text:
4.0/Disclaimer of warranties and related issues
This page presented an issue for consideration in the CC license suite 4.0 versioning process. The discussions have now concluded with the publication of the 4.0 licenses, and the information on this page is now kept as an archive of previous discussions. The primary forum for issues relating to the 4.0 versioning process was the CC license discuss email list. You may subscribe to contribute to any continuing post-launch discussions, such as those surrounding compatibility and license translation. The wiki has been populated with links to relevant email threads from the mailing list where applicable, and other topics for discussion were raised in the 4.0/Sandbox. See the 4.0 page for more about the process.
1.1 Draft 1
2.1 Considerations
2.1.1 Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings
2.1.2 Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings
2.2 Opportunities outside the licenses
2.3 Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0
The CC 1.0 license suite includes explicit representations and warranties by the licensor as to the rights being licensed, and holds the licensor responsible in the event rights have not been properly cleared. This treatment changed starting with 2.0, and has continued unmodified up to and including the 3.0 license suite. The decision to eliminate representations and warranties by licensors was the result of a long (and sometimes passionate) debate during the 2.0 versioning process, and is explained nicely in this blog post.
From 2.0 to the present 3.0 versions, licensors expressly disclaim all warranties both express and implied, and limit to the fullest extent possible all liabilities and damages, but only to the extent allowable under applicable law. Note that the laws of many jurisdictions limit or preclude disclaimers of warranties. Thus, the current (2.x through 3.0) default treatment is, at best, a complete disclaimer, but more frequently a partial disclaimer or no dislcaimer at all depending on the local law that applies.
Creative Commons chose not to deviate in 4.0 from the current 2.x to 3.0 treatment, as after considering chilling effects and other costs of reversing course, no proposal was compelling. However, CC recognized that a return in whole or in part to the representations and warranties in version 1.0 has been desired by some in the community and among the affiliates. After seeking opinions, representations and warranties were not added, but a section cautioning potential licensors and licensees before using the CC licenses was added to the introductory text to the licenses.
(expand to read Draft 1 treatment)
Draft 1
The language has been simplified but is intended to operate and have the same scope as its counterpart in 3.0. We are mindful that a complete disclaimer and limitation of liability may not be allowed depending on local law, and accordingly have prefaced the provision with the qualifier found suitable by several jurisdictions for 3.0 ports, "To the greatest extent permissible,..." We expect that for some, this provision may be inadequate. We want to hear ideas on both improving this provision, and the proposal for allowing additional terms to the license to allow for more specialized language to be included by licensors.
No change in Section 4 language itself. However, we have added a new Section 6(b) that permits licensors to disclaim or offer warranties or to limit liabilities differently from Section 4. This is intended to ensure licensors can tailor those provisions in the manner most suitable based on differing consumer protection laws that may apply to them and have those changes be deemed part of the license itself.
Post 4.0d2 update: During the post-d2 discussion period, several affiliates and community members proposed changing the language to require documentation of third-party rights. Discussion around the issue was then opened up on the list, including discussion of the very different treatment in 1.0.
In this draft, as in the previous drafts and prior versions of the license after 1.0, representations and warranties are not included. This decision was made after careful consideration of the arguments made in support of changing course on this issue. Our reasoning rested on several important factors.
One, we have no way to require licensors to undertake a warranty. Licensors may not feel comfortable providing a warranty if they are unable to clear rights on a global level with legal certainty. Others, such as some public universities or intergovernmental organizations, may simply not be able to provide affirmative warranties. Licensors that do not intend to provide a warranty for any reason will simply not adopt Version 4.0.
Additionally, even if we were to include an affirmative warranty in the license, it may not provide a meaningful safety net for licensees in many instances. Some licensors may not be aware of all third party rights, or they may not even understand the issues. Other licensors may be impossible to locate or may not have the resources to compensate licensees that seek recourse from them. Yet the inclusion of a warranty could give licensees the impression that they can use the licensed material without legal risk, which is not the case.
Ultimately, our goal in all of this is to encourage licensors to behave properly, clearing rights and marking third party content wherever possible. To help accomplish this, we have inserted an informational section before the license begins that is designed to inform license users of important considerations. The section highlights the same licensing considerations CC has always emphasized, but we feel that featuring them prominently at the top of the legal code will help raise awareness, both of best practices for licensors and of the limitations of the license for the public. We feel this is the best approach to deal with this complicated problem without including a representation and warranty in the license text itself.
