text:
Anderson opens Toronto campaign against qualifier
Kevin Anderson (Getty Images)
Cape Town - South African tennis star Kevin Anderson will open his Toronto Masters singles campaign against Russian qualifier Evgeny Donskoy on Wednesday.
Anderson started his week on a high note when he and Serbia's Novak Djokovic defeated the Canadian duo of Denis Shapovalov and Felix Auger-Aliassime 6-3, 6-2 in their first-round doubles match on Monday.
Anderson is the fourth seed in singles at the Canadian Masters 1000 event and is expected to beat Donskoy, the world No 87. The Russian defeated compatriot Andrey Rublev 7-6 (9/7), 6-4 in his first-round match.
Anderson, who enjoyed a bye in the first round, boasts a 4-0 head-to-head win record against Donskoy in matches played on the ATP World Tour.
The South African should however be wary as Donskoy is best remembered for upsetting Roger Federer at the Dubai Tennis Championships last year.
Anderson also has a doubles match later on Wednesday, as he and Djokovic will face the formidable third-seeded French pairing of Nicolas Mahut and Pierre-Hugues Herbert.
Wawrinka, Djokovic advance in Toronto
Tennis boss defends revamped Davis Cup plans
Anderson, Djokovic off to flying start in Toronto
atp tourrogers cupkevin andersontennis


Today I have decided to take a look back and talk about ten of my favorite makeup looks I did in the year of 2017, I'm a bit late on this one but I don't think I'm too late, it's completely still acceptable to be talking about 2017, right? Right. Some of these may be looks that you've seen before, maybe here on the blog or on Instagram, and some of them may be ones that have never quite made the cut to either place, but whichever they are my favorites that I did during the year of 2017.
I feel like my content might be sounding a tiny bit repetitive right now, but I committed to doing this and decided that it was a good idea to wrap up December like I would any other month, even though I did just do a yearly wrap up, I just feel like this will be more detailed about the month of December and give me a chance to set some smaller goals. Anyway, let's get into talking about the last month of 2017.
We have made it, we are finally at the end of the yearly favorite, this is the last one that I plan on doing and this is probably hands down the most random because this is just miscellaneous things to me. So, this pretty much means personal and lifestyle things that I can't really photograph and that I don't often talk about, I don't really ever talk about things I'm just enjoying in my life. Should I start talking about random favorites in the new year? I might, we'll see. Anyway, let's jump right on into these favorites.
Today it is time for my third installment of my yearly favorites, which also means that I am halfway through my favorites for the year, I have two more posts planned after this, yearly favorites wise anyway. Today I will be talking a little bit about skin care and body care that I have been loving this year, so let's just jump right on into it.


What's This "Linux" Thing and Why Should I Try It?
So, what is this Linux thing?
Linux is an operating system, just like Windows and OSX are operating systems. It talks to the computer's hardware, makes sure everything's going OK, and then you run programs on top of it. Because it pretty much always comes with a standard set of tools (the GNU tools) which are very similar to the tools found on big UNIX systems, it is sometimes called GNU/Linux. If you've ever used a UNIX system, you'll feel right at home.
When someone says they use Linux, what they mean is they use a distribution (aka distro) of Linux. Without the GNU tools or any applications, it can be a little useless. A distro is a software bundle. It includes the Linux kernel (the part that actually talks to the hardware), the GNU tools, and whatever applications the person or people who started that distro thought were useful, all configured in a way that they think works well.
Since not everyone has the same idea of a good system, there are a few hundred distros out there, each having its niche–though often many distros share a niche. There are distros for old, low-spec computers, like Damn Small Linux and distros like Sabayon for high-end computers to show off their bling. Some distros, like Gentoo are loved by those who like to tweak everything for the best possible performance, just like that guy down the street who's always tweaking his hotrod. Some distros, like SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED) are aimed at corporate desktop use with support contracts. Red Hat, on the other hand, is for corporate server use. Then there are CentOS and OpenSUSE which are just like Red Hat and SLED, except without the support contracts which corporate environments often require. Fedora is the desktop version of Red Hat, aimed at home users, though my school uses it in the computer labs. Debian is known for its stability, which makes it great for servers, but since it usually includes older software, many desktop users prefer Ubuntu to have an up-to-date system. There are tons of others, but those are some of the most common.
There are a number of reasons you may want to try Linux on your computer. For me, the main reason to switch was to try something new. I wanted to know what else was out there besides Windows, which I was bored with, and OSX, which I don't like. Trying something new and learning more about how computers work might not be your thing, though, so here are some other reasons.
It's free – You don't have to pay anything to try or use Linux. Most of the software for it is totally free-of-charge too. Some distros are for-pay, like Red Hat, but in that case you're paying for a support contract. They're generally available without the support contract as well, such as with CentOS.
You're free – One of the things we say about Linux is that while it's often free/gratis (free as in beer), it is always free/libre (free as in speech). What that means is that there are a few freedoms which come along with it. You are free to use it and any other FLOSS for whatever purpose you want. You are free to study the program and adapt it to your needs. Even if you can't code, if there's something you want changed, there's probably a 12 year old down the street who could make the changes for you. You are free to share it with your friends without being branded a software pirate. Just about anything you want to do with FLOSS, you can do, unless you want to change the license to make it stop being FLOSS. That's a pretty wide-open license.
It's secure – Linux was built, like UNIX, to be a multi-user system. There are permissions in place to maintain the security of the system. Users do not run as administrators all the time, so actions which affect the system must be explicitly allowed. Software cannot be installed unless a user says, as administrator, to explicitly allow that to happen, so viruses cannot install themselves. DOS and its child, Windows, were not built with this security model in mind. They run under a set of assumptions which just aren't true in today's world. They assume that only one person will ever touch the computer, that that person has all the knowledge necessary to be a good system administrator, and that nobody else can reach that computer, such as through a network. Given the existence of the internet, we know that there are plenty of people who can reach our computers. What we need to do is keep them from getting into our computers and causing harm. Linux's system of permissions prevents this. Windows' assumption that any action being performed is being allowed by the administrator is what allows malware to self-install. Microsoft has taken steps in its newest version of Windows, Vista, to copy this system of checking with the administrator before allowing certain actions to be performed, but the way in which it was done seems to be more intrusive. It's always obvious why the system is asking for permission if you are using a UNIX-like system, such as Linux, FreeBSD, or OSX.
It's easy – This is a new one. It used to be fairly difficult for a new user to try out Linux, mostly because installation was difficult. Once the system is setup, though, it only stops for hardware failure. My mom's been using Linux (Ubuntu, specifically) since Thanksgiving 2006. I set it up for her, showed her where Firefox was, told her she could find whatever she needs in the Applications Menu, and got on a train to go back to school, 250 miles away. By New Year, she was bragging to her friends about how much faster and easier this Linux thing was than Windows. Wow. And they said only a geek could figure out Linux. My mom took a month to figure out email! My siblings were still asking me to install software for them after 5 years of Windows. On Linux, they mark a few check boxes to choose what they want to install then hit "Apply" and everything downloads and installs automatically–no hunting the internet for installers.
You can download an ISO from any of the distros' websites and burn your own install disk or get a friend to give you a disk. Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) mails out free CDs too. You can also get DVD versions (which have extra stuff included) of many of the distros online for a small fee. Finally, check your local computer store. Sometimes Xandros is available with the regular boxed software. If you really don't want to try to install it yourself, check for a local LUG. They often have "installfests" where you can bring your computer to get help from someone with a bit more experience.
What's with that penguin up there?
Linus Torvalds, the man who started the development of Linux back when he was a student at the University of Helsinki, was once bit by a penguin. When the idea of having a Linux logo came up, he suggested a cute, friendly little penguin as the mascot. He said it was more interesting and fun because you can do things with a mascot like that which you simply can't do with a rectangle that says "LINUX." The penguin's name is Tux, and he was created by Larry Ewing using the GIMP.
(By) Mackenzie is a college student who likes to promote Linux and Free/Libre Software. Most of her free time is spent on the computer, helping new users, or hanging out with some of the friends she's made in the Linux community. Check out her blog, Ubuntu Linux Tips & Tricks.
Great Linux intro! I'm currently running a server and desktop that use Ubuntu Server and Ubuntu Desktop, respectively. I still consider myself as a novice, but I can still get things done. I try to promote Linux and open source as much as I can as well, and am glad to see more and more people doing the same.
Ubuntu lists 1131 game packages in its repositories. As to no software, well... Debian has well over 20,000 packages in its repositories. I'm part of the team that maintains over 16,000 of Ubuntu's packages. So well, I guess if 20,000 packages isn't a lot of software, then sure, you'd be right.
You are so uneducated!! Don't ever do that again, it is not real "art"!
I PREFER MAC OVER WINDOZE.
In these ranking costs don't matter, meaning this ranking is independent of money. For example, suppose you equally pay $500 for Linux, or Vista, or Mac, or whatever.
7.-HP-UX (for the funny name).
*Except Lindows. What's the case trying to imitate the worst when you really are the best?
