcss-loader'],
            }
        ]
    },
    devtool: "source-map",
    resolve: {
        extensions: ['.js', '.jsx'],
    }
};

I tried to add custom route for main.js file like this:
const JS_FILE = path.join(DIST_DIR, 'main.js');
app.get(/^.*\/main\.js$/, (req, res) => {
    res.sendFile(JS_FILE);
});

And seems like it works, but with this I cant debug code, and dont think this is best solution

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


@SuperKaioken sorry, I think you're sollaholla in mistake, but your mod is really great.
@SuperKaioken if you can grab w_lr_rpg_rocket.ydr why can't you grab w_lr_40mm.ydr? just add a line of code.
Or the grabing part is written by unknown modder not you?
I know how you grab bullets. But could you make it to grab more objects (names of models )?
I hope it can grab more Projectile.


we are starting the week with a Developer update – this build contains a bunch of fixes for bugs that some of you reported, including DNA-70673 (Non active tab becomes highlighted when you are closing another one) and DNA-70768 ("X" in last tab disappears on hover) – thanks andrew84 ;).
xrt64, Mat M – we're happy to inform you that we have added an option to set "Reload all tabs" & "Duplicate tab(s)" shortcuts.
From now on, Windows and Linux users can report bugs in an easier way – we've added the "Report an issue" option to the O-Menu. You can find it by going to the Help section.
You can also check out the new flag – Partner bookmarks opt-out, which lets you switch off sponsored content in bookmarks on bookmarks bar and Speed Dial. It's disabled by default but if you enable it, you will no longer receive sponsored content there.
Chromium was updated to version 69.0.3486.0.
DNA-71259 Extensions deleted after update.


text:
"The Test" is the tenth episode of the fourth series of the British comedy series Dad's Army. It was originally transmitted on Friday 27 November 1970.

Synopsis
The platoon are challenged to a cricket match by the ARP Wardens – who have recruited a top-class bowler to their ranks.

Plot
Mainwaring is holding a parade, and complains about the lack of attendance at last Sunday's church parade. Walker admits he was unable to participate because he was delivering some knicker elastic to a group of ATS girls. Mainwaring wonders why he could not have waited until after the parade, and Walker says that he could, but they could not. Mainwaring then moves on to commenting on the length of Pike and Wilson's hair, and suggest they get it cut as they "aren't violin players".

Mainwaring produces a letter given to him by Chief Warden Hodges, and announces that he has challenged them to a game of cricket. The platoon readily accept. Mainwaring announces he is an opening batsman, Wilson is the captain of the local cricket club, and Jones volunteers to keep wicket with a particularly long anecdote on an occasion when he stumped Ranjitsinhji. Walker tells Mainwaring he can lay his hand on a couple of reconditioned cricket balls, and in typically autocratic fashion, Mainwaring decides that he will captain the side.

The next evening, they get the nets out, and have a practice. Pike's bowling efforts are continually interrupted by Mainwaring, who is typically full of advice, although he is highly unsuccessful when he tries to demonstrate: his bowling is repeatedly hit, and after a long lecture on batting technique he is bowled by the first ball he faces from Pike. Godfrey reveals that he used to play cricket for the Civil Service Stores when he was younger. Jones arrive late, and when he bats, the ball ends up smashing a church window.

On Saturday, at the cricket changing rooms, Hodges is keen to introduce E.C. Egan (played by Fred Trueman), a world-class professional fast bowler, to Gerald, one of his ARP Wardens. He tells them that he will not tell Mainwaring until he bats. Hodges produces an ARP application form for Egan to sign, to make it legal. When Egan asks what to do if the siren goes off, Hodges replies: "Resign".

The platoon arrive, with Wilson wearing a yellow, blue and brown striped blazer, Frazer in his funeral attire, Godfrey in the Panama hat he wears for bowls, and Pike wearing his bank clothes. Mainwaring is shocked, and lends Pike his spare cricketing trousers.

Hodges reappears, and asks Mainwaring to toss the coin to see who is batting first, but Mainwaring insists on getting the umpires, the vicar and the verger, to do it. Mainwaring calls heads, but it is tails. Hodges puts the platoon into field.