Based largely on feedback from the affiliate community, we have eliminated the ability of licensors to customize the disclaimer of warranties and limitation on liability. Licensors may, of course, offer warranties or additional disclaimers, but those additional terms will not form part of the CC license itself. To help ensure the license operates as intended internationally, we have added a rule of interpretation to the license that says the disclaimer and limitation of liability should be interpreted in a way that most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of liability. We have also made a few other slight language adjustments to those provisions for international enforceability purposes.
We have clarified that the provisions in the "Using Creative Commons Licenses" section are not part of the license itself, in order to avoid any misunderstanding that those considerations are enforceable obligations. Additionally, the "Considerations for the public" section now indicates that where special requests are made by the licensor—such as to mark or describe any changes that have been made—that licensees should respect those where reasonable.
There are several important factors to be considered in connection with any proposal to change the current treatment. Generally, proposals fall into two categories: those that would require licensors to provide a warranty as in version 1.0, and those that would require licensor documentation of other rights in some manner. Without reference to any specific proposal, here are some general considerations to inform the issue.
Factors weighing against warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings
These requirements would not relieve the underlying problem in some if not many cases given the complex web of copyright and other laws that may apply to any given work. Many licensors -- even sophisticated licensors -- are not aware of all possible rights that may exist in a work. By way of illustration, a licensor could apply a CC license to a work she authored but the applicable law considers it a "joint work" requiring agreement of all authors before licensing; or, a licensor might share a photograph with blurry (but upon close examination, identifiable) persons in the background under a CC license that permits commercial reuse and the photograph is reused in a manner than violates those persons' privacy or publicity rights.
Warranty and marking requirements are simply not an option for some licensors wanting to share and comply in good faith. Transaction costs associated with clearing and documenting all possible rights are high for well funded organizations let alone an individual licensor wanting to share. The problem is particularly acute when the work is restricted by complex layers of rights, such as a musical work or performance, or a film production.
Other licensors may be unable to make any affirmative statements about having cleared third-party rights, sometimes as a matter of institutional policy. These licensors are often acting in good faith, using best efforts to clear rights appropriately notwithstanding the current disclaimers. Upgrading to the 4.0 licenses will not be an option for those licensors.
The existing treatment seems to work well in practice. The current (and 4.0) attribution and marking requirements make contact with licensors easy for those seeking formal assurances or warranties.
Partial solutions already exist and could be leveraged where affirmative statements are important to licensees. Many third-party platforms that enable CC licensing already require uploaders to affirmatively agree that they have cleared all necessary rights in their licensed content. (While there are many licensors who are ignorant of this requirement or mistakenly believe they have all rights, it is also likely that including an affirmative warranty or undertaking in the licenses would be similarly missed.)
Warranties provide only partial benefit and protection to licensees, as they do not address the underlying problem. If a licensor applies a license without having cleared all other rights, a licensee may still be required to cease distribution or pay damages when rightsholders enforce. While warranties may shift liability to the licensor, they cannot give the licensees guaranteed recourse from a licensor who has limited assets or is difficult to find.
In some jurisdictions, warranties cannot be disclaimed as fully as the license attempts, and implied warranties are read into licenses, all by operation of local law. This raises the question of the need for warranties, at least in those jurisdictions.
Disclaiming liabilities is the standard for open content licenses (although a few open software licenses include warranties). Reversing course to include warranties breaks with that.
CC prefers the licenses operate as licenses to the greatest extent possible, wherever possible. Having licensors undertake affirmative obligations could work against this interpretation in jurisdictions where the license is construed as a license and not a contract.
Warranties may be a barrier to remixing works. Any adaptations of a 4.0 work would have to be under that license version or later. If 4.0 were to require warranties, license users who are not willing to offer warranties (who continue to release their own works under 3.0) will not remix 4.0 content.
Factors weighing in favor of warranties, marking requirements or similar licensor undertakings
CC licenses are designed to enable reuse of works. When the work being shared is restricted by rights that are not licensed and are not identified (so that they can be cleared), the reusability of the work is diminished and may be effectively non existent for some or all reuses depending on the unlicensed rights in play.
As betweens licensors and licensees, licensors are generally better informed about what other rights may exist in the work that should be cleared before reuse, and arguably better positioned to clear those rights. Additionally, tracking and documenting the origin and status of works is a standard procedure for many licensors.
