Although you probably won't need rain pants during lighter showers or warmer weather, a good pair of rain pants will help you stay dry and comfortable when hiking in heavy rain or in colder climates. To find the best pair, we spent 35 hours conducting research, speaking to experts, simulating a killer wash test, and chasing rain through Portland, Oregon, and Washington State's Hoh Rain Forest. Based on this testing, we think Marmot's PreCip Pant, which come in men's and women's sizes, are the best rain pants for most people. They are water-resistant yet breathable, come in multiple inseam lengths, have a tailored cut, offer such features as ankle zippers and side pockets, and are more affordable than many of the other pants we tested.
Best for the price, these are available in short and long versions as well. The men's pants come in black or gray.
The same design as the men's. These also come in three inseam lengths, but they're available only in black.
Compared with the other rain pants we tested, Marmot's 2.5-layer PreCip Pant (in both men's and women's versions) will keep you dry for a lower price. The water-repellant coating on the PreCips held up well during rainstorms in Portland, Oregon, even after five hours of continuous washing. The fabric felt breathable during a steamy hike in the Hoh Rain Forest at Washington's Olympic National Park. Although the PreCips are still roomy enough to move around in and pull over base layers, they have a narrower cut than any other pants we tested and a better range of inseam lengths to fit people of different heights and builds. Each inseam length is sold separately on the website. With ankle zippers at the cuffs, the pants are easy to get on and off while wearing boots. They're also a few ounces lighter than most of the other pants we considered.
These pants come in only one length, but they do have vented ankle zippers.
The same features as the men's, but in a women's version.
Patagonia's Torrentshell Pants (in women's and men's versions) are similar to our top pick, but they offer only one inseam length, are an ounce heavier than our top pick, and were more expensive at the time of this writing. The 2.5-layer ripstop nylon fabric used in these pants looks and feels identical to the fabric on our top pick, and these pants were just as water-resistant and breathable when we wore them walking in the rain, too. The Torrentshells also have longer ankle zippers that cool your legs when they're opened partially, which we loved. Patagonia doesn't offer different inseam options for the Torrentshell pants, however, so they may be too long or short for many people—if you're one of them, you may be tripping over your pants or showing some damp, chilly ankle.
A cheap, waterproof pair of rain pants for occasional use.
The same waterproof pants as the men's version, in women's sizes.
If you want a cheap, no-frills pair of rain pants for infrequent use, Helly Hansen's Voss Pants (in men's and women's versions) are a dependable option. These plastic-feeling, polyurethane pants are baggy around the legs and they don't have extra features like ankle zippers or pockets. They don't breathe well, either. But the Voss Pants will keep you dry during a moderate rainstorm, and we liked the pants' design and fabric better than those of the other budget rain pants we tested.
To find the best rain pants, we spent 12 hours combing the Web for reviews of men's and women's rain pants, reading 11 other guides in all. We considered articles from OutdoorGearLab, the The Adventure Junkies, Backpacker, Outside Online, and All Outdoors, in addition to many other blog posts and forums. We read a few reviews for rain kilts, thinking that some people might be interested in lighter-weight rainwear options. We also consulted REI's handy guide to raingear throughout our research and writing process.
Susan Sokolowski: Sokolowski is an associate professor at the University of Oregon and she's the head of its Sports Product Design program.
Sean Michael: Michael is a professor at Utah State University, where he is the program director for the Outdoor Product Design and Development program.
Stephen Regenold: Regenold founded Gear Junkie and is well-known for his outdoor-gear knowledge. For this guide, he gave us his thoughts on the best rain pants—but he's helped us with other Wirecutter guides (including rain jackets and a forthcoming guide to windbreakers).
Liz Thomas: Thomas is a staff writer on the outdoors team at Wirecutter and a long-distance hiker who has logged more than 25,000 miles on the trail to date. Liz hiked 1,200 miles during summer 2017 to complete the Pacific Northwest Trail in 53 days (while also writing our guides to the best backpacking food and the best instant coffee). She is the author of Long Trails: Mastering the Art of the Thru-Hike.
Ryland Brooks: Brooks was our male tester for this guide. He's also a rain-pants enthusiast who formerly worked at REI, walks 50 miles a week in soggy Portland, Oregon, weather, and has gone through 10 to 12 pairs of rain pants in his lifetime.
As for me, I'm a Wirecutter staff writer who's covered everything from sports bras to first aid kits for the outdoors to soda makers. I'm a hiker living in rainy Portland, Oregon. I've also whipped out my trusty rain pants many times while working as an outdoor instructor in North Carolina, where thunderstorms happen like clockwork every afternoon in the summertime.
Rain pants are a just-in-case item that you'll rarely need to take out of your bag … until you really, really do. If you're hiking in a warmer climate, you probably don't need rain pants. In fact, a pair of rain pants could actually make you too hot in places like these, or they could cause chafing and discomfort while you're sweating. Most rain pants are meant to keep water out, which also means that they don't let sweat out—so if you're hiking only a short distance in warmer weather and you won't be wet for long periods of time, you should probably leave your rain pants behind.
However, if you're planning to hike in colder climates or at higher elevations, or you're traveling to a place that has frequent, heavy rainstorms that last for long periods of time, or if you'll be trekking through wet, brushy areas, this guide is for you. Keeping your core warm is more important than keeping your extremities warm, but your chance of getting hypothermia increases when you're both cold and wet. Rain pants can help solve this problem.
Rain pants are a just-in-case item that you'll rarely need to take out of your bag … until you really, really do.
This guide isn't for ultralight hikers, most of whom probably don't want the added weight of a situational accessory. Wirecutter writer Liz Thomas held the women's unassisted speed record on the Appalachian Trail between 2011 and 2015, and she said she hikes with an umbrella for maximum water protection with less weight.
The rain pants in this guide are for everyday hikers and backpackers—they're not designed for full-submersion situations, like angler fishing or kayaking, or extreme cold weather situations, like alpine mountaineering. However, I will say that I've used my rain pants in non-hiking situations on occasion—I'll layer them over long-johns to go out in the rare Portland snowstorm, don them while biking, or put them on for a messy garden job. There are bike-specific rain pants and snow pants, of course. But for a quick walk through the woods or a muddy outdoor chores, our picks will work just fine.
After reading many websites and reviews, we looked at the top-rated and best-selling rain pant models available on popular outdoor sites REI and Cabela's. We also checked Amazon's top-rated and best-selling pants, and I took a trip to REI to touch and feel some of the pants we were considering.
If you're hiking in rain for extended periods of time, you'll want completely waterproof pants.
Price: According to the reviews we read, most rain pants that cost more than $150 didn't add extra features or provide extended durability, so we eliminated those. In our research, we found that pants priced below $80 lacked preferred features like ankle zippers, which make pants easier to get on and off, and pants that cost more than $100 tended to be made of softer and yet more durable fabrics. However, we still tested a few cheap pairs to see what we'd get when we took them into the field.
2-layer: A waterproof, breathable liner hangs inside one piece of outer fabric to protect the outer coating. This type of construction is less expensive and quieter (think no swishy trash-bag sounds), but can be less breathable.
2.5-layer: Despite the higher numeric value, 2.5-layer rain gear is less durable than 2-layer (or 3-layer) fabric. It is, however, cheaper and lighter. Unlike a garment made with 2-layer construction, 2.5-layer has no protective liner—instead, there's a laminate or coating.
3-layer: 3-layer fabric is geared toward more intense usage and rugged environments like mountaineering. It consists of a waterproof membrane (the technology varies depending on the pants) sandwiched between an outer fabric (usually nylon or polyester) coated with durable water repellent (DWR), and an inner liner. We eliminated rain pants with 3-layer constructions because they're unnecessary for most people and they're more expensive.
Waterproof: A good pair of rain pants should keep water out. However, your required levels of waterproofing or water-resistance will depend on your planned activities. If you'll be in a cold, very wet environment, or if you're hiking in rain for extended periods of time, you'll want completely waterproof pants. If you'll be somewhere warmer or you're in a place with intermittent rain, a breathable pair of water-resistant pants might be enough.
Though water-resistant pants are available, in this guide we reviewed only rain pants that were 100 percent waterproof.
Mobility: You'll probably be moving around a lot in your rain pants, so it's important that the pants move with your body. Some rain pants are made from stretchy fabrics that allow for greater mobility; these may be more expensive, but spending more can be worth it for the comfort. Designers also add gussets—pieces of fabric shaped like a triangle or diamond— to the crotches of rain pants to reduce the stress on the seams. But our experts noted that some pants are stretchy enough not to need gussets.
Almost all of the pants we tested for this guide are half-zip, versus full-zip pants (we did include one full-zip pair of pants in our testing because of their unique, stretchy fabric). Half-zip pants have zippers running from about knee height to the pants' cuffs and they allow you to pull your pants off over hiking boots more easily. Full-zip pants unzip from the ground all the way to the waistband. Full-zip pants are easier than half-zip pants to get on and off and they unzip to keep your legs cool, but our experts were concerned about the added weight of full zip pants and the risk of zipper failure. If your zippers break or get stuck on a pair of half-zip pants, you're still mostly covered. But if zippers break on a pair of full-zip rain pants, your entire leg will be exposed, defeating the point of the rain pants altogether. You're also likely to get water on your base layers when you remove full-zip rain pants. Plus, full-zip pants are often more expensive than half-zip options. Most of the half-zip pants we considered do come in full-zip options if you're really set on needing extra venting.
Because rain pants often have ankle zippers or snap cuffs that would make alterations difficult, it's important to find a pair with the right size and cut for you.
Fit: Most rain pants are made in both men's and women's versions; choosing the right one for your body will help with mobility. Excess, bunchy fabric can get in the way, and pants that are too big will be uncomfortable and noisy. "A woman [or any smaller person] should definitely be looking for a woman's cut and companies that are serious about making those offerings," said Michael. We looked at both men's and women's options for this guide.
We also looked for pants that offered petite, plus size, and other inseam length options. Because rain pants often have ankle zippers or snap cuffs that would make alterations difficult, it's important to find a pair with the right size and cut for you. You'll be able to get a more customized fit if you opt for pants with an adjustable waist, too, whether the pants use a drawstring, elastic cord, or belt.
Weight: Even if you consider yourself more of a weekend warrior than an ultralight hiker, rain pants shouldn't take up a lot of weight in your pack, because they'll probably be in there most of the time. For this reason, we eliminated any pants that weighed more than a pound. We also decided to look at a few highly reviewed rain kilts as ultralight options.
Features: We looked for pants with pockets, because they'll be a top layer and you may want some items easily accessible. Good rain pants should have taped or sealed zippers and seams, too, to keep water out.
First we tried on all the rain pants to observe how easy they were to move around in, how comfortable they were, how loud and swishy the fabric was, how easy they were to get on and off, and how well they fit.
Then we tested for water-resistance. I live in Portland, Oregon, a city notorious for its rain. (In 2016, we got about 36 inches.) We planned to take each pair of rain pants out in the rain around town for an hour at a time—and that worked for the first seven pairs of pants (we even got some hail for a few of those walks, too!). But alas, during the next four weeks of testing, there was barely a drop of rain in Portland.
While we waited for the rain, we conducted an eye-dropper test (per Sokolowski's advice) to see whether the water soaked through or beaded on pants. Water didn't soak through any of the pants, meaning that they were all baseline waterproof. However, this test did illustrate that some pants were more effective at repelling water than others. Water droplets practically jumped off several pairs of pants, while it clung to the fabric of other pairs.
We also conducted a wash test to mimic long-term wear and tear on DWR coatings. While researching how outdoor clothing brands test their rain wear, we came across Patagonia's Killer Wash tests and reached out to Matt Dwyer, Patagonia's director of materials and development, to learn more. Matt told us that Patagonia's initial wash tests involve running rain gear through continuous five-, 12-, or 24-hour cycles. We decided to run pants through five hours of continuous wash cycles at Portland's Spin Laundry Lounge to simulate this test. After reading the labels on all pants and kilts to make sure we followed manufacturer's instructions, we used powder detergent, washed the pants in cold water, and air-dried them. Then, we repeated the eye dropper test to observe any differences (there weren't any).
With no rain in sight in Portland, Oregon, we chose finalists based on reviews, size options, price, fit, and features. That left us with the men's and women's versions of the Helly Hansen Voss Rain Pants, the Columbia Men's Rebel Roamer Rain Pant, the Columbia Women's Storm Surge Rain Pant, the men's and women's North Face Venture 2 Half Zip, the men's and women's Marmot PreCip Pant, the men's and women's Patagonia Torrentshell Pants, and the men's and women's Mountain Hardwear Stretch Ozonic Pant. We also wanted to see how the Üla Rain Kilt and the Zpacks Rain Kilt fared in rain.
Then we had the brilliant idea to take our finalists to the Hoh Rain Forest in Washington's Olympic National Park, which gets 12 to 14 feet of rain per year and is the one of the wettest places in the continental United States (PDF).
But as the fated weekend approached, there wasn't much rain on the forecast—just our luck. Still, we decided to follow through with the trip. It would at least be rain-y, we reasoned. During every bathroom break during the five-hour drive to Olympic National Park, I refreshed and refreshed Weather Underground, my new favorite weather radar app, looking for the dark green mass that signaled rain. I kept glancing at the sky—it was slightly overcast. When we got to the park, I queried the cashier at a gas station, where Weather Underground's forecast was projected onto a large TV screen behind the counter. She promised us there would be rain that night, gesturing to gray clouds in the distance. When we rolled up to the park gate, the ranger promised that the Hoh Rain Forest was the rainiest place we could be.
Empty promises, all. It did not rain during our trip to the rainiest part of the Pacific Northwest, except for a very brief drizzle on day two, which caused me to excitedly declare that this was our long-awaited downpour. It was not. Instead, we witnessed a rare and glorious weekend at the Hoh Rain Forest: all blue skies and sunshine. Perfect weather, said the ranger—except for those of us who wanted to test rain pants.
Despite the lack of rain, we still tested rain pants. We wore all of the finalist pants for at least an hour's worth of hiking to test for mobility and breathability and to see how easy the pants were to get on and off. We lunged, jumped, rolled around in wet grass, splashed ourselves with river water, knelt in puddles, and rubbed our butts against mossy trees and gravel. A few weeks later, we did get rain in Portland (thank you, The Big Dark)—and I was able to wear our picks in the rain around town. I stayed very dry.
Ultimately, because all of our candidates proved to be waterproof, we made our picks based on sizing options, price, fit, and features. We combed through reviews on multiple retail sites to look for reports on long-term wear, too. To truly observe how well a pair of rain pants holds up, you need to wear and wash them repeatedly throughout the year—so we'll continue to long-term test these picks and keep this guide updated throughout the season.