Hodges and Gerald open the batting for the Wardens, and Mainwaring bowls the first over, insisting that Pike field close in at silly mid-off despite Hodges' threat that he will "get his head bashed in". They do not start well, with Jones continually knocking the stumps out, forcing the vicar to bang them in again and again. When Hodges finally gets a chance to hit the ball, he finds Mainwaring's bowling singularly unthreatening, his first two hits being a leg-side four and a straight six. After a horrendous wide, the Verger no-balls Mainwaring, deciding that his attempted googly is a chuck. When Mainwaring disputes this, the Verger books Mainwaring for "gross impertinence and sarcasm", and then threatens to send him off, as would happen in football. Hodges then sends a big hit towards Godfrey, who tries unsuccessfully to catch it, and loses it in the long grass. While the platoon are searching for it, Hodges and Gerald keep running. When Walker produces a second cricket ball and they rush back, Hodges and Gerald have taken 24 runs. However, the platoon manage to take four wickets, with Jones' efforts behind the wicket finally being rewarded when he takes a stumping off a flighted ball from Pike, prompting Jones' typical "Don't Panic"-style celebration.

Hodges declares with the Wardens 152 for 4 at tea, and the platoon now have three hours to make the 153 runs needed for victory. Mainwaring, who finds Hodges' declaration "very sporting", opens the batting with Wilson. Hodges, who is keeping wicket, is keen to see Egan in action, and repeatedly remarks that he is "going to enjoy this". As Mainwaring prepares to bat, Egan walks down to the far end of the field. Mainwaring is confused, until Hodges gleefully informs him that the ball comes flying out of his hand at 95 mph. Egan charges towards Mainwaring, and delivers a ball which causes Mainwaring to dive to the floor, much to Hodges' delight.

However, the delivery has pulled Egan's shoulder, and he retires hurt. The platoon now have a chance. Mainwaring does well, until the Verger gives him out LBW. Pike is bowled first ball due to his inattention, but Jones, Walker and Frazer all contribute (although Frazer apparently has no knowledge of the game). Meanwhile, Wilson holds the innings together, scoring 81 runs. Eventually, Godfrey is the only one left to bat, and they only need five more runs to win. Wilson is still in at the other end.

Frazer thinks that Godfrey will be out first ball. However, everyone is surprised when he hits it, and they start to run; Godfrey drops his bat, but with Wilson's help he retrieves it and makes it back to the crease. Godfrey hits his next ball, bowled by Hodges, over square leg, and Mainwaring is delighted to see that it is going to be a six, meaning that the platoon have won by one wicket. Hodges comments that he should never have declared. Mainwaring reminds him that they will be "ready for anything, whether it comes from the wardens or the Nazis". As they cheer the wardens, and Godfrey and Wilson, the siren goes, and the platoon take up their positions.

Scores
The wardens declare on 152 for 4 wickets. The Home Guard then go on to make 156 for 9, thus winning the match by one wicket.
From what is seen on screen it can be deduced that the platoon members scored the following runs:-

Captain Mainwaring 17 (LBW)
Sergeant Wilson 81 not out
Private Pike 0 (Bowled)
Lance Corporal Jones 18 (Bowled)
Private Frazer 7
Private Walker 12
Unknown
Unknown
Private Sponge 1 (Bowled)
Unknown (Bowled)
Private Godfrey 8 not out

Cast

Arthur Lowe as Captain Mainwaring
John Le Mesurier as Sergeant Wilson
Clive Dunn as Lance Corporal Jones
John Laurie as Private Frazer
James Beck as Private Walker
Arnold Ridley as Private Godfrey
Ian Lavender as Private Pike
Bill Pertwee as ARP Warden Hodges
Edward Sinclair as The Verger
Frank Williams as The Vicar
Don Estelle as Gerald
Fred Trueman as E.C. Egan
Harold Bennett as Mr. Blewitt

Notes
The working title for this episode was "The Cricket Match". This title was later used for the radio adaptation.
Fred Trueman, a former professional cricketer, appeared as E.C. Egan, who claims "he would have played for England if the war hadn't started".