The current language puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without any corresponding obligation on the licensor. Arguably, this does not give licensors incentive to be as careful as they might otherwise be when applying a license, or properly marking third party content in a work.
Opportunities outside the licenses
There are several things that Creative Commons could undertake outside of the licenses to further encourage licensors to clear rights and document known third party rights or other limits on the licenses that could actually improve the underlying situation in a way that no shift of responsibility in the licenses can.
Facilitate offers of warranties by licensors who can and want to provide them, and possibly highlight those who do so on the Deed. The current draft of 4.0 anticipates such offers.
Include options in the Chooser for identification of known or potential third-party rights. This could take several different forms, including optional additional fields.
Make information about the possible existence of other rights more prominent on the Deed. The Deed currently is silent in this regard. There is also an open proposal to combine the Deed or replicate the Deed on the same page as the Legal Code, facilitating still more easy access to the Legal Code where details of limitations are made clear.
Create additional tools (such as options for additional metadata and/or symbols on the deed) to facilitate marking. It may be desirable for CC to design some visual indication a licensor may use when a work may be subject to additional rights and create additional tools for licensors and platforms who wish to use this marking.
Additional FAQs and best practice guidelines from CC. Licensors are already admonished to be careful before applying CC licenses, in the FAQs, at the top of the new Chooser and on a dedicated page linked to from the FAQs: Considerations for licensors and licensees. CC and its affiliates could create still more detailed guides, highlight those more prominently on the Chooser and elsewhere, and engage in outreach to licensors promoting best practices and how-to documents on how to identify and clear rights, and mark their works in a more informative manner for licensees.
Proposals for disclaimer of warranties in 4.0
For ease of reference on discussion lists, please do not alter proposal numbers.
Disclaimer Proposal No. 1 (submitted by Lucie Guibault): The current situation under all CC licenses but v 1.0 puts the entire burden of clearing rights on the licensee without putting any obligation on the licensor – which is not fair especially in cases where the licensor is in a position to clear some or all rights. Let me give three examples:
1) Imagine writers A & B write an article together but only A decides to publish the article under a CC license. Question: can the licensee rightfully assume that A obtained permission from B to publish so that he can use the work without problem or must the licensee obtain permission every time from all rights owners?
2) Imagine that A & B are employed somewhere and write their article within the scope of their employment. In the Netherlands, the employer would be deemed the author of the work, while in all other EU countries (including the UK) it would be the authors themselves. Can the licensee rightfully assume that the employer granted permission where needed? How would a licensee know to ask permission from the employer, if only the names of the authors appear on the work?
3) Imagine that amateur video maker makes home video of his dog and puts a popular song as background music. Can the licensee rightfully assume that the video maker obtained permission from the rights owner on the song (presumably a collective rights management organization) to perform the music? Most probably not!
In general although the licenses contain no representations from the licensor to this effect, a court in Europe would probably interpret the license as a contract and therefore as creating an obligation on the licensor to permit peaceful enjoyment of the rights conferred under the license. In other words, a European court would probably require from the licensor that he cleared the rights necessary to allow normal use of the work. But this may not be the case in all jurisdictions and it would certainly be a matter for case-by-case interpretation. A more structural solution would be needed especially if we want to encourage more established users (broadcasting entities, government institutions etc.) to make use of CC licensed works.
The middle ground could be to split the burden between the licensor and the licensee. Taking v 1.0 as an example, I think I could live with a clause including a version of the first subparagraph but the reverse version of the second paragraph (as currently is the case). Your proposal to mark third party works in the license chooser is certainly an avenue worth exploring further. However there may be a distinction to be made in the degree of obligation on the licensor between 'third party' rights as such (examples 2 and 3) and the rights of co-authors on a work (example 1).
In my opinion, if the 'third party' rights can easily be identified they should either be cleared (like those of the employer, for ex.) or excluded (like those on the popular song).
If there were a representation of ownership in the license, it would hopefully have the effect of responsabilizing the licensor of not incorporating just any third party work into his own without clearing the rights. The absence of such a clause in the license reduces the quality of the licensed work in the eyes of potential serious users, who may think that anything can bear a CC license even if the rights owner hasn't given permission to do so.
Treatment in 4.0 d.3: No representation or warranty inserted, but introductory section added to encourage good behavior by licensors and to educate licensees. Decision explained in more detail in summary at the top of the page.
Treatment in 4.0 d.4: Same.
Please add other Disclaimer proposals here, and number them sequentially.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=4.0/Disclaimer_of_warranties_and_related_issues&oldid=96566"