Marmot's PreCip Pant (available in men's and women's versions) will keep you dry just as well as the competition, at a lower price, and they're available in a wider array of inseam lengths. The PreCips are well-reviewed by other gear sites and regular people, too. They're 2.5-layer, ripstop nylon, half-zip pants with basic features like ankle zips to help you get the pants over your boots. They also have zippered side pockets. Where the PreCips stand out is their cut: They were among the best-fitting pants we tried, and come in short, regular, and long inseam lengths. Out of all the pants we tested, they're the most likely to fit more people.
Marmot's PreCip Pant kept me dry while I walked for several miles in heavier-than-usual Portland rain and wind (rain was blowing at me horizontally). Examining the lining of the pants after my walk, I saw no signs of wetting through. These pants also repelled water well during our eye-dropper test before and after five hours of continuous washing. Water didn't bead up and jump off the PreCips quite as well as it did off the Mountain Hardwear Stretch Ozonic pants, but neither did the water cling to fabric like it did on the Frogg Toggs.
On our Hoh Rain Forest hike and around town, the PreCips felt breathable. (The weather was around 48 °F in the rain forest and in the mid-50s in Portland.) I was noticeably sweaty and clammy after only an hour of hiking in the Columbia Storm Surge pants in the rain forest—but that wasn't the case in the PreCips.
Tripping over pants isn't fun and neither is feeling like you're wearing two trash bags. We experienced this feeling while wearing many of the pants in our lineup—but not when we wore the PreCips. Instead, the PreCips fit well and were easy to move in. Their legs are roomy enough to pull on over layers and walk in. The PreCips still look and feel like rain pants, of course—which means they don't get many style points. Their fabric isn't as soft and stretchy as that on the sleeker REI Taluspheres or the Stretch Ozonic pants, either. However, these pants feel sturdier than the others we tested because of their gusseted crotch—which, according to our experts, can help reinforce an easy-to-rip area.
The PreCips come in three inseam lengths (short, regular, and long) in both men's and women's versions, and we found them to be some of the only pants in our pile that were actually true to size. I'm 5 feet tall and despite ordering shorter inseam lengths when available, I discovered that most of our test pants were too long for me. The PreCips come in gray and black in men's, and black for women. Size-wise, the women's pants come in XS to XL (24½- to 38½-inch waist, 35- to 39-inch hip, 30- to 33-inch inseam) and the men's pants come in S to XL (30- to 42-inch waist, 34- to 48-inch hip, 30- to 35-inch inseam). The men's regular inseam pants weigh 8.9 ounces and the women's weigh 8.1 ounces—making these pants about an ounce lighter than our runner-up and several ounces lighter than most of the other pants we considered.
On our Hoh Rain Forest hike and around town, the PreCips felt breathable.
The PreCips' two zippered mesh side pockets let you stash whatever you need to keep accessible. These pockets have a protective fabric shelf—but they aren't taped, so we wouldn't rely on them keeping a phone dry during a true downpour. Ankle zippers at the cuffs make pulling the pants over your boots easy. Unlike other pants, however, the PreCips have an effective ankle cinch to help taper and shorten pants after you put them on (the cinch on the Taluspheres, in contrast, barely made a difference in narrowing the wide boot-cut cuffs).
Price-wise, the PreCip pants are at the lower end of the high-end rain pants we tested, and at the higher end of the cheaper options. At the time of writing, they were $20 less than our runner-up, the almost identical Patagonia Torrentshell pants. For the cost, these pants offer the best value out of all the pants we tested.
Outside Online likes our pick, as does OutdoorGearLab. Adventure Junkies gave the pants a 4.0 rating out of 5. There aren't many of reviews for rain pants online, but the PreCips have a 4.3-star rating (out of five) across 45 Amazon reviews, and only one negative review—it mentions ripping—out of 21 reviews of men's and women's pants on Marmot's site.
Only time will prove the true worthiness of a pair of rain pants—if seams will bust, fabric will tear, or the DWR will wear out exceptionally quickly. You'll need to wash the PreCips with powder detergent, not liquid, and you can dry them on low. If your pants do wear out, you can file a warranty claim with Marmot. Their site doesn't provide a time frame for warranties, which suggests that you can swap the pants out at any time if something breaks down.
The PreCips are made from ripstop nylon so they still feel somewhat like trash bags. They weren't the quietest pants, either. However, that complaint extended to most of the pants we tested.
Though there are fabric flaps over the PreCip's zippers on the pockets and at the ankle to help shield you from water, the zippers aren't taped like they are on the pricier Mountain Hardwear pants we tested. This means they could let in some extra water. And although the zippers are plenty long, they're not as long as the zippers on the Torrentshells. The zippers don't vent, either. Finally, we didn't love the waistband on the PreCips. The drawstring is pretty flimsy, consisting of two wide strings that you tie together—we wish it was made of sturdier elastic that was easier to adjust.
If the PreCips are unavailable, Patagonia's Torrentshell pants (available in men's and women's versions) are nearly identical to our top pick. They're basic, waterproof pants with a few standout features: They have long, venting ankle zippers that make the pants easier to get on and off and articulated knees, and they're more breathable than many of the other options we tested. But the Torrentshells don't offer any inseam length variations—so if you're short or tall, these pants may not fit you quite as well as our top pick. They were also more expensive than our top pick at the time of this writing.
The fabric looks and feels identical to that of the PreCips. Both are made from 2.5-layer ripstop nylon. These pants are slightly heavier than the PreCips, with a pair of women's regular pants weighing 9.3 ounces, and a pair of men's regular pants weighing 10 ounces.
The Torrentshell pants did just as good a job as our top pick, the PreCips, when it came to keeping us dry in the Portland rain and staying breathable on a hike in the rain forest. The ankle zippers on the Torrentshell come up higher on the leg than on the other pants we tested, which makes getting the pants on and off over boots even easier than with our top pick. The Torrentshell's ankle zippers also allow for venting, a feature the PreCips lack. The Torrentshells have two zippered side pockets covered with a fabric shelf, and the pants fold and zip into one of the mesh pockets once you've taken them off. Articulated knees on the pants help with mobility.
Our biggest drawback for these pants was fit: If you're short or tall, you may be tripping over these pants. Size-wise, the men's version comes in XS to XXL (26- to 44-inch waist, 31- to 33-inch inseam), and the women's comes in XXS to XL (24½- to 35½-inch waist, 33½- to 44½-inch hip, 30- to 32-inch inseam). They come in black and gray in a men's version, and navy and black in a women's version.
The Torrentshell's ankle zippers also allow for venting, a feature the PreCips lack.
We don't think the Torrentshells are worth paying more for, but they're a good option if our top pick is unavailable. Other people like them, too: The Adventure Junkies considered the Torrentshells its top pick for 2017 hiking pants, and Momentum Magazine also liked these for biking, even though that's not what they're specifically designed for. These pants have overall good reviews on Backcountry; on Patagonia's site, there's one review, out of 16, that mentions ripping and another review that comments on the pants' poor breathability.
Helly Hansen's Voss Pants (available in men's and women's versions) are a good budget option if breathability isn't important to you, or if you plan to wear rain pants once in a blue moon. These pants were among the cheapest we tested but compared with similar budget pants, they kept us cooler, were better at repelling water, and they come in a greater range of sizes.
Rain pants can be useful in a variety of situations: gardening, sports games, frolicking around on a rare snow day, and working outside.
The Voss pants are not treated with DWR; they're made of waterproof polyurethane and they feel the most plasticky of any pants we tested. Because of the polyurethane, the Voss pants won't be as breathable as our top pick and runner-up options and they might take longer to dry after rain. I noticed after washing them that these, and the budget Frogg Togg pants, were the only pants we tested that took longer to dry. But the Voss pants' fabric was still preferable to the odd, tarp-like fabric of the Frogg Toggs. I also didn't get as hot in the Voss pants as I did while wearing the women's Columbia Storm Surge pants during our long Hoh Rain Forest hike.
Although the Voss pants don't come in multiple inseam lengths, Helly Hansen offers a wide range of sizes. The pants come in XS to XXXL (26- to 43½-inch waist) in a women's version, and XS to XXXL (30- to 48-inch waist) in a men's. These pants come only in black. There's no way to adjust the ankle fit on the Voss pants, so the cut is fairly wide—but though these can be difficult to move around in (because of their thick fabric and longer, baggy crotch), that extra space provides room for many baselayers.
The Voss pants lack any pockets or ankle zips. It's quite difficult to get them on and off while wearing boots, but the pants do stretch over shoes—with some effort—and they didn't rip. The pants also have an elastic, cinching waist belt, which is sturdier than the drawstring belts on our other picks.
These pants are highly reviewed on Amazon, with 4.2 stars (out of five) across 426 reviews for the men's pants and 4.2 stars across 261 reviews for the women's pants. Although this guide is geared toward rain pants for hiking, rain pants can be useful in a variety of situations: gardening, sports games, frolicking around on a rare snow day, and working outside. If you won't be doing intense hiking, are willing to sacrifice breathability for waterproofness, or just want the best pants for the least amount of money, these Voss pants are for you.
Mountain Hardwear Stretch Ozonic Pant (men's and women's): The fabric on the Stretch Ozonic pants is light, soft, and stretchy, and makes them feel and look more like hiking pants than a traditional rain layer. During our spray tests, water practically jumped off of this fabric. But when we took these out on a windy, rainy night, the pants started to wet through after just an hour. These are full-zip pants, which make them easy to get on and off. The Stretch Ozonics have a more tailored cut than many pants we tested; the men's version has a cinching buckle, and the women's has Velcro tabs at the sides.
Frogg Toggs Men's Bull Frogg Pant: The DriPore fabric on these budget pants feels similar to a tarp. During testing, we found these pants to be stiff, uncomfortable, and difficult to move around in. Water clung to these, too, rather than beading off.
Frogg Toggs Women's Pro Action Pants: These are the women's version of the men's Frogg Toggs Bull Frogg pants. The women's pants are made from the same material as the men's pants and they offer a similar cut to the men's pants. We found them to be just as uncomfortable.
Columbia Men's Rebel Roamer Rain Pant: Though these have two snaps at the ankles to help taper the pant legs, they lack ankle zippers, which makes them difficult to get on and off. We thought the comparable, cheaper Helly Hansen pants were a better budget option. The Rebel Roamers do come in 30- and 32-inch inseams.
Columbia Women's Storm Surge Rain Pant: The Storm Surge pants come in plus sizes in the women's version—the only pants in our test pool to come in these sizing options. But during testing, we found that these pants weren't breathable (likely due to their shell and mesh lining). These pants also lack ankle zippers and are difficult to get on and off over shoes.
North Face Venture 2 Half Zip (men's and women's): Although the Venture 2 pants come in three inseam lengths for men's and women's versions, the long and short versions are harder to find in stores and not available on the North Face site. These pants are attractive but they have a wider boot cut, which makes them feel like snow pants.
REI Co-op Talusphere Pants (men's and women's): I wanted to love these pants, which are made from a soft and stretchy fabric similar to the Stretch Ozonics and are almost half the price. But the boot cut was too wide for both me and our male tester, and an ankle cinch didn't do much to counter it. We couldn't move freely. We were also concerned about the durability of the thinner, stretchier fabric of these pants. We didn't experience any waterproofing problems with these pants, but we read a few reports online of the fabric wetting through. Some reviewers also mentioned that the waistband didn't hold up the pants very well. The Taluspheres come in three inseam lengths in both the men's and women's version: a 30-, 32-, and 34-inch inseam for men, and regular, petite, and tall lengths for women.
Mountain Hardwear Exponent Waterproof Pants (men's and women's): The Exponent pants are made from a VaporDry™ ripstop nylon fabric, which makes them less soft and less stretchy compared with the Stretch Ozonic pants (which are made from Dry.Q Active Stretch nylon). The Exponent pants have a few features that set them apart from other rain pants we tested: They have articulated knees for added mobility; they offer a convenient, taped thigh pocket; and the pants have loops at the bottom of the cuffs that tie to your boots to create a gaiter-like effect. They also come in short, regular, and long inseam lengths for men and women. The Exponents have a button-up, zippered crotch, as opposed to a drawstring waistband, so we found them more difficult to pull on over base layers. Though we liked these pants, they had far fewer reviews than our pick (between Amazon, Mountain Hardwear, Backcountry, and Moosejaw, there were nine reviews total), and were $20 more at the time of writing. We'll continue to try these out over the winter to see if they're worth the higher price, but they're certainly not a bad option.
Columbia OutDry Ex Gold Pants (men's and women's): The OutDry Ex Gold pants are made from one of the stiffest and least comfortable fabrics we tested. They are 100 percent nylon with a blend of proprietary OutDry Extreme in the inner membrane. These pants have visible taped external seaming. They were $150 at the time of writing, making them far more expensive than most of the pants we considered (and the others fit better and came in more inseam lengths, too). Additionally, the women's version of these pants has an extra-exaggerated hip curve that protruded comically away from my body due to the fabric's stiffness.
Zpacks Rain Kilt: Rain kilts shed water off of your body—they're like an umbrella, in skirt form—but they don't offer as much coverage as rain pants because they don't encapsulate your whole leg. Some ultralight hikers like kilts for their versatility (you can also use them as ground cloths, because they unfold into squares) and their lighter weights. If you're traveling somewhere warm or going to a place with lighter rain, a kilt may work for you, but we don't think a rain kilt is the best rainproofing option for most people.
If you do want to buy a kilt, we like the Zpacks rain kilt. Made of ultra-durable and lightweight Dyneem fabric, the kilt has a zipper to seal it and a cinch waist. In contrast, the other kilt we tested, the Üla, uses three pieces of Velcro as closures, which leave several slits where rain can get through. Though the Zpacks kilt is more rigid than the Üla, you can still move around in it.
Üla Rain Kilt: You close this rain kilt with three Velcro pieces, which creates gaps. It's less structured than the Zpacks kilt, and it's easier to move around in, but the fabric swishes around your legs—when I walked, the kilt kept getting stuck between my legs. Also, it's loud.
Care and maintenance instructions depend on each pair of pants, according to our experts. We found this to be true during our testing. "Every product will have a sewn-on care label… the company that's made them has probably wash tested them," said Sokolowski. "Usually, [you should] follow the suggested manufacturer's care [instructions]." For our wash test, we looked at care labels on each pair of pants. A few specified for powder detergent, including our pick. That's because compounds in liquid detergent can impede DWR from repelling water. When the DWR membrane starts to visibly flake off, that's a sign that your rain gear is failing. "A membrane like a Gore-Tex membrane is actually laminated to the outside fabric. If you wash or put these products in the dryer, the membrane will start to fall off," said Sokolowski.
You can re-treat your pants to maintain them. Michael recommended looking into company-specific washes or retreatments. (He specifically likes Nikwax, which adds DWR to your rain pants through a spray or wash, and said that the brand's "Tech Wash and TX.Direct are coupled together as a 1-2 punch for cleaning and re-treating.") Dirt, sweat, and grime on pants impedes DWR from working effectively; washing or rinsing between uses can help extend the pants' longevity. Drying pants on low for a short time can help reactivate DWR, too. You'll know if a DWR coating is intact if water beads on the pants (this is a good sign). If water soaks through the fabric, you're out of luck and need to reapply the coating.