Further reading

External links

Dad's Army (series 4) episodes
1970 British television episodes

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Explicit form of raising and lowering operators in spherical gl(n) DAHA I am working with polynomial representations of spherical subalgebra of double affine Hecke algebra (DAHA) for $\mathfrak{gl}_n$.
Let's call this algebra $\mathfrak{A}_n$ for short. Typically we think of   DAHA as a $\mathbb{C}(q,t)$-algebra generated by $X_i, Y_i, T_i, i=1,\dots,n$ modulo certain relations. Then $\mathfrak{A}_n$ can be obtained by conjugation of each element of DAHA by the complete idempotent $S$.
It is known that there is a representation of $\mathfrak{A}_n$ in $\mathbb{C}[x_1,\dots,x_n]^{S_n}$ such that symmetric polynomials of $Y_i$ of DAHA act as Macdonald operators whose eigenvalues are Macdonald polynomials $P_{\lambda}(x_1,\dots,x_n;q,t)$ parameterized by Young diagrams $\lambda=\{\lambda_1,\dots\lambda_n\}$ with $n$ columns. In the basis of Macdonald polynomials one can find an explicit realization of all the other generators, in particular
\begin{equation}
Z^n_{0,l}= S\sum_i Y_i^l\, S\,,\quad Z^n_{0,-l}= q^l S\sum_i Y_i^l\, S\,,\quad Z^n_{l,0}= q^l S\sum_i X_i^l\, S\,,\quad Z^n_{-l,0}=S\sum_i X_i^l\, S\,
\end{equation}
It can be shown [Cherednik, Schiffmann-Vaserot] that the above elements generate entire $\mathfrak{A}_n$.
I am interested in explicit formulae in the above basis (or any other basis for that matter) which would allow me to construct raising (lowering) operators acting on such module which would add (remove) a single box to (from) Young tableaux $\lambda$.
At the moment I can only do it for $\mathfrak{sl}_2$ spherical DAHA. There must be a clever way to get the answer without explicitly symmetrizing things with the idempotent. Already in rank one case the sought raising and lowering operators look extremely simple in the symmetrized basis, while the corresponding intertwiners from Cherednik's book are more involved.
I am also aware of numerous constructions in elliptic Hall algebra (aka shuffle algebra), where people can compute some matrix elements between various Young diagrams, but that does not immediately provide an answer to my question despite proven, by Schiffmann and Vasserot, homomorphism between elliptic Hall and $\mathfrak{A}_n$.


Klotzen, nicht kleckern – Gute Werbung ist das A und O!
This entry was posted on 19. August 2008 at 08:45 and is filed under Deutschland liest. Treffpunkt Bibliothek, Leseförderung, Veranstaltungsarbeit.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