-Mac OS needs to get more free if it wants a chance in the OS Wars. See Darwin's ranking for example.
-BSD system are ranking for their values and orientiation. My (very pleasurable) experience is limited in the three BSD systems, so please forgive my rudeness.
-Redmond's products are the only ones that didn't rank in the top ten. If you have the wonderful Mac OS X, but with Microsoft office, you fall to eleventh place, while Windows falls another place (the tenth place gets to be vacant).
"Try everything you can, then stick to the best in YOUR opinion"
I installed everything correctly so that my system dual boots with xp and ubuntu, the latest (not the beta), and when I try and start from the dual boot screen, I get everything perfect, the bar indicating that ubuntu is loading, etc...after the bar completes, i get 5 command lines checking whether something is ok, and after that my screen goes black, it is still on, but it is as if the nothing is on...the live CD works fine, so it cannot be my configuration, at least I don't think so...PLEASE HELP ME!
I'll talk to you on the forum thread. I just replied to it.
Simply educational and well written. Good to see people can still write laymen explanations on things tech, especially Linux because it helps to project what Linux really is; A simple and effective OS.
Great article. Dispassionate. I can link to this?
Yes, I know that my parents, aunts/uncles and the 30 cpus we saved from the scrap heap for people atthe retirement home all feel right at home with UNIX.
If you have used UNIX, then you know enough about computers that you dont need this blog.
If you never used UNIX but heard of it, this could scare the hell out of you.
I just read an article this week which talks about Linux and line commands. BS.
I dont ask my mom to alter her Win registry, and I dont ask her to sudo things.
I've put Windows users on PCLinuxOS, kUbuntu and xUbuntu and made it look as close to their old OS as possible because KDE can do that. It can even add the top bar just like Mac so you dont even have to look at GNOME (I spit on Miguel) and their locked down ways..
When I give live distros to people to choose from I always give them a little primer on what GUI differences there are and that even though you might have a KDE environment on two distros, there are also changes made by the distros themselves. You dont even have to be technical about it. For example, for the less experiences you compare the Linux kernel part as the motor and the GUI and software as the body, the interior finishings and so on.
People are so used to the proprietary way where Windows or Mac is both the 'brains' and also finishing touches of the car.
I dont push the info on the people that dont care but whenever I use an XCFE based distro on some old machine, I feel the need to explain/show on my laptop where Im running 3 different Gnu/Linux using the 3 main GUIs.
I think you could add a paragraph explaining 'about the look' in the article.
PS: I have also made dual boots for people who need WinXP for some reason (Wine is still not for everyone) and especially games and installing Windows is much longer and harder than Gnu/Linux is. And that's not counting the time I need to install the anti-virus, firewall and spyware stuff. Windows users are stunned when they see this because they also heard how hard Linux was. Creating a dual boot with PCLinuxOS is truly a breeze.
Just follow the procedures there to install it.
I have a hard time arguing with any of y'all, each of us has our own experiences, but my 78 year old neighbor uses a Ubuntu live cd to get on the internet to keep his system clean. If it weren't for his tax-prep software, he would have switched years ago. Like most of us, he doesn't understand Windows any better than Linux, but is just used to it. His computer is Vista-capable (whatever that means), but he just drops the cd in and hits enter. Now I like my games, and some REQUIRE Windows(Solstice), but most (Neverwinter Nights, Diablo II, DungeonSiege[M$ Games]) ran right after I selected Wine in Add/Remove Apps. Not for everyone, but if your having problems or are just willing to learn, no better choice.
As I am nearly 80 , I am in the group that allegedly finds Linux/Ubuntu incomprehensible .I first used MSOS, in 1987 , DOS and all that command line stuff.
Have gone through Windows 3.1, Windows 98, and Windows XP. and I became familiar with the Blue Screen of Death.
XP wastes quite a lot of my time freezing up, but what really puts me of Bill and Co.is the way they are now becoming Big Brother .
They now can cripple your OS if they feel like it, and there are plenty of users who have been innocent victims of the paranoid Microsoft mob.
The government of China are working hard on developing their own version of Linux, mainly for security reasons-MS could build in code to get info. of their computers.(I don't think they are unreasonable it that assumption).
I have no desire to carry on using MSOS , and when Ubuntu 08.4 comes out I will be installing it.
Have had a go at a couple of earlier editions, learned a lot and I understand that 08.4 will be very good.
Must go and have a nap now.
Look at it this way. You can go out and buy a Honda, or you could spend $50K and 6 months of your life building a car from scratch in your back yard. You will then spend the rest of your life listening to your neighbors joke about the 6 months you lost in your life building a go cart for 8 months pay while everyone else simply bought an Accord.
Cute nerd toy, but Linux has very little to offer a serious computer user.
Linux is THE operating system for serious users, please. Stop #trolling.
I spent a month trying to get Ubuntu to work properly. Once I finally had it, I had a slow, glitchy, ugly, limited OS that had nothing to offer me.
There's a damned good reason why it's free.
I think Ubuntu's Human theme looks nice, and I especially like the wallpaper for the upcoming release, but it's all personal preference. Linux desktop environments are infinitely more configurable than Windows or OSX, so you can make it look however you want.
How much memory? Under 512MB, I wouldn't use Ubuntu. Xubuntu is the lighterweight one.
Linux is NOT for EVERYONE and ANYONE.
Those who desire a little more understanding of how their computer works and what downloading and installing from trusted sources means, are the ones who can use Linux.
well,Linux learning curve on a default Gnome Desktop Environment is almost Zero although I cannot say the same with kde.
I will say, a week or 2 is enough to learn and familiarize with GNU/Linux.
the distro a n00b should choose is either Ubuntu or Fedora.dont go for opensuse although its eyecandy is awesome.
for a trial run pclinuxos is fine.
One thing you (and most of the commenters) didn't mention is how steep the learning curve for linux support. Enthused by your excellent article, I attempted to install openSUSE on my old laptop, only to be thwarted by by a black screen-"no configurable screens found". Apparently, I need to configure my monitor, but haven't a clue how to do that.The GUI won't work, and I know nothing about how to navigate through the text system. I searched the web, but found nothing I could even understand! Is there a place out there for rock bottom beginners who really do need their hands held every step of the way?
1)log in as root. username root, password is the secret one you may have given when youi installed GNU/Linux. If you do not know the root password, you can log in as the first normal user and use sudo followed by one or more spaces to prefix commands.
3)Since you do not have a GUI, use a commandline editor from the GNU tools. I like vim but it is geeky. Others are nano, joe and such. Try typing editor for the command. Read the screen carefully. It should be self-explanitory.
4)sudo editor /etc/X11/xorg.conf will get you into it if you are the first user.
4a)editor /etc/X11/xorg.conf will get you in as root. You may have to use a different command than editor on some systems. Commands end with the enter key, like a typewritten line.
Vesa is a widely used standard. I have rarely seen a configuration that would not work with Vesa.
6)Save the file or write it back or whatever the editor screen shows you.
With KDE, you may have to use startx as the command. I forget because it has been sol long since I used KDE.
shutdown -h now to shutdown or shutdown -r now to reboot to see it boot normally.
Good luck and welcome to GNU/Linux.
I've never actually had any luck with OpenSuSE...just spent lots of time trying to fix its default config. LinuxMint has, by far, the best hardware support because it has everything Ubuntu includes plus the addon restricted drivers. And http://ubuntuforums.org has an Absolute Beginners section and the #ubuntu IRC channel is generally fairly full of beginners.
A lot of people claim, this distro, or that distro is the best. They are refering "best for them", which doesn't always mean best for "you". Thank God for choice of distros, and where Linux/GNU is concerned, there certainly is a lot of choice.
There are no two computer systems alike unless you are comparing two identical models, so finding a distro that works for you may be time consuming unless someone else previously had complete success with the identical distro and system. I had at my disposal about 15 different distros when I first played at installing linux. I was curious about install interface, default selected applications included in the distro, the overall look and feel of the distro and most importatnly, how well the distro found and installed all the needed drivers for my particular computer. Some never got to the end of the install, some never made it to the install screen at all. Others got installed and was hit or miss with some hardware drivers.
I found the best distro of those I've tried on "my computer" was Mepis (Debien based).... but that is just me.
At least with Linux, you have the choice to find "The One" that will work best for you.
"The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is a great read if you want to understand what free means and why FOSS exists. After you read it you'll understand why GNU and Linux had to happen. It was inevitable.
In fact a lot of people buy linux from a vendor simply so they'll have someone to call for support. This is ok. At least you have the choice. That's what FOSS is about, choice and freedom, as in speech, and usually as in beer as well.