Link to Facebook using HTML or the Facebook for WordPress plugin.
Integrating your WordPress blog with social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace is a major part of your marketing and promotional strategy. When a person clicks "Like" on your post or page, he shares your blog with friends on Facebook. You can add a Facebook Like box or button to every post or page on your WordPress by installing any of several free plug-ins.
Install and activate the Facebook Like Plugin. This adds a "Like" button to the top or bottom of WordPress posts and pages. Font, color, layout and size are all customizable from the Facebook Like page under the Settings menu. This plug-in may not work with other plug-ins, such as Facebook Share.
Install and activate the Facebook Share (New) plug-in. It allows users to Share, Like or Comment on a post or page. It also has built-in analytical features, such as tracking the number of Likes your post or page receives. Advanced users can customize the code to alter the appearance of the button.
Install and activate the WordPress Facebook Like plug-in. As well as selecting your own preferences for size, font and color, you can opt to show a box count, a button count or faces of Facebook users who have Liked your post or page.
Koenig, David. "How to Incorporate Facebook Likes Into WordPress." Small Business - Chron.com, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/incorporate-facebook-likes-wordpress-29385.html. Accessed 21 April 2019.


text:
SKU: berniemac
Bernard Jeffrey "Bernie" McCullough (October 5, 1957 – August 9, 2008) better known by his stage name Bernie Mac, was an American comedian, actor, and voice artist. Born and raised on Chicago's south side, Mac gained popularity as a stand-up comedian. He joined fellow comedians Steve Harvey, Cedric the Entertainer, and D. L. Hughley in the film The Original Kings of Comedy.
After briefly hosting the HBO show Midnight Mac, Mac appeared in several films in smaller roles. His most noted film role was as Frank Catton in the remake Ocean's Eleven and the title character of Mr. 3000. He was the star of The Bernie Mac Show, which ran from 2001 through 2006, earning him two Emmy Award nominations for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series. Mac's other films included starring roles in Booty Call, Friday, The Players Club, Head of State, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, Bad Santa, Guess Who, Pride, Soul Men, Transformers, Old Dogs, and Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa.
Finer selected 11" x 14" frames, hand assembled and matted down to 8" x 10" that will demand attention in any mancave or she shed.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