text:
open subnavigation close subnavigation
Energy Transition 2.0
Energy efficiency: from clever to digital
Energy services and energy management
Concepts for increasing energy efficiency
Aurubis AG scores with waste heat utilisation
Fraport AG and MeteoViva GmbH focus on digitization
Smart Joules Pvt. Ltd. (India) improves the energy balance of St. Stephen's Hospital
Zhovkva City Administration (Ukraine) for an energy-efficient residential area
ALDI SÜD Group wins Energy Transition 2.0 category
AIXTRON SE wins Energy Efficiency Category 4.0 Award
Football and Athletics Association of Westphalia convinces in the category of energy management and services
Krones - Steinecker work receives Audience Award
Our search tips
The Energy Efficiency Award
Visionary entrepreneurs and pragmatic technicians are the focus of the Energy Efficiency Award. The competition of the German Energy Agency (dena) honors projects that have a particular impact on the energy transition. Applications can be submitted by private or public companies from Germany, Europe and the world - regardless of their business size or sector. The award is presented in the categories "Energy Transition 2.0", "Energy Efficiency: from clever to digital", "Energy Services and Energy Management" and "Concepts for Increasing Energy Efficiency".
The award is endowed with prize money totalling 30,000 euros and is under the patronage of the German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Peter Altmaier. The competition is supported by the premium partners Danfoss and KfW.
Companies can apply online until 30 June 2019.
The Energy Efficiency Award honors projects that have a special impact on the energy system transformation.
Facebook Twitter XING E-Mail
The nominated energy efficiency projects and the prize winners were selected by an expert jury made up of representatives from politics, business, science and the media. The jury members will receive all submitted applications for screening. They are obliged to comply with the statutory provisions on data protection and to maintain confidentiality. In a joint meeting, the jury decides in a technical debate. The experts evaluate all submitted energy efficiency projects according to uniform standards based on the criteria of energy saving, climate protection relevance, economic efficiency, degree of innovation and transferability.
The criteria
The technical evaluation of the submitted and accepted applications is based on uniform criteria. For the categories "Energy turnaround 2.0", "Energy efficiency: from clever to digital" and "Energy services and energy management", these are the criteria:
Relative energy savings: The reduction in energy requirements achieved by increasing energy efficiency (before/after).
CO2 savings: Reduction in CO2 (absolute). The energy savings achieved are evaluated using uniform emission factors for energy sources (according to GEMIS1).
Economic efficiency: Ratio of the cost savings achieved by the energy efficiency measures implemented to the investments made.
Innovation: Major innovations in terms of technology, production methods, process management, organisation - also in combination. In addition, impulses for further innovations are taken into account.
Transferability: Market potential for the realisation of similar projects in other companies (in the sector or across the board).
The assessment of submitted concepts for increasing energy efficiency is carried out analogously to the criteria mentioned by means of a potential assessment. The jury also assesses the plausibility and marketability of the concept.
The nominations
A shortlist of nominated projects will be published in October 2019. Three projects and one concept from the nomination list will be awarded at the dena Energiewende Congress on 25 and 26 November 2019 in Berlin. All nominated companies will be reported to the national and international trade and business press as part of the official media work of the Energy Efficiency Award even before the award ceremony. The published projects are entitled to actively use the nomination for their own corporate communications.
The award ceremony
At the dena Energy Turnaround Congress on 25 and 26 November 2019 in Berlin, the winners of the Energy Efficiency Award will be presented to a large audience of experts with high visibility. The winners of the categories "Energy Turnaround 2.0", "Energy Efficiency: from clever to digital" and "Energy Services and Energy Management" will jointly receive a certificate and prize money of 8,000 euros per category from the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology and their business partners.
The three nominated companies for the Audience Award will present their concepts for increasing energy efficiency on site at the congress. The audience will then decide in a vote via smartphone which concept will receive this award. The winner will receive a certificate and prize money of 6,000 euros.
Express your interest now
The prize is awarded to projects that achieve increases in energy efficiency and also rely on the use of other energy transition technologies. read more
The prize is awarded for the entire range of energy efficiency projects, from classic measures to the use of digital solutions. read more
The integration of external expertise and professional management processes to increase energy efficiency is rewarded. read more
The audience prize honours innovative concepts for increasing energy efficiency which are convincing both professionally and in terms of market... read more
Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena), German Energy Agency
Tel: +49 (0)30 66777 - 830