More carbs, fewer carbs, good carbs, bad carbs…the carb debate wages on. You may be wondering if there will ever be a consensus on how carbohydrates fit into a healthy diet. Despite the array of seemingly conflicting advice, nutrition experts tend to agree on this: there are "good" carbohydrates out there. And Americans would be healthier if they ate more of them.
Although most nutrition experts hesitate to classify foods as "good" or "bad," many high carbohydrate foods are worthy of at least a "good" label. Fruit, nonfat milk and yogurt, legumes and whole grains are great examples of these incredibly healthy carbs.
Whole grains have been getting a lot of attention in recent years, as research links a diet rich in these foods to a decreased risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, and obesity. Whole grains provide the body with complex carbohydrates for energy, and their high fiber content promotes intestinal health. Whole grain foods can also help lower cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure.
What are Whole Grains, and What's So Special About Them?
The whole grain is the entire edible part of any grain—the outer shell (bran), the endosperm that contains complex carbohydrates and protein, and the germ. Processing often removes most or all of the bran and germ, along with much of the fiber, B-vitamins, vitamin E, trace minerals, antioxidants and phytochemicals. The enrichment process adds back the B-vitamins and iron, but some of the nutrients and most of the disease-fighting phytochemicals are lost forever.
In the past, many of the assumed benefits of whole grains were linked to their higher fiber content. Recent research suggests the whole grain package, not just the fiber, provides the benefits. The bran, germ and endosperm work together in powerful ways to protect the body. In the case of whole grains, the "whole" is truly greater than the sum of its parts.
If you haven't eaten spelt or bulgur before, or don't even know how to pronounce quinoa (it's keen-wa), you may be tempted to opt for the more familiar whole grains. But if you try these less common grains, you will find some tasty and more nutritious alternatives to rice and pasta. Try them in grain salads or pilaf, or add to stews, stuffing, soups, or chili. Some taste great as a cooked cereal. Be adventurous!
One drawback of cooking whole grains is that most take time to prepare. Brown rice takes 40 to 45 minutes to cook while wheat, rye, or spelt berries need 45 to 90 minutes. If time is an issue, cook large batches and freeze them. Or try whole grains with faster cooking times such as whole-wheat couscous, teff berries, quinoa, and cracked wheat.
Some whole grains are easy to spot, like brown rice or oatmeal. But how do you make sure your bread, cereal, or crackers are whole grain? An easy tip is to look for the word "whole" in the first ingredient. Whole-wheat flour, whole cornmeal, whole rye, whole grain oats are examples. Don't be misled by products called multigrain, 7-grain, 100% wheat, wheat, organic, or bran—these label terms don't guarantee a whole grain food is inside.
Those who already eat 3 servings of whole grains daily are among the small minority of Americans who reach this goal. Most Americans get less than 1 serving of whole grains daily (and plenty of processed, low fiber grains). Many experts feel this lack of whole grains and plentiful consumption of refined grains is a significant shortcoming in the average American diet, and a diet pattern that is related to obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
It's easy to get 3 daily servings of whole grains. Eat a small bowl of oatmeal for breakfast (1 serving) and a tuna sandwich on whole wheat bread for lunch (2 servings) and you've done it! After changing a few of your diet staples, start experimenting. Add barley to your soup instead of white rice or pasta. Eat whole grain crackers with your salad. Make corn muffins with whole grain cornmeal. The possibilities are endless!
If your diet is currently low in whole grains or fiber in general, it's best to gradually increase fiber intake. This will give your body a chance to adjust (and you will experience less gas, bloating and diarrhea). Also drink plenty of fluids, or the fiber from whole grains might leave you constipated.
Whole grains are tasty, satisfying and nutritious. And there's plenty of research to support their rightful place on America's plate. So the next time you are reading the latest opinion on the carb debate, while munching on your whole grain muffin, let go of the guilt. Rest assured, whole grains are good for you!


Description: Be prepared to fall in love from the moment you step inside the bright and airy foyer of this beautiful home! Windows, skylights, and vaulted ceilings make this gorgeous home feel inviting and cheery. The sunroom, with views of the expansive backyard and plenty of wildlife, draws you in to sit, soak up the sunshine, and be inspired. The split bedroom floorplan makes this house a great fit for families, guests, or the empty nesters who both want their own amazing home office spaces. Each room feels spacious yet cozy and you'll appreciate the upgrades everywhere you turn. The expansive list of improvements include: a full kitchen remodel with stainless appliances, the addition of the sunroom (or home office), the creation of a large guest suite, a fully remodeled master bath, hardwood, marble, and tile flooring throughout the main level, the addition of three decks with built-in benches as well as the loft and spiral staircase, new Pella designer garage door, the installation of new trees, a new fireplace insert, A/C unit, sump pump, and two sets of attic stairs. The master suite has a private deck overlooking the lovely backyard and features a soaking tub, double vanities, custom tiled shower, separate water closet, and walk-in dressing closet. The second bedroom was once two bedrooms that have been combined, providing extra space for a nursery, play room, meditation area, office, or teenage hang out quarters. This separate wing has its own full bath and private deck. The third bedroom also has its own deck overlooking the backyard and is such a bright, cheery room with an abundance of windows. The lower level offers plenty of flex-space; the current spaces are used as a family room and an exercise room. A 1/2 bath and storage/mechanical room complete the downstairs space. The home is situated on a 1.11 acre corner lot; the backyard is fully fenced and tree-lined, with lots of space to play, entertain, and relax. The property taxes are lower than homes just up the road since this property is just outside of the city limits. The neighborhood has no HOA fee and is a terrific environment to walk, jog, or just chat with the neighbors. The location is simply ideal: only five miles to Indiana University and Eastside restaurants and shopping. If you're a boater, you'll love being only 15 minutes to Salt Creek Boat Ramp on Lake Monroe. Schedule your showing today and be prepared to be impressed!
Directions: Property is located just off of Harrell Road. Turn right (if heading South) into Plateau Place subdivision, home is on the right.