BEIRUT, Nov 22 (Reuters) Hundreds of Lebanese mourners pressed today to touch the coffin of minister Pierre Gemayel whose assassination, blamed by his allies on Syria, stoked fears of more killings and a surge in factional violence.
Anger and apprehension gripped the country as it prepared to bury Industry Minister Gemayel, a Christian gunned down as he drove through a Beirut suburb yesterday. He was the sixth anti-Syrian politician to be killed in nearly two years.
Several prominent anti-Syrian leaders said his death was the work of Damascus and they expected the murders of more politicians who had spearheaded protests that led to Syria's military withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005.
''It seems the Syrian regime will continue with the assassinations. I expect more assassinations but no matter what they do, we are here and we will be victorious,'' Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said.
Gemayel's assassination turned Lebanon's Independence Day on Wednesday into a sombre occasion. All festivities, including a military parade, were cancelled.
The murder also heightened tensions between the anti-Syrian government and the pro-Damascus opposition led by Hezbollah, the powerful Shi'ite Muslim guerrilla group determined to topple what it regards as a pro-US cabinet.
Syrian envoys denied the accusations of its involvement in the killing and joined the wave of international condemnation.
US President George W Bush called Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to offer his support after the assassination and pledged ''to support Lebanese independence from the encroachments of Iran and Syria'', a White House spokesman said.
Bush also called Gemayel's father, former president Amin Gemayel, to offer condolences.
Gemayel's funeral will take place tomorrow and the anti-Syrian coalition has urged a large turnout.
The 34-year-old's body was driven from a hospital near Beirut to his hometown of Bekfaya, northeast of the capital, where hundreds of weeping mourners walked behind the coffin, waving white-and-green flags of his Phalange Party.
As the procession made its way to Gemayel's family home, women on balconies threw rice and flower petals.


text:
Q: high memory consumption in basic react-native app I was making my first react native and as much easy I though it would be, it is turning out to be difficult for me to understand what I could be doing wrong.
To start with, I have a very simple app which fetches data through redux
componentWillMount() {

    this.props.fetchCoin()
    this.props.CurrencyRate()
  }

and then renders this in its return part
 return (
     <ScrollView>
                 <Header />
                 {/* Custom Search Input */}
                 <View>
                 <TextInput
                  style={textInput}
                  placeholder="Search Coin"
                  onChangeText={(text) => this.onSearch(text)} />
                  </View>
                  <View>
                  <FlatList
                   data={this.state.searchCoin ? displaySearchCrypto : this.props.cryptoLoaded}
                   renderItem={({ item }) => (
                   <CoinCard
                      key={item["long"]}
                      coinShortName = {item["short"]}
                      coinName = {item["long"]}
                      coinPrice = {item["price"].toFixed(2)}
                      marketCap = {(item["mktcap"]/1000000000).toFixed(4)}
                      percentChange = {item["perc"].toFixed(2)}
                      vwapData={item["vwapData"].toFixed(2)}
                      coinImage={"https://coincap.io/images/coins/" + item["long"] + ".png"}
                      />
                  )}
          />
          </View>
               </ScrollView>
           )
      }
    }

I am seeing my ram consumption to be greater than 500 MB even after
  the app have fetched data and UI thread sticked to 60 (fps) where i
  think nothing in UI is happening

Instead of sharing all my code: You can find most of the stuff at github
The above snippet code is shared from here: https://github.com/irohitb/Crypto/blob/master/src/container/cryptoContainer.js
The CoinCard Component in the above code can be seen here: https://github.com/irohitb/Crypto/blob/master/src/components/CoinCard.js
And Action for the same is here: https://github.com/irohitb/Crypto/blob/master/src/actions/cryptoAction.js
[Question:] Can someone please help me find out what am I doing wrong and how could I fix it? This repository should work on your simulator without throwing an error if in case someone wants try it out.

A: FlatList with Image has an open issue on Android: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/issues/13413. There are some tips on performance here: https://github.com/filipemerker/flatlist-performance-tips/
As a first attempt to fix, try  adding removeClippedSubviews to your FlatList, although that comes with trade offs.
I also note in the screenshot that you are getting a warning about missing keys. Fix that issue and try keyExtractor and see if that improves things.
Alternatively, use something other than FlatList, e.g. ScrollView. You will lose some of the features of the FlatList but if you get acceptable memory usage and performance, it may be worth it.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


SPWAO Showcase [#8½, 1993] ed. Thomas M. K. Stratman & Mark Olson (Shawano, WI, $4.00, iv+52pp+, quarto, cover by Ted Guerin) The Chaser.
Star*Line [v16 #1, Jan./Feb. 1993] ed. Marge Ballif Simon (SFPA, $2.00, 20pp, octavo, cover by ?) Partial contents, issue not seen.
Star*Line [v16 #3, May/June 1993] ed. Marge Ballif Simon (SFPA, $2.00, 20pp, octavo, cover by John R. Borkowski) Partial contents, issue not seen.
Star*Line [v16 #6/7, Nov/Dec 1993] ed. Marge Ballif Simon (SFPA, $2.00, 36pp, octavo, cover by Cathy Buburuz) Special double issue with prose poetry.
Strange Attractor [#3, March 1993] ed. Rick Cadger (Cadger, Rick, £2.00, 54pp, A5) Small press dark fantasy/horror fiction magazine. Available from Rick Cadger, 111 Sundon Road, HOUGHTON REGIS, Beds, LU5 5NL.
28 · An Interview with George Alec Effinger: Part I · Eric M. Heideman · iv [George Alec Effinger]; edited from the Guest of Honor interview at Minicon 26, Mar 30 '91.
26 · An Interview with George Alec Effinger: Part II · Eric M. Heideman · iv Tales of the Unanticipated #11 '93 [George Alec Effinger]; edited from a discussion at Minicon 26, Mar 31 '91.