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


You will not want to miss the opportunity to own this amazing 2 story home in sought after Wythe. Professionally rehabbed. Sitting on .34 acres, 200 ft from the Chesapeake Bay with water views from front yard. Great size front screen porch will lead you in to open floor plan. Beautiful oak floors throughout. Tall ceilings. Large brand new kitchen , shaker style cab, granite ct, SS appliances, wine fridge, farm house sink, island with teak wood c.top. Ample space for prep and seating. Large laundry/ pantry room right off the kitchen. 2 zone heating and cooling. First floor bedroom with double closets & full bath. Light filled family room w/ wood burning fireplace to enjoy late night movies. Spacious master bedroom on 2nd floor, barn door will lead you to master bath w/ 2 vanities, makeup vanity and glass shower. Master closet w/ ample storage & cedar closet w/ additional storage. Remaining 2 bedrooms have plenty of storage as well. Bring your imagination for the large backyard!


The theatre located on the main level of the Regina Performing Arts Centre offers flexible seating to accommodate the individual needs of clients. Seating on risers, on the floor, and around tables in various configurations is possible. Configurations include but are not limited to those in the diagrams below. If you do not see a configuration that suits your event, contact the building manager to discuss options.
Click on the diagrams for enlarged views.


Lucy Barks is Head of Contract Manufacturing at innocent drinks, where she has spent seven of the last thirteen years of her Supply Chain career. Over the last five years she has been supporting innocent's business growth by helping to re-shape their fully outsourced chilled supply chain to be fit for the future; including sourcing and on-boarding new partners, expanding into continental manufacturing bases, and flexing networks to support unforecast double-digit growth.
Most recently, she headed a project to reconfigure innocent's Supply Chain Operation team responsibilities, aiming to improve the operation at both a professional and personal level in line with the core values at the heart of innocent's business. She believes passionately that change is always a positive thing when people are at the heart of it, whether consumers or colleagues.


text:
Celebrity worship syndrome (CWS) is an obsessive addictive disorder in which a person becomes overly involved with the details of a celebrity's personal and professional life. Psychologists have indicated that though many people obsess over film, television, sport and pop stars, the only common factor between them is that they are all figures in the public eye. Written observations of celebrity worship date back to the 19th century.

Classifications

Simple obsessional
Simple obsessional stalking constitutes a majority of all stalking cases, anywhere from 69 to 79%, and is dominated by males. This form of stalking is generally associated with individuals who have shared previous personal relationships with their victims. However, this is not necessarily the case between a common member of the public exhibiting celebrity worship syndrome and the famous person with whom they are obsessed. Individuals that meet the criteria of being labeled as a "simple obsessional stalker" tend to share a set of characteristics including an inability to have successful personal relationships in their own lives, social awkwardness, feelings of powerlessness, a sense of insecurity, and very low self-esteem. Of these characteristics, low self-esteem plays a large role in the obsession that these individuals develop with their victim, in this case, the famous person. If the individual is unable to have any sort of connection to the celebrity with which they are obsessed, their own sense of self-worth may decline.

Entertainment-social

This level of admiration is linked to a celebrity's ability to capture the attention of their fans. Entertainment-social celebrity worship is used to describe a relatively low level of obsession. An example of a typical entertainment-social attitude would be "My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done."
It may also be seen in the form of obsessively following celebrities on social media, although considered the lowest level of celebrity worship. It has been seen to have a number of negative effects with regards the development of unhealthy eating tendencies (eating disorders), anxiety, depression, poor body image and low self esteem, especially in young adolescents aged 13 to mid-20s. This can be supported by a study carried out on a group of female adolescents between the ages of (17–20).

Intense-personal
This is an intermediate level of obsession that is associated with neuroticism as well as behaviors linked to psychoticism. An example of an intense-personal attitude toward a celebrity would include claims such as "I consider my favorite celebrity to be my soul mate." It has been found that in particular, people who worship celebrities in this manner often have low self-esteem with regards to their body type, especially if they think that the celebrity is physically attractive. The effects of intense-personal celebrity worship on body image are seen in some cases of cosmetic surgery. Females who have high levels of obsession are more accepting of cosmetic surgery than those who do not obsess over celebrities to this extent.