I did not notice any "misinformation" or "overhype" in this article. Those posters who claim that GNU/Linux is being pushed too hard with article's like these are spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt), and have no basis whatever to do so with today's Linux Distro's like Ubuntu, which are as fully featured as it gets, and far easier to work in than Windows XP, and a vast improvement over Vista. OSX is a good OS, and far better on its worst day than Windows, but is still Proprietary in nature, and wholly controlled by Apple. Although it is BASED on BSD, it is not BSD, nor is it compatible with OpenBSD, due to the myriad of tweaks to the codebase. I also do not think it is Open Source, as is GNU/Linux. It certainly is not licensed under the GPL, as is Linux. For these reasons, OSX is the same as Windows. It is an OS that "uses" the users, rather than the other way around with GNU/Linux under the GPL.
It seems the people that have the biggest problem with Linux are 'Windows Powerusers'.
Hell is that an oxymoron or what. Sarcasm aside, these are the individuals that have built up a knowledge base that is Windows and Windows only. Anything non-Microsoft is to be considered a threat and must be hunted down, FUD must be spread, lies told and the MS centric view of the IT world must be upheld and perpetuated.
I don't like Linux zealots any the less, but most Linux users probably have an equal knowledge of Windows as these so called Powerusers have. They have come to Linux/OSX/*BSD because of Windows only limitations they see in everyday IT.
Do you honestly believe Microsoft got where they are by producing quality software. Look to their own internal email records in the 'Vista Capable' debacle. Search Google for the business practices they pursue. Why do you think they funded G.W.Bush's election campain? Once he is elected to the White House, the anti-trust trial was all but buried (maybe I need to take of my tinfoil hat now).
Windows Powerusers are threatened by the uptake of Linux. All of their experience, all of those hacks and workrounds they use to get and keep Windows working will count for nothing when Linux use gathers momentum. The one-trick pony will have had its day.
New users can be trained to use whatever OS you put in front of them. And you say Windows is intuitive. Linux has many falts and this article should have mentioned some in better detail.
My mother uses (to my chagrin) Windows XP. Both hardware and software don't work on Linux. But she would have just as much luck installing Vista as she would Ubuntu Hardy Heron (daft names) when released.
I've tried a few distros of Linux. Freespire and Ubuntu are my favorites. Mac OS is very nice too. But personally, I just stick with Windows XP. It does what I want, it has the software I want, and it has always been stable for me.
In my experience, this is not the case. During the past 3-4 years I've tried a few distros (Debian, Knoppix, Mandrake, Ubuntu) on three different PCs. Yeah, I got them to install successfully. But somehow they never seem to work fully with my hardware. In my latest attempt, Ubuntu didn't support my soundcard and video card (NOT an obscure model - Radeon X1600Pro).
After two days of non-stop forum browsing and some 50 reboots, trying all the proposed solutions, I gave up.
I have 64 bit Ubuntu installed on an HP 6820s laptop which has an ATI mobile Radeon 1350. Not only does the video work at 1440 x 900, but I also have flash and java working on it.
Guess you didn't try reading the right posts. Nor try using Envy on Ubuntu to install the video drivers. Couldn't be simpler.
My mother is using Ubuntu now as well. She is visually handicapped and Ubuntu comes with a fantastic "high contrast theme" with all possible settings. Much better then OS X.
Great article. I hope more and more newbies read it.
I may be wrong, but I guess Linux is more accurately an operating system "kernel" and not an operating system itself. To my knowledge, no one uses Linux but the Linux distros - which are the real operating systems based on the Linux kernel.
I think thetruthofit exaggerates a little bit (I can assure you I use Ubuntu for more than just Firefox, and I have never compiled software from source or needed to know the directory structure), but the point remains that one-sided desktop Linux evangelism does indeed end up hurting adoption more than it helps. For every successful conversion this inspires, you'll have ten or twenty unsuccessful ones who will tell all their friends, "Yeah, Linux is still for geeks. I couldn't get it to work. It's overhyped."
If I'm allowed to toot my own horn, I would recommend new users take a gander at Is Ubuntu for You?, which actually acknowledges that Ubuntu may not be for you.
The flip side is these same people would have the same trouble if they tried to install any version of Windows on a bare PC. Especially if they didn't have the drivers for the network and video cards installed in the PC.
So, your point was that Linux is hard? Or users are simple?
That's only a theoretical flip side, since most people don't install Windows. They buy Windows preinstalled. And even if they don't, they usually have someone else who can install Windows for them.
The other issue is a matter of reputation. Since Windows already has a reputation for being a world-class operating system, people will put up with anything to still be using "what everyone else is using." When they experience Windows problems, they'll often blame "computers." If, however, you try to switch them to Linux and tout it as the holy grail (as this article does), then they'll blame Linux. See the difference?
In any case, if people are sick of Windows problems and not just "computers," they'll just switch to Mac.
I just don't like the impression articles like this give that desktop Linux, instead of being a good and different solution for a select group of Windows users, is a drop-in replacement for Windows that is essentially Windows-without-problems. It just creates unrealistic expectations which then lead to bad impressions of Linux that will spread faster than the good ones.
It never fails to amaze me how Linux Fanboys love to gloss over just how difficult it is for n00bs to use Linux. This post is a shining example of this sort of one-sidedness ("my mom loves it"). (well if all you'd mom does is log on and use firefox, of course its easy. The fact of the matter is to use any linux distro for much more than that (ie the normal day to day computer use of any average computer user), you have to get your head around package management, compiling, its labyrinthine directory structure, the almost complete absence of a usable 'help' system, and the command line. All of which are difficult for people who are not technically minded and, are much more difficult components to master than any aspect of the mainstream OS's, ie Windoze and OSX. Comparatively, it is totally false to state that Linux is 'easy'. Windows and OSX are 'easy' and thats what people are used to and expect as a standard for an OS.
People who post this sort of misinformation have no consideration for the sort of time wastage and frustration they set people up for who read it and don't know any better. All the Linux forums are full of posts from n00bs who had no idea what they were in for because of posts like this.
The fact is that Linux is a good OS if you are up for a steep learning curve and are prepared to do a lot of reading/forum posting on how to use and troubleshoot it. It also involves having the patience to learn to understand a lot of arcane language and operations. For people who 'just want it to work' out of the box, this is quite an ask, and one which people with knowledge of the OS should make apparent when advising new users about its pros and cons.
Mackenzie, you need to show some consideration for normal, everyday users. There's no way of knowing how many readers you have inspired to go and try Linux on the misconception it is 'easy' to use, thanks to the spin you have provided here. For those who genuinely sought an easy OS you have probably wasted their time by providing an incomplete picture, and created a lot of unnecessary frustration as they try to use something that will require of them a lot of time and effort to set up and use.
1) You don't need to compile stuff usually. That's what the package manager is for...unless you like compiling stuff.
4) Only geeks use the command line on Linux nowadays :P It's not needed. Often tech support is given using commands because you can copy and paste them in 30 seconds and have it work instead of messing around with "press the button that looks like...kinda to the left of the one that looks like..." It's just easier on the people giving the support.
When's the last time you tried Linux? Even in the year-ish I've been using it, I've seen great strides in ease of use. Drivers, patent-encumbered codecs, Java, Flash...they used to require a bit of searching, but now they're no more than 3 clicks away in the distros aimed at beginners. Just try to play an MP3, and Rhythmbox will offer to download codecs for you. That wasn't the case 2 years ago, but now, yeah, it's pretty easy. A year ago, Broadcom wireless required ndiswrapper and NTFS couldn't be written to. Now, NTFS works as soon as the drive's mounted (which just means you double click on it inside the "Computer" window) and Broadcom drivers are open source and generally included along with a utility to fetch firmware from the web automatically. As I've pointed out before, Windows can't even get wired ethernet working out of the box. We get Intel, Atheros, Zydas, and Prism cards working out of the box with a small download for Broadcom, and hey you at least have wired internet to get that download. Good luck downloading a Windows driver for your ethernet jack without ethernet.
It's pretty simple to make OS X work properly with the hardware when you make both the OS and the hardware.
So, OS X just works eh? Have you set up a web server with php and mysql lately? Then tried to get gallery2 to work?
I can set that up on Linux in no time. Never did get it to work on Tiger. Yes, I have a Mac. No I don't like it. I'm far more productive on mu Linux systems.
" By comparison OS X 10 just works, until linux gets to same level or better it won't make in roads."
Actually, the reason OS X just works is because it was configured for the hardware it was installed on. By comparison, Linux also "just works" on computers that it has been pre-installed on by Dell, Green PC, Lenovo, Asus and others.
Try installing OS X on a random Intel PC and you'll find you'll have the same pitfalls if not more, than Linux.
i tell you what. i would like to say nice things about linux... but i just think its good for the ones that like to monkey... i don't like to monkey, i like to use my computer... that is why i don't use windows ether.
Great job! My parents use Ubuntu as well, no virus and spyware worries. It runs very fast, it's simple, and best of all stable.
Wow....now THAT'S what I call ART!
One thing you should add is the stability of linux.
I can't count the number of times I hit ctrl+alt+del in XP because of some application hanging and not responding to anything. In ubuntu nothing (almost) ever hangs. Even if it does, the applications responds to the close command, which then almost immediately brings up the wait or force quit option. In XP, you have to ctrl+alt+del and select task and end process to get there, and that needs at least a couple of minutes.