Failing to see the difference in value between a long-time customer and a fresh acquisition undermines brands on a regular basis. This tends to stem from viewing business decisions as isolated incidents, which is a flawed perspective — any given arrangement is just one link in a lengthy chain.
The need to understand and cater to these chains produced customer lifecycle marketing. Instead of treating each business opportunity as a generic context-free entity, it considers myriad factors, including where prospective clients have been, where they might be going, and what value they offer.
In doing so, it makes it possible to greatly improve efficiency, reducing the churn, building up loyalty, and producing compounding results. Let's take a closer look at how adopting customer lifecycle marketing can make your company even more successful.
Highly efficient marketing is all about finding the path to success with the least resistance, and the more widely you expand your scope when looking at customer journeys, the more opportunities you'll find for easy improvement (this is huge for UX).
Think of it as getting more bites at the apple — instead of needing to get one step performing 10% better, you can make 10 steps perform 1% better, and their results will compound. You may even find as you look more closely into what's happening that some part of the process you were previously overlooking has been serving as a major (but easy to remove) obstacle.
SaaS companies have really led the way in getting incredibly granular with their acquisition and retention processes, largely because their funnels are so consistent that they can easily check the analytics for maximum detail. Change the color of a button at the right time and you might end up with 3% more conversions for very little effort.
Instead of placing all the emphasis on carrying out specific discrete actions, taking a lifecycle-oriented approach prioritizes a customer's overall positive momentum regarding your business. This is preferable because customers on average generate more value for a business the longer they use it.
Think about how a business relationship can break down if neither party is willing to make any concessions on a particular point of contention. Smart marketers understand that it is sometimes worth taking a small loss today to retain a customer which is likely to generate a lot of revenue and networking opportunities in the long run. You can't treat all clients the same.
And this isn't even taking into account the additional off-the-books benefits of extended B2B associations. The longer you have a professional association with another company, the more chances you get to learn about (and spend time with) the people there. Being on a first-name basis with the bulk of your clients is a sure indication of your operational consistency and a positive sign for any company thinking about working with you.
The line between business and personal communications has been steadily eroded due to social media channels, and it is now near-mandatory for a business with big customer service ambitious to adopt a multi-channel approach. The idea is to be accessible whenever and wherever necessary, working to keep clients happy, answer questions, fulfill requests, and carry out essential PR work (an ill-timed negative tweet can sink a brand image).
Customer lifecycle marketing ties social media activity into the customer's business decisions, breaking down how, when and why it affects their choices. If you stick rigidly to your internal sales funnel and public perception turns against you, you'll be unable to address it until the damage has already been done.
While it takes a lot of work to maintain a steady presence across major social media channels, you don't need to handle it all manually. There are countless tools to automate the most laborious elements: there are popular options such as Buffer or HootSuite (and plenty of viable alternatives) that you can use for queuing and reusing social media content, and then there's the relatively recent advent of sophisticated chatbots.
Chatbots are quickly proving their value for for B2B businesses. Shopify lends further value to its ecommerce CMS by providing a chatbot called Kit that can be used to manage stores and create ads through Messenger, and Winnie is a user-friendly way for an affiliate site to incentivize users to buy hosting through its revenue-driving links. If you set up a chatbot to deal with common queries, you can establish a solid level of 24/7 support.
Every business has room to grow and change and remaining static is a sure sign of impending decline, so you need feedback to give you an idea of how you can get better — but not all feedback is of equal value. Feedback from a new customer will be shallow and unreliable. You don't know them, they don't know you, and it will be a reflection of their first impression more than anything else.
But feedback from a long-time client is tremendously useful. Not only will they feel much more comfortable about being candid with you, but their information will also be vastly more comprehensive. They'll be able to tell you about how their opinion of you has changed, what parts of your operation delight or frustrate them, and what changes you can make to avoid complaints before they happen.
Remember that a business is more than the sum of its parts. The online world is rife with people buying and selling any type of business they can find, and the prices are generally low because a business without management, brand or established audience simply isn't worth much. It's your image and your actions that matter most, and those are reflected in the clients you'd had the longest.
You can't base everything you do on what your most loyal customers want, of course — that would be putting all your eggs in one basket — but you should give it the serious consideration it merits.
Customer lifecycle marketing is more efficient, produces compounding effects, and helps your business to function better. For all these reasons, and more, any company that doesn't want to rest on its laurels should be moving away from traditional marketing models and towards multi-channel strategies that prioritize customer retention and engender brand advocacy.
Patrick Foster is a writer and ecommerce expert from Ecommerce Tips — an industry-leading ecommerce blog that offers practical marketing advice, so your online store receives the exposure it deserves. Check out the latest posts on Twitter @myecommercetips.
Part One: What is Customer Friction and Why is it Important?


text:
require 'spec_helper'

describe 'DataGenerator' do
  describe '#username' do
    it 'returns a random username when not passed a seed argument' do
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.username).to match(/^\w+\d{1,2}$/)
    end

    it 'returns a repeatable username when called with a seed argument' do
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.username('amleaver')).to eq('wetmask17')
    end
  end

  describe '#postcode' do
    it 'returns a randomized postcode' do
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.postcode).to match(/^\w{2}\d{1,2} \d\w{2}$/)
    end
  end

  describe '#uk_passport' do
    it 'returns a randomized UK passport number' do
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.uk_passport).to match(/^\d{10}GBR\d{7}\w\d{7}<{12}\d{2}$/)
    end
  end

  describe '#random_number_string' do
    it 'returns a string composed of random numbers for the specified length' do
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.random_number_string(1)).to match(/^\d{1}$/)
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.random_number_string(8)).to match(/^\d{8}$/)
    end
  end