Love obsessional
As the name suggests, individuals who demonstrate this sort of stalking behavior develop a love obsession with somebody who they have no personal relation to. Love obsessional stalking accounts for roughly 20–25% of all stalking cases. The people that demonstrate this form of stalking behavior are likely to have a mental disorder, commonly either schizophrenia or paranoia. Individuals that are love obsessional stalkers often convince themselves that they are in fact in a relationship with the subject of their obsession. For example, a woman who had been stalking David Letterman for a total of five years claimed to be his wife when she had no personal connection to him. Other celebrities who have fallen victim to this form of stalking include Jennifer Aniston, Halle Berry, Jodie Foster, and Mila Kunis, along with numerous other A-list stars.

Erotomanic
Erotomanic, originating from the word erotomania, refers to stalkers who genuinely believe that their victims are in love with them. The victims in this case are almost always well known within their community or within the media, meaning that they can range from small-town celebrities to famous personalities from Hollywood. Comprising less than 10% of all stalking cases, erotomanic stalkers are the least common. Unlike simple-obsessional stalkers, a majority of the individuals in this category of stalking are women. Similar to love-obsessional stalkers, the behavior of erotomanic stalkers may be a result of an underlying psychological disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression.

Individuals who have erotomania tend to believe that the celebrity with whom they are obsessed with is utilizing the media as a way to communicate with them by sending special messages or signals. Although these stalkers have unrealistic beliefs, they are less likely to seek any form of face-to-face interaction with their celebrity obsession, therefore posing less of a threat to them.

Borderline-pathological
This classification is the most severe level of celebrity worship. It is characterized by pathological attitudes and behaviors, as a result of celebrity worship. This includes willingness to commit crime on behalf of the celebrity who is the object of worship, or to spend money on common items used by the celebrity at some point, such as napkins.

Mental health
Evidence indicates that poor mental health is correlated with celebrity worship. Researchers have examined the relationship between celebrity worship and mental health in United Kingdom adult samples. One study found evidence to suggest that the intense-personal celebrity worship dimension was related to higher levels of depression and anxiety. Similarly, another study in 2004, found that the intense-personal celebrity worship dimension was not only related to higher levels of depression and anxiety, but also higher levels of stress, negative affect, and reports of illness. Both these studies showed no evidence for a significant relationship between either the entertainment-social or the borderline-pathological dimensions of celebrity worship and mental health.

Another correlated pathology examined the role of celebrity interest in shaping body image cognitions. Among three separate UK samples (adolescents, students, and older adults), individuals selected a celebrity of their own sex whose body/figure they liked and admired, and then completed the Celebrity Attitude Scale along with two measures of body image. Significant relationships were found between attitudes toward celebrities and body image among female adolescents only.

The findings suggested that, in female adolescence, there is an interaction between intense-personal celebrity worship and body image between the ages of 14 and 16, and some tentative evidence suggest that this relationship disappears at the onset of adulthood, which is between the ages of 17 and 20. These results are consistent with the authors who stress the importance of the formation of relationships with media figures, and suggest that relationships with celebrities perceived as having a good body shape may lead to a poor body image in female adolescents. This can be again supported by a study carried out, which investigated the link between mass media and its direct correlation to poor self-worth/ body image in a sample group of females between the ages of 17 and 20.

Within a clinical context the effect of celebrity might be more extreme, particularly when considering extreme aspects of celebrity worship. Relationships between the three classifications of celebrity worship (entertainment-social, intense-personal and borderline-pathological celebrity worship and obsessiveness), ego-identity, fantasy proneness and dissociation were examined. Two of these variables drew particular attention: fantasy proneness and dissociation. Fantasy proneness involves fantasizing for a duration of time, reporting hallucinatory intensities as real, reporting vivid childhood memories, having intense religious and paranormal experiences. Dissociation is the lack of a normal integration of experiences, feelings, and thoughts in everyday consciousness and memory; in addition, it is related to a number of psychiatric problems.

Though low levels of celebrity worship (entertainment-social) are not associated with any clinical measures, medium levels of celebrity worship (intense-personal) are related to fantasy proneness (approximately 10% of the shared variance), while high levels of celebrity worship (borderline-pathological) share a greater association with fantasy proneness (around 14% of the shared variance) and dissociation (around 3% of the shared variance, though the effect size of this is small and most probably due to the large sample size). This finding suggests that as "celebrity worship becomes more intense, and the individual perceives having a relationship with the celebrity, the more the individual is prone to fantasies."