You should probably have mentioned liveCDs and how easy it is to test linux on your hardware without even installing.
"...conned into buying a macbook under the assumption that Mac OS was just like unix."
Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications.
Mac OS X Leopard (at least on Intel, which all currently-shipping Macs are) *is* UNIX. Linux is not, its merely a UNIX-like OS. So the 'assumption' is actually correct.
The filesystem hierarchy on OSX doesn't match up with the usual UNIX way though. It's more like the one GoboLinux uses.
"You're free"...you mean to use NDISwrapper right?
ohh wait proprietary modules are banned/restricted. wonderful...good thing im "free". If you are talking about the benefits of FLOSS perhaps you should mention freeBSD. since it actually is free, and not just kinda free.
Intel, Atheros, and Broadcom (probably the 3 most common wireless chipsets) all have open source drivers. Broadcom cards need the firmware to be loaded because it can't be distributed. Ubuntu, PCLOS, Mint, and Sabayon all include the restricted drivers anyway.
And I mentioned FreeBSD in the security part.
I don't understand why I should switch to Linux and maybe someone can help. My argument is that an OS is only a launching point for application to increase your productivity. For example I use windows only to launch Word, Excel, etc so that I can get my work done. So by switching to linux or any other operating system what are the advantages? The price of windows is negligible for what it does in terms of productivity. Maybe this is because I'm seeing from a business point of view but I think if linux wants to become mainstream it's the businesses it will need to appeal to.
For Mikey... go take a look at openoffice.org - direct replacement for MS Office (I use it sharing documents with clients that are using MS Office). Productivity wise, you can take a computer choking on running Windows Vista and install Linux (kubuntu.org or PCLinuxOS) and Open Office and have all the modern OS features, virus protection, etc and be running at blazing speeds.
That depends on precisely what you do with your computer to be honest. But security is a good advantage if you ignore ethics, freedom and price.
Warning: tin-foil hat opinionated text ahead.
Linux is likely as good as Windows in terms of getting your daily work done. As desktop environments, they're fairly equal in that regard. There are OpenOffice applications to replace Word, Excel - all of which are compatible with their Microsoft counterparts, in that they can open and save to their file formats.
There are advantages and there are caveats. The design of the operating system is superior (educated opinion); properly set up, crashes are *very* random - malicious software (virii, spyware, adware) are virtually nonexistent and for good reason, since any application you run *hasn't got the necessary privileges to make any changes to your system outside of your personal folder* - reboots are practically never needed unless you upgrade the kernel (if you make changes to the graphical environment, it can be restarted without a system reboot), etc.
The caveats would, in a way, be drivers. Remember; linux has the best driver support - but the drivers are mostly written by developers not tasked by the manufacturing company to do so. They may be *experts* in the subject, but they're labelled "amateur hobbyists" by antagonists to fling dirt and discredit them. So most drivers are backwards-engineered, but unless your system happens to have a piece of unsupported hardware, everything will work as soon as the system is installed. Meaning, no scouring the internet for video drivers, and their ilk.
Wireless and printer drivers can be iffy. Some models are plain not supported (much like in Vista, eh?), in which your only solution would be to replace the hardware (which you should NEVER "need" to do), wait for someone to develop one, or - better yet - help develop one yourself, if you have the expertise.
But consider this hypothetical case: let's say RAID was a new technology. And Steve Ballmer doesn't like it, doesn't see a future in it, so he doesn't develop support for it. Meaning, you can't install Windows on a software RAID stripe. Linus Torvalds doesn't like it either, so he doesn't put much effort in it. But developer John Doe does! He's working at some company who are very eager to start using it in their linux installations, so he starts working on RAID support. A bunch of other developers join him, and lo and behold, eventually there's support for it in the kernel. Steve Ballmer "decides" for Windows. Noone does this for Linux. Linus is sort of the benevolent dictator and decides somewhat what should be standards (when there are disputes) in kernels, but you're still free to compile your own, perhaps by following howto's written by others in the same position. So Linux is there to serve the user, whereas Windows is there to be served *by* the user, if I'm allowed to be so blunt.
Furthermore, Microsoft bullies Linux. They discredit it, call it immature, use bribes and enforce non-support from companies through contracts, etc. Read this story about the Mandriva-Nigeria deal. It's very true, and an example of Microsoft's tactics brought to light. They're brilliant in an economic way, but as underhanded as dirt incarnate. They're sued for billions every year by the EU for anti-trust behaviour, but they just pay it off and keep doing what they're doing. They earn much, much more by doing so.
They represent everything that's bad about big corporations.
Post seem to have been rejected, perhaps due to length, so I'll split it up.
First time anyone comments, their comment is held in moderation. Your original comment is in the queue, and I don't have access to OK the comments. Only the editors can do that. At least, I assume so.
Well, since you mentioned it, I think the next article will be on productivity apps on Linux, so watch for that. MS Office really is MS's cashcow, though. It costs more than Windows, and lots of Mac users buy it too. Thing is, OpenOffice.org can open and create their files too.
I would say that one of the best arguments for Linux is increased productivity, especially in Debian-based distributions, such as Ubuntu, which use aptitude and dpkg to manage packages. There are repositories full of software for aptitude to draw out of, so for the new Ubuntu user, installing most of the software you could think a user would want is quite easy and fast.
Anyway, it's a lot easier to recreate the setup you want on a new system when you can issue a command like "sudo apt-get install ant subversion sun-java5-sdk zsh apache2 gvim" to install all the software that I want, instead of searching the internet for all-kinds of executable files that you have to install one-by-one in windows. Oh yeah, and you don't have to download and install Firefox before you can comfortably track down the rest of the programs you like; Firefox is installed on most distributions by default.
I'm also a big fan of OS X, though I agree with previous posters that Darwin does not follow standards exactly, making it a pain to install and configure some linux/unix programs. One thing that irritates me is the completely proprietary init scripts in OS X, which are nothing like any of the linux init.d or rc.d init scripts.
Linux is currently what I perceive to be an uncomfortable middle-ground between easy of bewildering. I have a Linux machine at home running OpenSuSE 10.3, and I've spent time running Fedora and its variants (Core 5, Core 6, Core 7 and now 8, BLAG 7K) as well as Ubuntu and some of its variants (Kubuntu, Linux Mint), and various other distros.
It's true that installation has come a very long way. It's as simple as a few points and clicks. Hardware detection and configuration is also much improved. However, the moment something unorthodox happens, things get very hairy very quickly. Send your granddad to the command line or ask him to nano a config file and see how good Windows looks. Or what about the first time a dizzying array of updates breaks something?
Linux has a fantastic foundation, and the veneer of ease-of-use is getting more opaque, but it's just not exception tolerant enough yet.
I also use and like Windows, although I'm far from a fanboi. Clearly though, it seems like Linux gets a pass on things that MS could never get away with, and does not get enough credit for providing a fairly seamless user experience.
If you want a universal menubar in Linux, you can get it if you're using the KDE desktop.
There's a way to do it in GNOME too, but it requires compiling a patched version of the panel.
Actually having the menubar alows you to be much faster since you dont have to care about vertical positioning.
I don't like using mice, and when I have to use them, I want it to be not very much. Maybe if you have a physical mouse you can throw across the desk, the top of the screen is faster, but on a touchpad, the top of the screen can take multiple "strokes." Also, as screens get larger, the top of the screen gets farther and farther away.
This is a great article! I am a recent Linux convert from Windows and my laptop has never been happier. It doesn't run as hot, all my software is free and I feel way cooler than all my friends.
Hey, quit bashing OS X. It is a lot better than using Win-blows, Piss-dows.
I'm in favor of OS X and FreeBSD.
I am a linux user who was conned into buying a macbook under the assumption that Mac OS was just like unix. Most casual unix users will probably not have any problems with a mac, but anyone who uses a modern unix-like system regularly ( in my case, for work) will find that the BSD Subsystem of Mac OS is antiquated, non-standard, and buggy. Linux does have its flaws, but Linux is a much more malleable tool in the hands of a power-user. Linux is a leatherman multi-tool, Mac OS is an Italian switchblade, and Windows is a plastic butter-knife.
I've being ask by my friends how to make their Ubuntu system faster..so I told them to test out the latest version of Slax (Based on Slackware with KDE). Easier to setup just install it onto any usb flashdrive or burn it onto cd disc. Now they think it's the fastest OS they ever seen and the best part they don't need to install it!
bit strange that she doesn't like os x, but does like unix. sounds like contagious schizophrenia to me.
All Linux window managers (as far as I can tell) can do focus follows mouse and set above, just like the old UNIX window managers. OSX lacks these features, and I really like them. I also can't stand the universal menubar. I like having the menus inside the window where I'm working. I don't want to have to move my mouse all the way up to the top of the screen.
"I don't want to have to move my mouse all the way up to the top of the screen"
I'm sorry that did actually make me laugh. But I personally find it useful and it's not that hard to move the mouse that far. Then again I can also see how people are a tad put off by it. To write off a entire OS though is a little much, Mac OS isn't the best by any means but I find it alot easier to work with than Linux. The "It just works" statements Ubuntu were passing out just, well, didn't work (more than once). Fedora also gave me many troubles.