  describe '#random_character_string' do
    it 'returns a string composed of random characters for the specified length' do
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.random_character_string(1)).to match(/^\w{1}$/)
      expect(PseudoDb::DataGenerator.random_character_string(8)).to match(/^\w{8}$/)
    end
  end
end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The Petitions disputed the legal validity of the Gas Outline adopted by the Government in the framework of Government Decision 432 in regard to the treatment of the gas reserves (hereinafter: the Gas Outline). The state and the gas companies holding the franchises defended the Gas Outline.
The Court majority (Deputy President E. Rubinstein, Justices S. Joubran, E. Hayut, and U. Vogelman concurring, Justice N. Sohlberg dissenting) held that the regulatory stability clause, as set out in sections 5 and 6 of Chap. J of the Gas Outline, could not stand. The clause bound the Government to the Outline – including in regard to legislative changes and opposition to legislative initiatives, and primarily in regard to regulatory changes in the areas of taxation, restrictive trade practices, and export caps – for a period of ten years. The Court held that the arrangement contravened a basic rule of administrative law in regard to prohibiting the restriction of an authority's discretion. The Court explained that the Outline's provisions not only bound the hands of the Government – and of future governments – but also of the legislature.
In light of the above, and in view of the Respondents' declaration that the stability clause was a sine qua non, Deputy President E. Rubinstein and Justices S. Joubran and U. Vogelman were of the opinion that the entire Outline must be annulled. However, the state would be granted one year to rectify the matter in accordance with the Court's decision. If the matter not be rectified, the Gas Outline would be annulled.
As opposed to this, Justice E. Hayut was of the opinion that the Court should strike down the stability clause alone. In her opinion, the gas companies should be left to decide whether or not they wish to cancel the Outline under the circumstances.
In this regard, the Deputy President explained, inter alia, that when an agency is granted authority by law, that authority also comprises a duty to exercise discretion. Simply put, the Government does not have the authority to decide not to decide and not to act. This is all the more the case when the issue is one that is the subject of real political debate, and where the executive branch apparently seeks to bind the discretion of its successors, whose composition and ideology may differ from those of the incumbent government. Pursuant to that, the Court held that the Government had unlawfully discarded its discretion, and in substance, even hobbled the Knesset's discretion due to party discipline that is often invoked, particularly in regard to sensitive political issues. The issue was also examined in light of the administrative representation doctrine, that is, the government's ability to make binding promises (even if they may be rescinded, with sanctions, in extreme cases), in light of the announcement by the Government and the gas companies that the Outline should be viewed as such. The Court held that the promise was ultra vires. I this regard, Justice Vogelman emphasized that the scope and term of the stability clause, as well as the "price tag" attendant to its anticipatory breach create, in practice, an unlawful restriction upon administrative discretion. However, in the opinion of Justice Vogelman, nothing would prevent the Knesset form adopting a legislative solution that would permit the Government to establish the three arrangements addressed by the stability clause for a defined term, whether by specific legislation or by legislation that would expressly enable the Government to do so.
Justice Hayut found, inter alia, that the restraining provisions in the Gas Outline are particularly far-reaching, inter alia, because they tie the hands and legs of the Government, which, in practice, controls the Knesset legislative process in regard to initiating legislation. Moreover, according to Justice Hayut, the Government's active undertaking in the provisions of the stability clause to frustrate any legislative change that would be contrary to the Outline, if enacted by means of a private-members bill, crosses all the acceptable boundaries of parliamentary democracy, and renders the restraining provisions clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional. Justice Hayut further expressed the view that, in practice, and despite the rescission doctrine, the restraining provisions create a regulatory and legislative freeze by exposing the state to a suit for significant damages for an unknown amount by the gas companies in the case of extrication from the Outline or any part thereof.
In the opinion of Justice Sohlberg, although the regulatory stability clause restricts the administrative discretion of the Government, the clause could stand. There is no need for legislating the Gas Outline, and the Government's decision, which was approved by the Knesset plenum, is sufficient. Therefore, in his opinion, the Petitions should be dismissed.
In the opinion of Justice Sohlberg, the stability clause does not restrict the Knesset's legislative power, and the Knesset is sovereign to legislate as it sees fit. The stability clause restricts the discretion of the Government, and it is, indeed, exceptional in its term, scope and the expected economic consequences of its breach. However, even the combined force of those characteristics do not result in the absolute restriction of the Government's discretion by the stability clause. A restriction of discretion is an inevitable consequence of the very existence of administrative contracts and promises, and the balance is expressed by the administrative rescission doctrine, and the possibility of withdrawing an administrative promise. Thus, the Government continues to enjoy a certain margin of future discretion, and in any case, a stability clause grounded in a governmental decision is more flexible than one grounded in a statute. The government has the authority and the professional tools for deciding upon the optimal approach to exploiting gas resources, which is a decision that requires establishing a multidimensional policy. The subject at hand is at the heart of administrative discretion. The Government is permitted to act in that regard in advancing legislation. The regulatory stability clause is part of a "package deal" that resulted from lengthy, complex professional negotiations conducted between the state and the gas companies. In the case of enormous investments of the type under concern, a ten-year undertaking is reasonable, and is required in order to establish policy and act for the realization of important long-term projects. Moreover, under the State Property Law, the Government can, in principle, sell the gas reserves in whole or in part, and such a sale would constitute an absolute restraint of future discretion. If the Government is authorized to do the maximum (to sell), it can certainly do a lesser part thereof (the Gas Outline, including its regulatory stability clause).
By a majority opinion of Justices E. Hayut, U. Vogelman, and N. Sohlberg, against the dissenting opinion of Deputy President E. Rubinstein and Justice S. Joubran, the Court held that the validity of the entire Outline (as opposed to the stability clause) is not contingent upon enacting primary legislation.
In this regard, in the opinion of the Deputy President and Justice S. Joubran, the Outline (as distinct from the stability clause) constitutes a primary arrangement that requires that it be grounded, in its entirety, in primary legislation rather than in a governmental decision. In the opinion of Justice Sohlberg, while it is a primary arrangement, the existing legislation suffices to empower the Government to decide upon the matter of the Gas Outline, and no further legislation is necessary. In the opinion of Justice Vogelman, even if it would be proper from a public perspective that the Outline be brought before the Knesset in the form of primary legislation, there is no legal obligation to do so under the circumstances. In the opinion of Justice Vogelman, the question of whether the Outline constitutes a primary arrangement must not be examined in accordance with the "overall picture" that arises therefrom, but rather with attention to its concrete details, while focusing upon the aspects that concern the structural changes that may be expected in the gas market and the promotion of competition. In this regard, Justice Vogelman was of the opinion that inasmuch as the Gas Outline is a framework that unites the activities of all the relevant regulators in the natural gas market, each in its area of expertise – in a sort of pooling of regulatory powers – it is legally possible to arrange it in the framework of a governmental decision. Moreover, Justice Vogelman was of the opinion that it is questionable whether the economic-market importance of the Outline and the public debate that accompanied it require, in and of themselves, a finding that the Outline constitutes a primary arrangement. In any case, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Outline constitutes a primary arrangement, there is sufficient authority for it to be established without need for primary legislation. This authority derives from the combination of all the legal provisions that expressly authorize governmental agencies to make each and every one of the arrangements established in the Outline individually.
Under the circumstances, the Court – with the exception of certain comment by Justice Joubran – did not see any problem in the use made of sec. 52 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Law, which grants the Minister of the Economy authority to exempt a restrictive trade practice from the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Law for foreign relations and security considerations. The Deputy President noted that this is also the case – although not unproblematically – in regard to the issues of taxation, price supervision, and export, each in its own right.
In regard to the use of the said sec. 52, the Deputy President explained, inter alia, that in such exceptional situations in which there are significant matters of security and state, those matters must be weighed – after determining the issue of authority – against the harm that may be caused to competition (which is the purpose of the Restrictive Trade Practices Law) by making recourse to the section. The issue that must be addressed is the public good. In other words, once the "bar of exceptions" has been successfully cleared in terms of authority, there is a sort of "parallelogram of force" between the interest in competition and the state and security interests. The greater the harm to competition, the greater the need for weighty state or security interests in order to justify recourse to sec. 52. Under the circumstances, and despite the significant harm to the interest in competition, the Court held that the state and security interests were significant, and it therefore cannot be said that recourse to the section was unreasonable. Although recourse to sec. 52 should be limited to exceptional circumstances, the matter before the Court fell within that scope.
In conclusion, the Court struck down the Gas Outline due to the stability clause (without finding cause for judicial intervention in any of the other issues), while holding its ruling in abeyance for a period of one year in order to allow time for rectifying the matter.
It should be noted that the Deputy President emphasized throughout his opinion that the Court would not examine the economic wisdom of the Outline, and would not express its opinion on the matter. The issue addressed by the Court was a legal one – the limits of governmental authority in a democratic regime, and the extent to which a government may stretch its residual authority – its general authority to act – in the absence of express authority granted by the legislature in regard to a matter of extraordinary, unprecedented economic consequences.
These petitions address felicitous discoveries of large natural gas reservoirs in Israel's exclusive economic zone, of which we have been informed in recent years. The petitions dispute the legal validity of an outline that was decided by the Government of Israel in the framework of Government Decision 476 regarding the Matter of Handling the Gas Reservoirs (hereinafter: the "Gas Outline"), and the State and the gas companies, the franchisees of the reservoirs, are defending the Outline. It shall at the outset be emphasized that throughout his opinion Deputy President E. Rubinstein emphasized that the Court is not requesting to examine the economic wisdom of the Outline and does not wish to express an opinion in this matter. The issue that is being examined thereby is a legal question – the limits of the government's power and authority in a democratic regime, and the extent to which its residual power and authority – its general power and authority to act – can be stretched, when the legislator did not explicitly authorize it and when the economic significance is so unprecedentedly immense.
First, what are the circumstances in which Section 52 of the Antitrust Law, 5748-1988, which vests the Minister of Economy the power and authority to exempt a restrictive practice from the provisions of the Antitrust Law on grounds of foreign policy and security considerations, can be applied; and was the section applied with authority and in a reasonable manner in the case at hand – whereby the Prime Minister and the Minister of Economy (then as acting minister) relied on this section.
Second, was Chapter 10 of the Outline, which grants the gas companies a stable regulatory environment, and in other words, constitutes a Government undertaking not to change the Outline, including by legislative changes and objections to legislative initiatives, and which essentially serves as protection against regulatory changes in the fields of taxes, antitrust and export quotas, for the duration of a decade – prescribed with authority.
Third, does the Gas Outline, including all of its aspects, complexity and importance to the economy of Israel, not amount to a "primary regulation", which requires primary legislation, rather than a Government decision.
As to the application of Section 52: After examining the Petitioners' arguments relating to the matter of power and authority, the matter of exercising discretion and the issue of proper procedure, Justice Rubenstein reached the conclusion that Section 52 was applied on grounds of foreign policy and security in a reasonable manner and with authority. It was explained that in terms of authority, the Court was convinced that the foreign policy and security considerations are real considerations, which in the case at hand allow entering the scope of Section 52. This was in light of security opinions and opinions in the foreign policy field that were filed, as well as after hearing the position of senior government persons, including the Prime Minister. It was reasoned that in exceptional cases, in which there are significant security and foreign policy considerations, then, after examining the authority aspect, they should be weighed against the infringement that could be caused to competition (the purpose of the Antitrust Law) as a result of exercising the section; and the consideration is the public interest. In other words, once the "exceptionality threshold" has been overcome in terms of the authority aspect, there is the reasonableness aspect, creating a sort of "parallelogram of forces" between the interest of competition and the security-foreign policy interest. The greater the infringement of the competition interest, the stronger the security-foreign policy grounds will have to be, in order to exercise the section; and as mentioned, given these circumstances, despite the significant infringement of the competition interest, it was ruled that the security- foreign policy grounds bear heavy weight, and it follows that it cannot be said that the section was exercised in an unreasonable manner. All after having clarified that Section 52 shall only be exercised in unusual circumstances, but that the matter at hand falls within those grounds.
It was further found, although not without difficulty, that each of the taxation policy, the supervision of the prices and the export which appear in the Outline – in and of themselves – were prescribed with authority and in a reasonable manner, however this is not the case with respect to their aggregate impact. This shall be elaborated upon further on.
As to Chapter 10 which addresses a stable regulatory environment: Justice Rubenstein's position is that the stability clause in this chapter of the Outline, in which the Government commits to a decade during which it not only will not legislate but will also object to any legislation that is against the provisions of the Outline, was prescribed ultra-vires and is void. This is due to the fact that it was prescribed contrary to the basic administrative law rule regrading prohibiting restricting an authority's discretion. It was explained that when an authority is granted power and authority, the power and authority also create an obligation – the obligation of exercising discretion; simply put, the Government does not have the power and authority to decide not to decide or not to take action. It was emphasized that this is all the more relevant when at hand is a matter that is subject to real political dispute, and when the authority wishes to restrict the discretion of its successors, the composition of which and the ideology it may hold may be different than that of the present government. Furthermore, once it was decided in the Outline that the Government shall avoid regulatory changes in the fiscal field, the antitrust field, and the export quotas that had been prescribed in Government Decision 442, for a period of a decade, the Government has, unlawfully, relieved itself from its discretion. Furthermore, it was ruled that once the Outline which is the subject of this discussion, predetermines that the Government shall object to private bills in the said fields, also for a period of decade, then this, in effect, essentially even restricts the Knesset's discretion in light of the party discipline that is often exercised, especially when at hand are politically sensitive matters. The issue was also examined through the prism of the administrative promise doctrine, i.e. the Government's ability to give binding promises (even if in extreme cases, they can be cancelled with sanctions), this was in light of the notice by the State and the gas companies that the Outline should be viewed as such, and it was ruled that at hand is a promise that was given ultra vires.
As to the issue of the primary regulation: Following the above, Justice Rubinstein examined whether it as appropriate to regulate the issues addressed in the Outline by primary legislation, or whether one can suffice with the Government decision. After examining the justifications for all of the primary regulations – i.e. that matters of signal importance should be regulated by legislation – Justice Rubinstein reached the conclusion that the case at hand is a clear case, where the aggregate entirety of aspects which require to be regulated warrant that the matter be regulated by primary legislation, in an orderly and transparent process, which addresses the matter with the participation of the public and of the relevant entities, by the elected authority. It was emphasized that it is possible that with respect to each chapter of the Outline it could be argued that primary legislation is not required, however the essence is the overall impact, and at hand is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, since at hand is an almost primary regulation of the matter of producing and selling natural gas, and all its various aspects, that has huge economic implications, and which is the subject of deep public dispute. Thus, according to Justice Rubinstein, the Government deviated from the limits of its powers and authorities, when it desired – even if with good intentions – to regulate an important, sensitive, multi-dimensional systematic matter with enormous implications, not by way of legislation, and for this reason as well it was ruled that the Outline was prescribed ultra vires.
As to the relief – the operative outcome – according to Justice Rubinstein, in light of that stated above, the Outline should be ruled void, but the date of the voidness should be suspended. The State is given a period of a year during which it can act to regulate the matter of the natural gas. If at the end of a year from the date this judgment is given, there is no such, or other, regulation, the Gas Outline that was prescribed in Government Decision 476 shall be cancelled.