text:
Q: JSF Primefaces can't reenable radiobutton I have the following very simple page containg two selectoneradio groups using PF 5, netbeans and glassfish. I have checked in several browsers and the results are the same.
The first controls the other. When i change choice1 i can see the buttons in choice2 being disabled and enabled as I'd expect.
When the page is 'fresh' i can toggle the values in choice2. But first time i change a value in choice1 causing choice2 to change...it remains inaccessible.
Can anyone explain to my why? I think i read about a checkbox having the same problem and it was because what you see isn't the control but just an image. But I can't find that information again.
The code:
My page:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<h:head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
</h:head>

    <h:form id="prodForm">

            <f:selectItem itemLabel="0 choice" itemValue="0" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="1 choice" itemValue="1" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="2 choice" itemValue="2" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="3 choice" itemValue="3" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="4 choice" itemValue="4" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="5 choice" itemValue="5" />

Choice 2

            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 0" itemValue="0" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 1" itemValue="1" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 2" itemValue="2" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 3" itemValue="3" />

        <h:outputLabel for="ch2Id1" value="Choice 2 0" />

        <h:outputLabel for="ch2Id1" value="Choice 2 1" />

        <h:outputLabel for="ch2Id1" value="Choice 2 2" />

        <h:outputLabel for="ch2Id1" value="Choice 2 3" />

    </h:form>

and my bean:
import java.io.Serializable;
import javax.faces.bean.ManagedBean;
import javax.faces.bean.RequestScoped;
import javax.faces.bean.SessionScoped;

@ManagedBean(name = "myBean")
@SessionScoped
public class MyBean implements Serializable {
Integer firstChoice = 5;
Integer secondChoice = 0;

public void doSomething(){
    System.out.println("In doSomething");
}

public Integer getFirstChoice() {
    return firstChoice;
}
public void setFirstChoice(Integer firstChoice) {
    this.firstChoice = firstChoice;
}
public Integer getSecondChoice() {
    return secondChoice;
}
public void setSecondChoice(Integer secondChoice) {
    this.secondChoice = secondChoice;
}
}

Hope someone can help.
Thanks in advance.
Kim

A: Here is a solution
.
Or if you dont want to update the form, you can wrap the
 and the group of
 inside a
, then just update that panel.
Like this :
<h:form id="prodForm" prependId="false">

            <f:selectItem itemLabel="0 choice" itemValue="0" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="1 choice" itemValue="1" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="2 choice" itemValue="2" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="3 choice" itemValue="3" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="4 choice" itemValue="4" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="5 choice" itemValue="5" />

Choice 2

            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 0" itemValue="0" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 1" itemValue="1" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 2" itemValue="2" />
            <f:selectItem itemLabel="Choice 2 3" itemValue="3" />

        <h:outputLabel id="l0" for="ch2Id0" value="Choice 2 0" />

        <h:outputLabel id="l1" for="ch2Id1" value="Choice 2 1" />

        <h:outputLabel id="l2" for="ch2Id2" value="Choice 2 2" />

        <h:outputLabel id="l3" for="ch2Id3" value="Choice 2 3" />

    </h:form>


Kamill will talk about designing a better intl student experience at METU.
László will hold the opening keynote speech on service design trends.
Péter will hold the closing keynote of the conference.
Zsófia Rét will talk about the Telenor service design experiences together with Marietta Szinnyei-Ihász (New Way of Work, Transformation Lead).