Celebrity worship syndrome can lead to the manifestation of unhealthy tendencies such as materialism and compulsive buying, which can be supported by a study carried out by Robert. A. Reeves, Gary. A. Baker and Chris. S. Truluck. The results of this study link high rates of celebrity worship to high rates of materialism and compulsive buying.

A number of historical, ethnographic, netnographic and auto-ethnographic studies in diverse academic disciplines such as film studies, media studies, cultural studies and consumer research, which – unlike McCutcheon et al. focused mainly on a student sample (with two exceptions) – have actually studied real fans in the field, have come to very different conclusions that are more in line with Horton & Wohl's original concept of parasocial interaction or an earlier study by Leets.

See also
 Paparazzi
 Stalking
 Obsessive love
 Sasaeng fan
 Stan (fan)
 Anti-fan

References

Further reading

Behavioral addiction
Celebrity fandom
Fandom
Social phenomena

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
News 3 TV Schedule
'I just feel I need to give them something' Local woman donates cemetery plot to one of 12 shooting victims
Posted 2:49 pm, June 4, 2019, by Rachael Cardin, Updated at 05:18PM, June 4, 2019
NORFOLK, Va. - Jane Caler said she does not have the financial stability to donate money, so instead she plans to donate a cemetery plot that has already been bought and paid for.
Jane Caler
Caler lost her sister to cancer 25 years ago. Her sister wanted to be buried in the Riverside Memorial Cemetery on Indian River Road, but in order to buy one plot you had to purchase four.
When News 3 spoke to Caler on Tuesday, she said she would have spent any amount to give her sister her dying wish, so she bought all four.
Since her sister's death, Caler has lost her son and grandson suddenly, but neither wanted to be buried. She plans to take the plot next to her sister in the cemetery but of the two remaining, she wants to donate one to a family who needs it.
"I just have it on my heart that it will be one of the 12. I know there are four more in the hospital, and if one of those four needs it that's fine, too," said Caler.
The space is in the back, a few rows up from the treeline in the Walnut section of Riverside Memorial Cemetery. The plot was at a $1,000 value 25 years ago and is worth much more now, but Caler said it is a gift she wants to give.
Having dealt with loss that was not expected, Caler empathizes with the families and said, "Especially at a time like this, if you don't have the money, you do not want to go in debt for everything. I think God talked to me and told me to just check. Just check - you never know who might need it."
If you know a victim's family who would like to acquire the plot, email takingaction@wtkr.com or rachael.cardin@wtkr.com.
Topics: 12 victims, cemetery, Community, norfolk, riverside memorial, Taking Action, virginia beach, Virginia Beach mass shooting
Good News Health News
Local teen trades birthday gifts, party to give others the gift of life with blood drive
Crafting for a cause: Norfolk woman sewing hundreds of pouches for injured wildlife in Australia
How a Virginia Beach 6-year-old is saving local animals
New memorial mural at Rudee Loop to honor victims of Virginia Beach mass shooting
Delegate works to get money for traffic light at 'dangerous' Virginia Beach intersection
Mother tries to find video games' owner after the games board wrong flight
Following Second Amendment rally, Democrats vote against Republican-backed gun bills
Good News News People Taking Action Taking Action
People Taking Action: Surprising 'The Queen Mother' with a People Taking Action Award!


text:
Q: how do i can stretch my div according text? how do i can stretch my div according text
I want to stretch height of a div , with the text user posted
look at the screen shot its clear.
CSS :
.cmnt{ width: 570px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; float: right; margin-right:     15px; clear:both; }
.cmnt .body{ width: 570px; background: #333333; min-height: 90px; height: auto; }
.cmnt .text{ width: 513px; float: left; font-family: arial; color: #FFF; }
.cmnt .arrow{ width: 570px; height: 7px; background: url(../img/comment_arr.jpg) no-repeat     17px top; }
.cmnt .info{ width: 470px; height: 20px; font-family: arial; font-size: 14px; color: #FFF; float: left; text-align: left; }

HTML :

text

text

text

text

text

text

text

  smith (date)

reply ↓

Image

Parent :

Comments

....

A: You can try adding a float: left CSS property to your outer container.
.cmnt .body{ float: left; width: 570px; background: #333333; min-height: 90px; height: auto; }

Here's a fiddle for you
http://jsfiddle.net/znQa8/
Hope it helps.