Justice S. Joubran concurred with Deputy President E. Rubinstein's judgment and with the outcome he reached.
In the matter of the primary regulation, Justice Joubran emphasized in his opinion that the primary nature of the Gas Outline should be examined in its entirety and not in accordance with the specific regulatory decisions of which it is comprised. This approach is based on the process in which the Outline was adopted by the Government and the Knesset, as a single arrangement that is not separated into parts; and based on its nature and essence as a comprehensive decision that regulates the natural gas market. Justice Joubran emphasized in his opinion that the Gas Outline is an entire policy decision that sets priorities among various interests which relate to the gas market, and he found that the specific regulatory decisions are only a tool to implement the entire Outline. Additionally, Justice Joubran noted the contractual nature of the Gas Outline, which is the outcome of negotiations between the State and the gas companies. In light of the importance of the Gas Outline, its economic implications and the public debate it raises, Justice Joubran joined the position of the Deputy President that the Gas Outline, in its entirety, is a primary regulation, and the regulating thereof by a Government decision requires authorization by primary legislation of the Knesset.
Additionally, Justice Joubran joined the position of the Deputy President that the regulatory stability provisions prescribed in Chapter 10 of the Gas Outline were prescribed without authority, since the Government was not entitled to restrict its own discretion nor the discretion of the Knesset. Justice Joubran added that in his opinion there is a flaw in the sweeping wording of the stability provisions, which could compromise Israel's international standing, if the State were required to renege on undertakings it had previously given.
Finally, Justice Joubran elaborated on flaws, which according to him, occurred in the exercise of Section 52 of the Antitrust Law. First, Justice Joubran found that the factual background, which served as the foundation for exercising Section 52 of the Antitrust Law, was lacking, due to the absence of an expert opinion examining the Gas Outline's impact on competition in the market. Second, Justice Joubran found that the timeframes which were given to the public to express its position regarding the Gas Outline in the framework of the public hearing were insufficient, such that the principle of public participation in the process of reaching the decisions, and of transparency in the political process, were compromised. However, Justice Joubran found that in light of the outcome he reached in the matter of the primary regulation, these matters would be addressed in the framework of the legislative procedure.
1. The Regulatory Stability Clause – According to Justice Sohlberg the stability clause does not restrict the Knesset's legislative power, and the Knesset is sovereign to do as it wishes; the stability clause limits the Government's discretion, and it is indeed unusual: (a) in its duration – for many years; (b) in its scope – refraining from legislation and an undertaking to change contradicting legislation; (c) in the economic consequences that are expected to derive from the non-fulfillment thereof; However, even considering the accumulation of these characteristics, the stability clause does not constitute an absolute restriction of the Government's discretion. The restriction of discretion is a necessary consequence of the mere existence of administrative contracts and administrative promises, and the balance is expressed in the rules of rescission and in the possibility of withdrawing from an administrative promise. Thus, the Government is left with a certain room for discretion with an eye to the future, and in any event, a stability clause that is anchored in the Government decision, is more flexible than anchoring it in legislation.
The Government is granted the power and authority and has the professional tools to decide on the optimal outline for utilizing the gas resource, a decision that requires prescribing a multi-dimensional policy. The matter at hand is at the core of the discretion of the administrative authority. The Government may act in the matter to promote legislation. The regulatory stability clause is part of an entire 'package deal', which is the result of long and complex professional negotiations that were conducted by the State vis-à-vis the gas companies. In investments of this kind, an undertaking for 10 years is acceptable, and is required in order to prescribe policy and act to realize it by executing long term important projects. It will certainly be very expensive if the Government shall decide in the future not to fulfill its undertaking under the Outline. This depends on the scope of the investments, the degree of deviation from the Outline, the timing thereof, but it still may be an "efficient breach", if the scope of the profit shall exceed the amount of compensation. We are dealing with a unique matter, of a completely different order of magnitude than that to which are accustomed. At hand is a huge economic investment on the part of the entrepreneurs, at a significant risk on their part; there is an economic, political and security need for the implementation of the Outline as quickly as possible; the regulatory stability clause has signal importance within the entirety of the matter and is essential for the gas companies, as a prerequisite for the engagement; and ultimately – the enormous financial consideration which we all hope will be given from the said investment, for the benefit of the entrepreneurs, the State and its citizens. It follows from all of the above that it is only reasonable that the State shall be forced to bear a significant monetary cost to rescind from the administrative promise that is embedded in the Outline, since the greater the reward, the greater the risk. The reasonableness of the restriction of the discretion should be examined through this prism. Furthermore, according to the State Assets Law, the Government, in principle, is entitled to sell all or part of the gas reservoirs, and the actual sale is an absolute restriction of its future discretion. If the Government is permitted to perform a greater act (of selling), then, a fortiori it is permitted to perform a lesser one (the Gas Outline, including its regulatory stability clause).
Based on the grounds he states in paragraphs 8-39 of his opinion, Justice Sohlberg reached the conclusion that the regulatory stability clause is not illegal. The Government is authorized to restrict its discretion as it did, subject to the ability to rescind from the administrative promise.
2. Anchoring the Gas Outline in a Government Decision or Knesset Legislation – the entirety of the Government decision – in the field of export of the gas, taxation, antitrust, along with the regulatory stability clause – creates a primary regulation. However, contrary to the opinion of the Deputy President, Justice Sohlberg is of the opinion that existing legislation, by virtue of which the Government is authorized to decide on the Gas Outline, is sufficient and that there is no need for additional legislation. Section 52 of the Antitrust Law is the source of authority to grant an exemption from the antitrust laws; Section 33(a) of the Oil Law is the source of authority regarding the matter of exporting the gas. Once Justice Sohlberg reached the conclusion that the various components of the Government's decision are properly anchored in authorizing legislation, he raised the difficult question as to how it is possible to prohibit the Government from acting by virtue of such authorizing legislation, due only to the appearance of the 'entirety' thereof? In any event, even if the explicit authorization in the relevant laws with respect to the parts of the Outline are not sufficient, there is also clear authorization with regard to its entirety, in Section 5(a) of the State Assets Law.
The conclusion is that the Government is authorized by law to prescribe the Gas Outline as it did; although the regulatory stability clause indeed restricts the Government's administrative discretion, it is valid; there is no need for legislating the Gas Outline; legislative regulation is expected to encounter difficulties (paragraphs 64-66); a Government decision is sufficient. The natural gas is the property of the State. The Government – as the public's trustee for the State's assets – has the obligation to exercise its power and authority in the matter at hand, which is at the core of governmental actions, in order to preserve the proprietary rights of the State in and to the natural gas, in the optimal manner. Not only was the Government permitted to decide, act and do; it was obligated to do so. This is its responsibility and its duty.
Justice U. Vogelman joined the greater part of Deputy President E. Rubinstein's opinion, to which Justice S. Joubran also joined, including the determination that the regulatory stability clause in its current format cannot remain intact. In this regard Justice Vogelman emphasized that the scope and duration of the stability clause, as well as the "price tag" that accompanies its anticipated breach, create a de facto prohibited restriction of administrative discretion. Justice Vogelman added: "I wish to emphasize that I am not in any way ignoring the economic logic underlying the investors' demand for regulatory stability. It is obvious that in consideration for the latter's huge investments, they expect to reduce their risks, in such a manner that will enable them to return their investment and even receive appropriate yield. This interest of the investors must be properly addressed. As my colleague, the Deputy President, clarified in his detailed opinion, there are various possible models to do so. However, as mentioned above, the specific stability clause at hand is not included among such models, in light of its said unique characteristics." Alongside that, according to Justice Vogelman, there is nothing to preclude the Knesset from formulating a legislative arrangement that would allow the Government to anchor the three arrangements which the stability clause addressed, for a defined period of time, either by legislating a designated regulation, or by legislating a provision that would explicitly authorize the Government to do so.
On the other hand, Justice Vogelman did not join the position of the Deputy President and Justice S. Joubran that the Outline (apart from the stability clause) amounts to a primary regulation that warrants – in its entirety – being anchored by primary legislation. According to him, even if it would be appropriate, from a public aspect, that the Outline be brought before the Knesset as primary legislation, given the circumstances of the matter, there is no legal obligation to do so. According to Justice Vogelman's position, the question whether the Outline is a primary regulation should not be examined based on its "entirety" but rather considering its concrete specifics while focusing on the aspects that relate to the anticipated structural changes in the gas market and the promotion of competition. In this context, Justice Vogelman is of the opinion that since the Outline is a framework that consolidates all of the relevant regulators in the natural gas market, each one within his own scope of authority – as a pooling of regulatory forces – it is possible, from a legal perspective – to regulate it in the framework of a Government decision.
Furthermore, Justice Vogelman is of the opinion that it is doubtful whether the economic-market significance of the Outline and the public dispute that has accompanied its formulation, in and of themselves warrant the ruling that the Outline amounts to a primary regulation. In any event, even if it is assumed, for the sake of the discussion, that the Outline amounts to a primary regulation, there is sufficient authorization for it to be prescribed not by primary legislation. Such authorization derives from the combination of all of the legislation provisions that explicitly authorize the authorities to prescribe each and every one of the arrangements that were prescribed in the framework of the Outline.
As for the relief, Justice U. Vogelman joined the position of the Deputy President E. Rubinstein.
Justice E. Hayut is of the opinion that only the restrictive provisions in Chapter 10 of the Outline should be cancelled, and that as long as these provisions are removed from the Outline, there is no need to cancel the rest of its provisions.
In her opinion, Justice Hayut states that the Outline does not completely belong to one legal framework, and it in fact constitutes a combination of legal frameworks. It was approved by a Government decision that consolidates the entirety of regulatory aspects that required addressing at that stage and some of the relevant provisions in this context were even drafted in a manner that corresponds with the traditional unilateral and imposing regulation. In this sense it can be classified as an administrative promise and this is how the State and the gas companies chose to classify it in the discussion. However, Justice Hayut further states that throughout the Outline there are more than a few provisions that are drafted as conditions in a contract that are a result of a meeting of the minds between the regulatory entities and the gas companies, and from this aspect, the Outline bears characteristics of a regulatory contract which is a new model of administrative regulation that bases regulatory provisions in various fields on contractual relations and cooperation with the supervised entities.
Justice Hayut states that it is possible that the model of a regulatory contract requires certain modification of the traditional administrative law rules in relating to restricting discretion, and she states in this context a modern variation of a stability stipulation in the form of an "economic balancing stipulation" which does not restrict the regulator's discretion and instead prescribes a mechanism of agreed compensation for the commercial corporation for possible regulatory changes. According to Justice Hayut, had the entire Outline been expressed in a regulatory contract that included a provision regarding a known and limited agreed compensation instead of the restrictive provisions, it is possible that that would have managed to overcome the judicial review. However, when it was discovered that in the framework of the Outline, the State was forced to satisfy the gas companies' demand for stability in a different manner, and to include restrictive provisions that do not comply with administrative law criteria, one may wonder what legal advantage, if any, was achieved in choosing the said framework.
Justice Hayut ruled that the restrictive provisions are extremely far reaching, inter alia, since they restrict the arms and legs of the Government, as the one that de facto controls the legislative process in the Knesset, in initiating legislation. Additionally, Justice Hayut ruled that the active undertaking of the Government in the framework of the restrictive provisions to frustrate any change in a law that contradicts the Outline, if and to the extent such shall be legislated further to a private bill, crosses all permissible boundaries in a parliamentary democracy and renders the restrictive provisions as clearly and blatantly illegal. Justice Hayut is further of the opinion that de facto, and despite the rules of rescission, the restrictive provisions create a legislative and regulatory freeze due to the exposure to a significant damages claim on the part of the gas companies of an unknown scope, in the event of rescission from the Outline or a part thereof.
Regarding the exercise of the power and authority of the Prime Minister and Substitute Minister of Economy, pursuant to Section 52 of the Antitrust Law, Justice Hayut states that giving the Antitrust Commissioner the chance to reach agreements with the gas companies in a path of an agreed order pursuant to the Antitrust Law, does not contradict the existence of considerations that relate to security and foreign policy, and she further states that it is possible that the period of time that was given to the Commissioner for the purpose of exhausting the said track was too extended and in hindsight it is definitely possible that had Section 52 been exercised earlier, it would have been possible to reach terms of agreement with the gas companies that may have been more convenient for the State in various aspects, and especially in terms of the restriction. However, once the Commissioner decided, after three years during which he negotiated with the gas companies, to renege from the agreement he had formulated therewith, and once he had decided not to present the drafting of the agreed order to be approved by the court, Justice Hayut is of the opinion that there is significant weight to the State's claim that at that stage, it had become urgent to reach understandings with the gas companies, inter alia, since the security and foreign policy considerations had not only not disappeared from the arena – but in certain aspects, it can be said that they became more pressing, and therefore Section 52 of the Antitrust Law was duly exercised at that stage.
In conclusion, Justice Hayut is of the opinion that only the restrictive provisions in Chapter 10 of the Outline, are to be cancelled, and that as long as they are removed from the Outline, it is inappropriate to cancel the rest of its provisions. Contrary to the opinion of Justice U. Vogelman, Justice Hayut is of the opinion that the Court should limit itself to the legal conclusion that derives from the analysis it conducted and that it is inappropriate to rush to the conclusion that once the stability clause was cancelled the entire Outline should be ruled void. According to her, the gas companies should be left to decide whether or not in these circumstances, they wish to cancel the Outline.
A. It was decided by a majority opinion (Deputy President E. Rubinstein and Justices S. Joubran, E. Hayut and U. Vogelman) and against the dissenting opinion of Justice N. Sohlberg, that the stability clause, as drafted in Sections 5 and 6 of Chapter 10 of the Gas Outline, which was prescribed by Government Decision 476 and which addresses "The Existence of a Stable Regulatory Environment" (tying the Government to the Outline, including not changing legislation and opposing legislative initiatives for a period of ten years) – cannot remain intact.
B. Moreover, according to Deputy President E. Rubinstein and Justice S. Joubran and U. Vogelman, in light of that stated in paragraph A above, and in light of the Respondents' declaration that the stability clause is a conditio sine qua non, the entire Outline is to be cancelled; however the State should be given a period of a year during which it can act to regulate that which is required in accordance with our judgment. At the end of a year from the date of the judgment and if and to the extent there shall be no such regulation, the Gas Outline shall be cancelled. In that sense, the order has become absolute.
In contrast, Justice E. Hayut is of the opinion that only the restrictive provisions that are in Chapter 10 of the Gas Outline should be ruled void.
C. According to Justice N. Sohlberg although the regulatory stability clause does limit the Government's administrative discretion, it can remain intact; there is no need for legislating the Gas Outline and the Government decision which was approved by the Knesset plenum is sufficient. Therefore, according to him the Petitions should be denied.
D. By a majority opinion of Justices E. Hayut, U. Vogelman and N. Sohlberg, and against the dissenting opinions of Deputy President E. Rubinstein and Justice S. Joubran, it was decided that the validity of the entire Outline (distinct from the stability clause) is not contingent upon being anchored by primary legislation.
E. The Justices of the bench, with the exception of a certain remark by Justice Joubran, did not find flaw, in the circumstances at hand, in the exercise of Section 52 of the Antitrust Law, which exempts the provisions of such law on security and foreign policy grounds.
F. The bottom line thus is as stated in sections (a) and (b) above: it was decided to cancel the Gas Outline due to the stability clause (without having found it appropriate to apply judicial intervention in other matters that were on addressed), while suspending the declaration of voidness for a year in order to allow regulation.