But anyways, nice little write up! I would say to people who haven't tried a linux os, go out and try it, it's free and most of the time works (sorry can't say it works all the time). Cant hurt to try!
Look forward to more unix based write ups! :) good work n keep em' coming!
I'm not anti-mac either, I think it looks amazing, works and does everything easily. Just, it's not the OS for me.
My main problem with OS X is user interface. It definitely looks beatiful but some aspects make it very hard to get used it. Over the years I got used to certain set of features/menus/tasks (on Windows), and Linux distros like Ubuntu do a pretty good job to accomodate new users. With Mac OS X on the other hand, there is no way but to adjust to whatever is there. Oh and it's EXPENSIVE.
Given that Mac OS X is UNIX based (and even UNIX Certified in Leopard), a lot of what you say here about linux also applies to Mac OS X.
I just wondered why you state you 'dont like' Mac OS X?
1. Mac OS X is not as high quality as Linux.
2. Mac OS X *hardly* actually uses its UNIX features, and even in its earlier versions, those things that even made it a UNIX were optional. You may as well have put in a WINDOWS kernel for all the good the BSD-based Darwin is actually doing Mac OS X.
3. Mac OS X is proprietary, actually, with maybe a few smatterings of open source components dashed in there.
4. Mac OS X is locked down onto the hardware Apple decides you want to run. Trying to run Mac OS X on a PC is illegal. Not so with Linux, which is available for over 200 different processor architectures legitimately, and is genuinely free software.
5. Mac OS X doesn't half near the level of power Linux or a "real" UNIX actually has. Despite introduction of BASH and those aforementioned rarely used UNIX features in Mac OS X, if you were to ask a veteran Linux or UNIX user how Mac OS X actually ranks in the UNIX world, you'd be disappointed to hear either outright laughter or a description of how, aside from SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer, Mac OS X is near the bottom of the UNIX heap.
I am relieved, however, that you didn't claim that Mac OS X was based off of Linux, which is false. It is based off of BSD.
There's also the users of Mac OS X. UNIX features are actually wasted on their stereotype. These are people coming from a purely GUI-driven, non-CLI, non-technical OS culture. UNIX is not really for them.
I'm not saying Mac OS X is bad or anything, just from the perspective of a long time UNIX user who knows what UNIX is and how it is used, Mac OS X makes a lousy Linux, but a good home operating system.
Of course, as an operating system itself, Mac OS X has its problems, not the least of which is its not legally feasible for a PC user to switch and retain their old hardware. It is not cheap to switch to Mac OS X on a whim like it is for Linux.
My edit isn't showing up. So I'll add in a reply.
I'm not saying Mac OS X is a bad operating system... just a bad UNIX.
1. Macs are overpriced commodity-based machines. That's right! You could build a PC with the same exact hardware for less money!
2. Mac OS X itself is not free, and is only licensed to be installed on Macs! This is bad for a disgruntled Windos user wanting to switch simply because to stay legal they'll have to junk their existing hardware and spend more cash just for an alternative operating system.
3. Mac OS X is restricted. Just like in #2, you can only install Mac OS X where Apple wants you to. This is what we hackers call a Bad Thing.
1. Linux can be run on existing hardware. Linux, unlike Mac and Windows, has an INCREDIBLY wide hardware support. Not just processors either, but also peripherals and internal hardware! With it being truly free, it can be easily adapted for just about ANY use. Can't say the same for Mac OS X.
2. Linux can actually REDUCE the cost of a new machine. Most of the cost of a new PC actually comes from overpriced Windows licenses. Either building your own Linux based machine or buying an OEM machine with Linux pre-installed has shown to be much cheaper!
3. Linux can be installed on both a Mac and a PC, or it could be put on a SPARC, clustered into a supercomputer, embedded onto a Palm, Xbox, or even an iPod, the options are endless.
Cause they're mentally expensive and over-rated. Mint runs just fine on a $300 brand new laptop, you pay twice that for a OSX tablet.
Hmm, does anyone know some good Gannt software for projectmanagement on linux. Then i;ll switch (from mac to linux anyhow).
They're based on Java so you can use them on any OS including Linux.
go to distrowatch.com (see list half-way down the page on the right side).
1- Install on your favorite Windows box: open office, firefox, and gimp (google for download urls and details) - this will give you an idea of the level of quality in open source programs.
2- Take an old pc in the house you don't really use "because it was too slow" and install a copy of Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS or try others (install often take less than 30 minutes, vs hours I've spent installing Windows + drivers...). You'll often find it's now as fast as your favorite Windows box.
3- Install Linux to your favorite Windows box as a second partition. Then if you need Windows you can reboot and select it from the menu. Alternatively, get a second hard drive and install Linux on it and unhook your Windows drive or change the boot order. Or try out some Virtual Machine setups - but they will take more than the average user to get going.
4- Wipe Windows off and go Native Linux and don't look back.
A common misconception about DistroWatch is that it tells you how popular a distro is at that time; however, it does not monitor hits to the distros' websites or downloads of their installers. All it counts is how often people look at that distro's page on DistroWatch. So, if the users of one distro are unconcerned with looking at their distro's page on there every day, it goes down. Meanwhile, someone may use one distro, but, since they already know how that one works, only look at DistroWatch's pages for other distros, just to see what else is out there. That doesn't mean the distros they looked at are more popular--after all, they have a different one installed--but that's how DistroWatch counts it.
Interesting, I didn't know that's how DistroWatch did their counts.
You might also mention the Yellow dog distro for PowerPC Macs. I have an old iMac I'll probably convert.
Debian supports around 20 architectures, including PowerPC. Ubuntu hasn't had official support for PPC since 6.10, but they've continued to release ISOs for PPC Ubuntu on the main server (they just aren't on the other mirrors).
Very nicely written post. I have been wanting to write a similar post from few days. I can now point out my blog readers to this post.
Yes, of course I've heard of it. There are always PCLOS users coming into #ubuntu to ask for help because their IRC channel is apparently either dead or not as helpful. I was going with the ones that have been popular for a while or serve a niche as a quick overview.
actually; Tux was not coined by linus, he only propagated the idea through the mailing lists..
nice intro.. almost no way for m$ fanbois to argue with it..
How on earth do you get "bit by a penguin", by which I mean why was he so close to a penguin!?
Excellent piece. I definitely learned a few new things from reading this and will have a better time explaining Linux to people in the future. Cheers!
Thanks for the intro Mackenzie. I look forward to seeing some articles about Linux, I just started using Ubuntu back in October and haven't gotten a good feel for it yet, so I look forward to your help and incite.
Welcome to the team MacKenzie and wow what an awesome post! I've fancied Linux for a long time and reading this post has puched me a little further to finally giving it a try. :) Thanks a lot for the great overview and explanations!
Very nicely written and concise, and I appreciate that you explain the benefit of "You're free" when using FLOSS. I will use this as a pointer for new users. Thank you!


Reims having played 7 matches are at position 14 with 8 points in the 2018-19 French ligue 1.
They have won 2 times, drawn 2 times and lost 3 times.
The last game they played was against PSG where they lost 4-1 away.
So far this season they have scored 4 goals ( GF) conceded 9 goals (GA) remaining with a goal difference of -5 goals (GD).
Bordeaux having played 7 matches are at position 10 with 10 points in the 2018-19 French ligue 1.
They have won 3 times, drawn 1 time and lost 3 times.
The guests have won 1 time drawn none and lost 2 times in their overall 3 matches played away from home.
In their last 5 recent matches they have won 2 times, drawn 1 time and lost 2 times. (WWLDL).
The last game they played was against Lille where they won 1-0 at home.
So far this season they have scored 10 goals ( GF), conceded 11 goals (GA) remaining with a goal difference of -1 goals (GD).
The two teams have met a total of 9 times in the past, Reims have won 4 times. Bordeaux 1 time and drawn 4 times.
In their last five h2h, Reims have won 4 times. Bordeaux none and drawn 1 time.
The last time they clashed was on 27-02-2016 . Reims won 4-1 at home.
Who to watch: P. Chavarría leads the attacking line of Reims, he is a sensational player for his side and has already found the back of the opposition's net once. He will be the main target by their rivals.
WHO TO WATCH: 22 years old Guinea forward F. Kamano is the leading goal scorer for the hosts with 4 goals. J. Briand has the most top assists and they will both feature in this game.
Reims who have not won any of their last 4 league fixtures are in need of a win as they aim higher and seeing that they have won 4 of their last five h2h meetings aganist their rivals, this is achievable.
F. Kamano has had a smooth run since the beginning of the season and has already scored 4 goals in the last 6 starts. His appearance here will be of great value to his side and is capable of helping them win this match up.
The visitors are the on-form side in this match up winning two of their last five games and we can give them points for that. However Reims are very tough to beat at home and we think they will share the spoils.