A: The height of a container is automatically adjusted, if not specified, according to the child (not floated) elements.
Because the div (class=text) is floated, its height doesn't take into account. Whenever you used a float, systematically try to clear it after to resolve the height problem.

...

A: it could be a possibility to add:
div.body
{
height: auto;
}

but i'm not sure it isn't killing the whole layout
In reference to My Head Hurts you need to clear your floats:
.cmnt .body
{
    overflow: hidden;
}

A: min-height would be your solution.

A: What is happening is that you have a floating container with floating children.
In this case, the floating container "ignores" the children dimensions. This is probably a side effect of the implementation of the real primary objective of float (that was to have floating images on wrapped text).
In this article you can see the floating purpose and a list of workarrounds:
http://www.ejeliot.com/blog/59
And this is what I think is the best solution so far, the micro clearfix (best about it is that you can put in you css and reuse it whenever you need it again):
http://nicolasgallagher.com/micro-clearfix-hack/
Just add this css block to your css file:
/*THE CLEARFIX HACK*/
.clearfix:before,
.clearfix:after {
    content: " ";
    display: table;
}

.clearfix:after { clear: both; }
.clearfix { *zoom: 1; }

And then add the clearfix class to the "body" div.
jsfiddle: XZRH5

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Our needs ministry is set up to help those that have needs both physical and spiritual. There are so many in our city, state, and nation that have physical needs that we, as a Church, love to meet. God has been good to us, so we try to be good to those around us.


At the Council and Bonneville Power Administration's request, the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) reviewed 19 proposals intended to address high priority research, monitoring and evaluation needs identified in the Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). These needs were identified for immediate action during the recent Columbia Basin Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Collaboration process and workshops in November 2009. These 19 fast-track proposals include 11 new projects and modifications to 8 ongoing projects.
The ISRP found that 9 proposals met scientific review criteria; 5 of these had qualifications that the ISRP recommended could be considered by the Council and addressed by the proponent and BPA during contracting. These 9 proposals are ready for immediate Council and BPA decisions. In response to the Council and BPA's stated desire to implement the fast track action in 2010, we considered the option to specifically identify if a fast track work element is justified independently of other project actions. We found that 2 proposals justified the fast track component of their project but the complete project needed a response. These 2 proposals received an "in part/response requested" recommendation. The ISRP also requested a response on the remaining 8 proposals.


They say there are only four chambers of the heart.
It was a pure thing, that moment.
believing in future wine, it wouldn't.
or the blue dragonflies in air.
the sea in its rocking; an unguessed world.
As illustrated in Linda Hogan's poem, writing about nature helps us learn many things. First, it encourages us to look outside ourselves in order to gain a different perspective, one that is broader and other than our inner world. Often, writers use metaphor to explore an aspect of nature as doing so can offer insights into situations that otherwise may be difficult to understand or talk about.
Looking outside ourselves in nature helps us learn about and supports acceptance of impermanence. When writing about nature, we observe that nothing lasts forever; we see that joy and beauty are transient, that change is constantly happening around us. We begin to recognize how the rhythms of our lives may parallel the life cycles found in nature, such as birth, growth, death, etc. In this way, writing about nature strengthens one's connection to the earth and it's cycles. Just as we are continually evolving, so are the elements of the natural world. Writing about nature—in a fundamental way—is an invitation to write about change.
Writing about nature can also remind us that we are connected to something greater, something beyond the mundane aspects of our daily life, the routines we follow, the busyness that often occupies our time. Stepping out of that busyness to be with and observe nature helps us develop the ability to be still and to use all of our senses in the present moment. It is a powerful reminder that we are connected, that we are not alone.
Here's a process about writing about nature that may be a helpful starting point.
1. Choose one aspect of the natural world that you feel has something to teach you. Is there an aspect of nature that you have always felt drawn to or were fascinated by? For some this may be an animal, a type of tree, the ocean, the mountains, or the wind.
2. Consider its characteristics. What specific quality does it express that speaks to you about your own life? To begin answering this question, close your eyes and imagine yourself becoming that element. What might you have to say?
3. When you are ready, start to write.
Listen to what is inside of you and courageously write what you hear.
I would love to hear about your experience responding to this writing prompt. What worked for you? What didn't quite get your words flowing? What more do you want to know about "what nature teaches us"? Do you have any suggestions for ways to approach this topic? Do you have any other comments, ideas, suggestions, or questions? Let's chat!