On Friday, August 24, spend your evening under the stars at the Audubon Center at Debs Park watching an amazing bird film as part of our Film Fridays series. We will be showing: The Lost Bird Project, a documentary about the stories of five birds driven to extinction in modern times and sculptor Todd McGrain's project to memorialize them. At 7:00 pm, youth involved with Audubon's conservation work in the Los Angeles area will share their stories about the projects they do to protect bird habitat. The film will begin around 8:00 pm at the Audubon Center at Debs Park. This is a free event, with refreshments and a raffle.


text:
Q: How to save a word file (Docx) to a single HTML page? I am using Word 2016, I want to save a Word document as an HTML page.
I want to save the html as a single page without any files.
How can I do that?

A: In Word Save As, select the Save As type as Web Page, Filtered.

A: *

*Click File > Save As and choose the location where you want to save your
document.

*Name your file.

*In the Save as type list, choose Web Page, Filtered.

*Click Change Title and type the title you want to display in a web
browser's title bar.

*Click Save.
or visit this link https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/office/save-a-document-as-a-webpage-d1cf1c33-e854-4f9d-bd51-93f94da0f4e3


text:
Botanophila cuneata är en tvåvingeart som beskrevs av Deng, Li och Liu 1996. Botanophila cuneata ingår i släktet Botanophila och familjen blomsterflugor.

Artens utbredningsområde är Sichuan (Kina). Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Blomsterflugor
cuneata

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


3.10: Will Wine run under any X window manager?
run has no bearing on your ability to run MS Windows programs under Wine.
prev: 3.9: Will Wine run only under X, or can it run in character mode?
next: 3.11: Will 32-bit Windows 95 or Win NT applications run under Wine?


text:
ROCKS DIGITAL BLOG
By: Rocks Digital
Clint Butler to Present on Machine Learning and AI for SEO #RocksDigital 2022
Rocks Digital 2022 News
Clint Butler is a retired noncommissioned U.S. Army officer. After serving 22 years active duty, including deployments to Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, he worked for two years as a contractor training explosives and narcotics detection dog teams in Afghanistan.
He holds master's degrees in Internet Marketing, Business Intelligence, and Public Relations. He has been happily married to his wife Kimberly for 29 years and has two sons, three dogs and a cat.
Looking ahead during the last few years of his military career, he started learning search engine optimization for lead generation and affiliate marketing. Since then, he's started his own agency, Digitaleer, works as SEO Director for Franchise Rocket, co-owns SEO Intelligence Agency and RankGear, and has spoken at conferences on the topics of on-page optimization, site structure, SEO testing and advanced schema markup.
Clint's former and current clients include Yellow Pages, Skyscanner, Small Business Trends, Mighty Dog Roofing and WhiteSands Treatment Centers, to name a few.
Presentation Details
Embracing Machine Learning and AI With Advanced Schema
Resulting from a collaboration between search engine and data companies, structured data markup – commonly described as schema – has been around for quite a while as a way to classify pages on the web.
In more recent times Google has leveraged the addition of schema code to build search features like review stars, FAQ and video thumbnails. These have the potential to help searchers find what they're looking for, and also helps business owners by providing better conversion from search results.
Google has also pioneered the growth and use of machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms to better classify the web. This has created a unique opportunity for business owners to use structured data markup to teach the algorithm exactly what their page is about and what it's associated with.
In this presentation, I'll show how you can increase the value of your content marketing campaigns, product listing, interlinking, or even branding using advanced schema markup.
#RocksDigital 2022 June 30 @ClintAButler to Present on #MachineLearning, #AI & Schema #LocalSearchDay
Learn to Leverage AI and Advanced Schema
Join us at the 2022 Rocks Digital Marketing Conference and discover how to leverage AI and advanced schema to increase search result visibility for the businesses you represent. Register now and get ready to ROCK schema markup!
P.S. To follow all the conference announcements & news here's the category link.