text:
A Systematic Change with Time in the Size of Betelgeuse
Townes, C. H. and Wishnow, E. H. and Hale, D. D. S. and Walp, B. (2009) A Systematic Change with Time in the Size of Betelgeuse. Astrophysical Journal Letters, 697 (2). L127-L128. ISSN 2041-8205. https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20090701-144225715
The diameter of Betelgeuse (α Orionis) has been measured at a wavelength of 11.15 μm using the Infrared Spatial Interferometer over the past 15 years. During this 1993-2009 time period the star's size has decreased systematically by 15%.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L127 DOI UNSPECIFIED
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/697/2/L127/ Publisher UNSPECIFIED
© 2009 The American Astronomical Society. Received 2009 March 9, accepted for publication 2009 April 20 Published 2009 May 11. We thank W. Fitelson for his efforts in developing and keeping the ISI operating during these measurements. We also thank M. Bester, W. C. Danchi, and P. G. Tuthill, former staff members, the former graduate students, E. A. Lipman, J. D. Monnier, J. Wiener, and K. Tatebe, and the many undergraduate students who have helped perform and analyze these measurements. We acknowledge the use of the AAVSO database. This work received support from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Facility: ISI.
NSF UNSPECIFIED
Office of Naval Research UNSPECIFIED
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation UNSPECIFIED
stars: general; stars: individual (Betelgeuse); techniques: interferometric
A Systematic Change with Time in the Size of Betelgeuse C. H. Townes, E. H. Wishnow, D. D. S. Hale, and B. Walp 2009 ApJ 697 L127-L128 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L127

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Although the development of pharmaceutical compounds has long been a commercial enterprise, thebroader field of biomedical research has enjoyed a very different tradition, one that allows the freesharing of scientific knowledge. But the culture of open science has eroded considerably over the pastquarter-century. Proprietary claims have increasingly moved upstream, from the end productsthemselves to the ground-breaking discoveries that made them possible in the first place. Oneimportant reason for this change has been a narrowing of the gap between fundamental research andcommercial applications. Once largely a matter of serendipity or trial and error, drug discovery nowdepends critically on basic knowledge of genes, proteins and associated biochemical pathways. Inaddition, the practical payoffs of basic research have become easy to anticipate in many cases,making it straightforward to obtain patents for discoveries that in an earlier era would have seemedtoo far removed from useful application to warrant the effort.
This shift in patenting activity has met little resistance. For example, in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court held that genetically engineered microorganisms wereeligible for patent protection. Shortly thereafter, Congress created a specializedcourt to hear appeals in patent matters, the Court of Appeals for the FederalCircuit, which has further extended the Supreme Court's expansive approach topatent eligibility. The Federal Circuit has also relaxed the standards normallyrequired for patent protection, such as proof of the practical utility of aninvention and of its lack of obviousness—standards that might otherwise haveprevented the patenting of incremental advances in biomedical research.
These changes in the economics of research and in the interpretation of thepatent laws have been important factors in the proliferation of intellectualproperty claims for discoveries of a fundamental nature. But perhaps even more significant has beenthe explicit U.S. policy of allowing grantees to seek patent rights for the results of government-sponsored research. This policy, which began in 1980 with passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, has turneduniversities into major players in the biotech business.
The Bayh-Dole Act was intended to promote the widespread use of federally funded inventions. Thesponsors of the legislation believed that permitting grantees to obtain patent rights and to conveyexclusive licenses for their inventions to private corporations would motivate investors to pick upwhere the government left off. This process, it was hoped, would produce commercial products from http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/16219?fulltext=true&print=yes American Scientist Online - Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine discoveries that might otherwise languish in the halls of academe.
This goal is, of course, quite noble. But the law draws no distinction between inventions that leaddirectly to commercial products and fundamental advances that enable further scientific studies.
Universities have taken the opportunity to file patent applications on discoveries like new DNAsequences, protein structures and disease pathways—results that are primarily valuable because theyenable more investigation. Columbia University, for example, now holds a portfolio in which 50 percentof its licensed patents represent such research tools. And even when they do not seek patents,universities often try to preserve their expectations for profitable payoffs by imposing restrictions onthe dissemination of materials and reagents that might generate commercial value somewhere downthe line.
This frenzy of proprietary claiming has coincided with unprecedented levels of both public and privateinvestment in biopharmaceutical research and development—and magnificent progress in health care.
So for many people, it may be difficult to see that there is any problem. But in the long run thecurrent system may, paradoxically, hinder rather than accelerate biomedical research. Here we explorehow the current system emerged and what could be done to fix some of its problems.
In 1979, U.S. universities were granted only 264 patents. But the statistics changed quickly after thepassage of the Bayh-Dole Act the following year. In 1997, for instance, U.S. universities received2,436 patents, a nearly 10-fold increase in 17 years. This rise was significantly greater than thetwofold increase in the overall rate of patenting during the same time period and also exceededgrowth in university research spending. Biomedical discoveries account for a large share of thesepatents, particularly in terms of licensing revenues.
The majority of this patented research was publicly funded. (Despite the increasingly intimate involvement of industry with universities, private companiesactually fund only a small percentage of university-based research in the lifesciences.) A prominent recent example involves embryonic stem cells. In the1990s, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored research at theUniversity of Wisconsin that succeeded in deriving such cells from rhesus monkeys and macaques. The NIH-sponsored research on primates yielded a broad patent for theWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the technology-transfer arm of the University of Wisconsin,which issued an exclusive license to Geron Corporation. This patent covers all lines of embryonic stemcells for primates, including humans (although for complicated reasons, Geron now holds rights to justthree types of differentiated human embryonic stem cells).
Clearly, NIH has a strong interest in ensuring the widespread dissemination of such broadly enabling research tools. But the Bayh-Dole Act significantly restrictswhat NIH can do. As long as the contractor is based in the United States,funding agencies may restrict patenting only in "exceptional circumstances,"when they determine that withholding title to the invention will better promotethe goals of the Act. The Bayh-Dole legislation also provides administrativeprocedures under which a grantee can challenge the determination of exceptional circumstances, witha right of appeal to the U.S. Claims Court. In addition, the agency must notify the CommerceDepartment, which has primary responsibility for administering this law, each time it claims exceptionalcircumstances, and it must provide an analysis justifying the action. If the Secretary of Commercedecides that "any individual determination or pattern of determinations is contrary to the policies andobjectives of [the Bayh-Dole Act]," he or she must advise the head of the agency and theAdministrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and recommend corrective actions. Giventhese cumbersome procedures, it is perhaps not surprising that NIH declarations of exceptionalcircumstances have been extremely rare. Indeed, we are aware of only a single case.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/16219?fulltext=true&print=yes American Scientist Online - Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine The Bayh-Dole Act also permits an agency to compel licensing of the patents that result from researchit had previously funded. But an agency can do so only if it determines that the university (or itsexclusive licensee) is not taking steps to achieve "practical application of the subject invention" or ifsuch licensing is necessary "to alleviate public health or safety needs or requirements for public usespecified by Federal regulations." Exercise of such rights is not subject to an overarching directive thatthe circumstances be "exceptional." Nonetheless, the Bayh-Dole Act seriously restricts the value of thisprovision by deferring such actions pending elaborate administrative proceedings and exhaustion ofcourt appeals. The administrative obstacles have proved sufficiently high that NIH has never onceexercised this option.
Although the idea of private universities earning large sums of money from publicly sponsoredresearch may be troubling enough for many, the real problem with the Bayh-Dole Act is that it oftenputs such academic research advances out of the reach. Although one might imagine that patentholders don't enforce their patents for noncommercial uses, some have in fact been quite aggressive inthis regard, insisting that university investigators sign license agreements, especially when they seekto transfer materials covered by a patent rather than simply practicing a patented techniqueinconspicuously in their own labs. Given that patent law offers no significant exemption from liabilityfor experimental use and that the division between noncommercial and commercial research can beblurry, it is indeed foolhardy for academic scientists to rely on the forbearance of patent holders.
Thus some patents can stall scientific progress. This concern is particularly acute for claims to early-stage discoveries that open up entirely new fields. Suchpatents may be quite broad, permitting their owners to control a wide range ofsubsequent research. One reply to this argument is that profit-seeking owners ofpioneering patents will find it in their own best interest to disseminate theirdiscoveries to as many follow-on improvers as possible. History shows otherwise.
The Wright brothers, for example, refused to offer reasonable licensing terms forsome of their aeronautical innovations until compelled to do so by the government. One notable recentexample in the pharmaceutical industry is the controversy generated when DuPont imposed restrictionson academic investigators wishing to use its "oncomouse" technology, which DuPont controls under anexclusive license from Harvard University, the patentee.
Why would a company not want to license its technology as widely as possible? Isn't that how itmakes money? One reason is that issuing such licenses requires considerable time and effort. Giventhe imperfect information available to the parties involved, the disparate assessments of value to thetechnology and the danger that one side might misappropriate the research plans of the other oncethey are disclosed in the course of negotiations, the transaction costs associated with such bargainingare likely to be quite high. And these costs mount quickly when the basic research discoveriesnecessary for subsequent work are owned not by just one company, but by a number of differententities.
Concern about an "anticommons" or "property rights thicket" is quite pressing in contemporarybiomedical research, which often draws from many prior discoveries made by different scientists inuniversities and private companies. Exchanges of DNA sequences, laboratory animals, reagents anddata that were once shared freely are today subject to licenses, material-transfer and database-accessagreements. These arrangements have to be reviewed and negotiated before research may proceed.
A standard response to these fears is that market forces will motivate the emergence of patent poolsand other institutions for bundling intellectual property rights. But this prediction has not yet beenborne out. Indeed, when representatives of biopharmaceutical companies have seen the potential foran anticommons, they have reacted not by forming patent pools, but rather by strengthening the http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/16219?fulltext=true&print=yes American Scientist Online - Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine The case of single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, provides an interesting example of this phenomenon. Collections of SNPs are found throughout thegenome and are a useful resource for scientists searching for genes involved inspecific diseases. These SNPs also promise to be useful in developing diagnosticand therapeutic products. In recent years, various biotechnology companies haveidentified and sought patents on large numbers of SNPs, provoking concern onthe part of both NIH and the pharmaceutical industry about the potential forbalkanization of intellectual property rights to this important resource.
Paradoxically, the pharmaceutical industry has enjoyed more latitude than NIH torespond to this threat by placing SNPs in the public domain. Pharmaceuticalcompanies have joined together with the nonprofit Wellcome Trust (a U.K.-basednongovernmental partner in the Human Genome Project, which is not bound bythe Bayh-Dole Act) in a consortium to sponsor an SNP-identification effort with explicit instructions to put the information in the public domain. The SNP Consortium has candidlyembraced a goal of defeating patent claims to SNPs. The willingness of private companies in a patent-sensitive industry to spend money to enhance the public domain is indeed curious. We think it ispowerful evidence of a perception in industry that claims to intellectual property rights for fundamentaldiscoveries can create significant barriers to subsequent research and product development.
One solution might involve changing the patent laws to restrict patents on fundamental research.
Congress or the courts might, for example, reinvigorate the "products of nature" limitation on patenteligibility so as to exclude discoveries of DNA sequences, proteins and biochemical mechanisms frompatent protection. Lawmakers and judges could also fortify the utility standard to limit the patenting ofresearch tools. Another much-discussed idea is to provide an exemption from infringement liability forresearch, particularly noncommercial research. Although such legal adjustments are worth considering,it is difficult to calibrate these changes accurately, and the consequences of overdoing it could begrave.
Patents clearly matter to the biopharmaceutical industry, and undue restrictions on them may indeeddeter private investment. Although it is possible that these companies—particularly those that makeend products—would benefit in the long term from limits on certain patents, many of these businessescontinue to insist that they need patents on their research to raise capital. Given that privateinvestment in biomedical research and development today exceeds public funding, the strong belief ofinvestors that patents are essential urges caution in changing the underlying legal rules.
When research is publicly sponsored, however, the argument for strong patent rights loses much of itsforce. The Bayh-Dole Act does not presume that patents are necessary to motivate grantees toperform research but rather that patents will promote subsequent utilization and development ofinventions. The reasoning that lurks behind this presumption is that patents and exclusive licenses areessential to attract the necessary private investment. Whatever the merits of this presumption forpatents on final products such as new drugs, it makes little sense for patents on broadly enablinginformation and techniques that are ready for dissemination to scientists in both public and privateinstitutions, advances that can be put to use in the laboratory right away, without any furtherinvestment.
A classic example is the Cohen-Boyer method for combining DNA from different organisms. Manyobservers attribute the rapid progress of the biotechnology industry to the fact that this technologywas made widely available rather than licensed exclusively to a single company. Although this pre–Bayh-Dole technology was, in fact, patented, it was offered nonexclusively and cheaply to encouragecompanies to purchase licenses rather than to challenge the patents. These nonexclusive licenses http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/16219?fulltext=true&print=yes American Scientist Online - Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine generated some $300 million for the universities that owned the patents, but it is difficult to see howthey did anything to enhance product profitability or otherwise motivate subsequent research anddevelopment. If anything, the patent royalties imposed a modest tax on product development.
A greater concern is that the Bayh-Dole Act does little to ensure that a university will license suchpatents nonexclusively. To the contrary, Congress was careful in the terms of the Bayh-Dole Act andsubsequent legislation to give universities discretion to grant exclusive licenses, which may be morefinancially attractive than nonexclusive licensing. Exclusive licenses typically command higher royalties,and companies holding exclusive licenses are more willing to reimburse for patent costs and to provideadditional grant funding to the inventor. Indeed, the information available suggests that the majorityof university licenses to startups and small businesses are exclusive.
But it is not clear that such exclusive licenses are necessary to achieve the aims of the Bayh-Dole Act.
A recent case in which patenting and subsequent exclusive licensing were not necessary for productdevelopment involves federally funded research that identified the cell-signalling pathway for NF-kB(nuclear factor kappa B), which regulates genes that function during inflammation, cell proliferationand programmed cell death. This research (which scientists at Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research carried out in the 1980s) led to abroad patent claiming all drugs that work by inhibiting NF-kb cell signaling. Because the NF-kBpathway has been implicated in diseases ranging from cancer and osteoporosis to atherosclerosis andrheumatoid arthritis, the patent—which was issued just last year—may cover drug treatments for all ofthese diseases. Indeed, these academic institutions, together with their exclusive licensee, AriadPharmaceuticals, are now suing Eli Lilly & Co., claiming that Lilly's osteoporosis drug Evista and itssepsis drug Xigris work in a manner that infringes the NF-kB patent. Ariad has also sent letters tosome 50 other companies with products that work via the NF-kB pathway, demanding royalties onpresent or future product sales. Obviously, the companies that are now being asked to pay royaltiesdid not need an exclusive license from Harvard, MIT and Whitehead to motivate them to pursueproduct development; the prospect of obtaining patents on their own end products was sufficient. Inthis case, as in many others, pioneering patents issued to academic institutions only thwart innovation.
For many discoveries emerging from government-sponsored research, the benefits of patenting are lowrelative to its costs. But some discoveries, including some important research tools and enablingtechnologies generated in the course of publicly sponsored research, undoubtedly require substantialcommercial investment to become reliably mass-produced for widespread distribution. For example,technologies and machines for DNA sequencing and analysis, initially developed in academiclaboratories, required substantial follow-up investment by private companies to turn them into reliableand commercially available equipment. Patents and exclusive licenses may be crucial to motivate thissort of investment.
The policy challenge, then, is to devise a system that distinguishes cases in which proprietary claimsmake sense from cases in which they do not. The complexity of biomedical research makes this aformidable task, and the public interest in getting these determinations right demands assigning thisresponsibility to the most qualified body. Ideally, decisions about the dividing line between the publicdomain and private property should be made by institutions that are in a position to appreciate thetensions between widespread access and preservation of commercial incentives without being undulyswayed by motivations that diverge from the overall public interest.
So where should these decisions be made? On first examination, one might think that universities,which reap the rewards of the proprietary restrictions they impose on others but also pay the costs ofrestrictions that others impose on them, might be interested in maintaining at least some research inthe public domain. The problem is that the costs to a university are largely borne by its scientists whocannot get prompt access to the proprietary technologies they seek, whereas the gains from licensing http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/16219?fulltext=true&print=yes American Scientist Online - Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine revenues are much more salient to its technology-transfer officers, who are charged with generatingrevenue. So coming to a consensus might be difficult.
Even when universities recognize that the larger academic community might be better off if theyshared their research tools more freely, they face a serious problem: ensuring collective action. Solong as other institutions are staking out claims, no university is likely to abstain from asserting itsown rights. Appeal to the traditions of open science may not be sufficient, especially given that thescientists who hold those values don't usually make decisions regarding assertions of proprietary rights.
Left to their own devices, universities probably cannot mount the sustained community effort neededto preserve the research commons. But, interestingly, on a number of occasions NIH has been able touse sternly worded appeals to the norms of open science to convince academic institutions to keepbasic research in the public domain. For example, in 1996 leaders of the National Human GenomeResearch Institute (NHGRI), together with the Wellcome Trust and academic researchers at the majorhuman genome mapping centers, resolved that "all human genomic DNA sequence information,generated by centers funded for large-scale human sequencing, should be freely available and in thepublic domain in order to encourage research and development and to maximize its benefit tosociety." The NHGRI followed up with a policy statement making "rapid release of data into publicdatabases" a condition for grants for large-scale human genome sequencing. The NIH could not,however, go so far as to forbid its grantees from filing patent applications without relying on thecumbersome "exceptional circumstances" clause of the Bayh-Dole Act. Rather than take this step, NIHdeclared that, as a matter of doctrine and policy, raw human genomic DNA sequence informationshould not be considered patentable. The statement also warned that NHGRI would monitor whethergrantees were patenting "large blocks of primary human genomic DNA sequence" and threatened toinvoke the "exceptional circumstances" limitation in future grants. In the specific context of large-scalegenome mapping, universities were willing to embrace this policy.
Administrators at NIH undertook a similar strategy for SNPs. Before the SNP Consortium steppedforward to place this information in the public domain, NIH had decided to allocate public funds forSNP identification. Once again, NIH refrained from invoking the "exceptional circumstances" provisionof the Bayh-Dole Act. Instead, in its request for applications for SNP-related grants, the agencystressed the importance of making information about SNPs readily available to the researchcommunity and asked grant applicants to specify their plans for sharing data, materials and software.
The NIH also warned that it reserved the right to monitor their patenting activity.
The efforts of NIH to constrain its grantees in pursuing intellectual property rights have not beenlimited to genome projects. A more general statement of "Principles and Guidelines for Sharing ofBiomedical Research Resources," adopted by NIH in December 1999, also attempts to guide NIHgrantees regarding proprietary rights. These principles state that "the use of patents and exclusivelicenses is not the only, nor in some cases the most appropriate, means of implementing the [Bayh-Dole] Act. Where the subject invention is useful primarily as a research tool, inappropriate licensingpractices are likely to thwart rather than promote utilization, commercialization, and publicavailability." What NIH has sought to achieve through these various statements is broadly consistent with the intentof the Bayh-Dole legislation "to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supportedresearch or development." Arguably, however, at least with respect to patentable inventions, NIH hasacted outside the scope of its authority, leaving itself vulnerable to legal challenge.
The time is ripe to fine-tune the Bayh-Dole Act to give funding agencies more latitude in guiding thepatenting and licensing activities of their grantees. We propose two modest reforms that would givethese agencies, which have the proper combination of knowledge and incentives, somewhat greater http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/16219?fulltext=true&print=yes American Scientist Online - Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine discretion to determine when publicly funded discoveries should be put in the public domain.
First, the circumstances in which an agency may prevent its contractor from retaining title to aninvention should be liberalized. The current language of the law creates a clear presumption that anagency should exercise this power very infrequently. That should be changed. Once the "exceptionalcircumstances" language is deleted, the law could be more freely applied to achieve the goal ofpromoting widespread dissemination and use of research results. The process for review of"exceptional circumstance" determinations should be streamlined as well, with provisions for researchto proceed while examination of the decision runs its course.
Second, Congress should modify the requirement that a funding agency's authority to compel licensingof university patents be held in abeyance until all court appeals are exhausted. By the same token,however, an agency should not be given authority to act without some provision for judicial review.
Unlike a determination to restrict patenting, a subsequent exercise of the right to compel licensingdisturbs settled expectations. If business planning is too readily upset, industry could become wary ofinvesting in university-based technology.
It might be argued that restoring greater authority to agencies would return us to the unhappyposition that motivated Congress to pass the Bayh-Dole Act in the first place. This danger appearsquite small. In the intervening 23 years, NIH has embraced patenting and technology transfer infurtherance of its mission of improving public health. Moreover, our proposal to give agencies greaterauthority would not overturn the general presumption in favor of allowing government contractors topatent inventions. It would simply permit agencies to decide that patenting is not warranted inparticular cases, while streamlining procedures for making and reviewing these decisions. Givinggreater discretion to agencies would also correct a dangerous oversimplification of how best to achievethe important policies underlying the Bayh-Dole Act, by recognizing that patenting and exclusivelicensing are not always the best way to go.
Rai, A. K. 1999. Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms ofscience. Northwestern University Law Review 94:77-152.
Campbell, E. G., B. R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, L. Birenbaum, S. Hilgartner, N. A. Holtzman and D.
Blumenthal. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey.
Journal of the American Medical Association 287:473-480.
Eisenberg, R. S. 1996. Public research and private development: patents and technology transferin government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Review 82:1663-1683.
Gelijns, A. C., and S. O. Thier. 2002. Medical innovation and institutional independence:rethinking university-industry connections. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:72-77.
Heller, M. A., and R. S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons inbiomedical research. Science 280: 698-701.
Mowery, D. C., R. R. Nelson, B. N. Sampat and A. A. Ziedonis. 2001. The growth of patentingand licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.
Mowery, D. C., and A. A. Ziedonis. 2002. Academic patent quality and quantity before and afterthe Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy 31:399-418.
FEATURE ARTICLE: Is Combustion of Plastics Desirable?


text:
GreenBiz Reads
An engineer's perspective on the renewable energy shift
Brock N. Meeks
ShutterstockSaurav022
Will the developing world's need for reliable energy preclude a shift to advanced energy sources?
A new book by David Hone, chief climate change adviser at Shell, "Putting the Genie Back: Solving the Climate and Energy Dilemma," takes the reader on a journey through the climate change issue and the transition in the energy system that must be implemented to finally address the issue.
Hone is a chemical engineer with 37 years' experience in the oil and gas industry. As a long-time climate commentator, his goal always has been to tackle the issue from an engineering perspective; based on data, built on facts and without the histrionics and emotion that have come to define this subject in many quarters. The book includes aspects of both climate science and energy system transition, as illustrated by the two excerpts below.
Rising surface temperatures
Global temperature data can be challenging to analyze. El Niño events can be categorized, with the events of 1997-98 and 2015-16 both listed as Very Strong. 1972-73 and 1982-83 were also Very Strong events, giving a total of four such events over the last 40 years. Each of these events led to a temperature spike in the global record as reported by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA).
This data shows an almost perfect linear trend over recent decades, with the Very Strong El Niño same year global temperature anomaly rising monotonically at 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. There is no sign of a pause in warming or acceleration, at least over the last 40-plus years. Extending the trend into the 2030s indicates that a future Very Strong El Niño event in that period would result in a 1.3 degree Celsius temperature rise against the 20th century average, about the equivalent of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the NOAA time series (using the late 19th century as a proxy for pre-industrial).
The data for the last half century for comparable El Niño event years and coinciding with a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 315 parts-per-million (ppm) to 400 ppm (vs. 275 ppm to 315 ppm over the century before that) indicates that the underlying surface temperature trend is rising consistently, despite the noise associated with year-on-year fluctuations of the Southern Oscillation (El Niño and La Niña) and other phenomena. This data noise has given rise to claims of both no global warming and accelerating global warming. The reality is sobering enough, even without the histrionics from some observers.
When did the current upward trend really start in earnest?
But a further question to ask is when did the current upward trend really start in earnest and therefore what is the temperature rise today against a pre or early industrial (i.e. 1750-1850) baseline? This is an important question as there is now the established desire to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, but with the real prize being to limit this even further and ideally to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
If the current strong warming trend started in the middle of the last century, say in the post-war boom, then at 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade, this results in warming over the period of nearly 1.2 degrees Celsius. The 1950s were also presumably warmer than the 1850s as carbon dioxide levels had risen by some 30 ppm over that period, which argues for the current level of warming to be something more than 1.2 degrees Celsius.
Rising energy demand
A visit by President Barack Obama to India and his discussions on climate change with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi threw the spotlight on the global development pathway and its energy needs. But it was a BBC report from India at the time that highlighted the issue. It was about Santosh Chowdhury, a gentleman who lives in the village of Rameshwarpur in Orissa, an eastern state. According to the BBC report, Chowdhury had just bought a refrigerator, which may seem unremarkable — but it was the first fridge in his village. Now the thing about a refrigerator is that, unlike many other domestic appliances, it requires a reliable electricity supply 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This means that Chowdhury needs a grid connection capable of sending electrons his way at any time throughout the day.
Because the fridge needs electricity on a continuous basis, this excludes local intermittent renewable energy as the primary provider unless a reliable backup or energy storage mechanism is available. In India, given cost considerations, the baseload electricity that guarantees reliable delivery will likely be generated with coal although India is also looking toward nuclear. Solar energy will augment this and at certain times may provide for all Chowdhury's needs. But unless the town spends considerably more money and installs a more complex micro-grid system with battery capacity, the dependency on coal will continue, at least in the medium term.
But the story doesn't end there. The lack of fridges in Rameshwarpur reflects the situation across the whole of India. In 2016 only about one in four of the country's homes contained a fridge. That compares to an average of 99 percent of households in developed countries. In 2004, 24 percent of households in China owned a fridge. Ten years later this had shot up to 88 percent, or some 400 million refrigerators. India has about 250 million households, which approximates to 60 million fridges today. By 2030 as population rises, as people per household likely decline, and as fridge ownership approaches Chinese levels, India might have 400 million fridges.
Because the fridge needs electricity on a continuous basis, this excludes local intermittent renewable energy as the primary provider.
So, Chowdhury's purchase and many others following will mean that India needs to produce more fridges — over 300 million more. This fridge is the start of a long industrial chain. It means India needs more refrigerator factories and chemical plants to make the refrigerant. The refrigerators will be made of steel and aluminum, which means mining or the import of ores, refining, smelting, casting, stamping and transport. These need coal, gas or oil. Coal is needed for smelting iron ore as it acts as the reducing agent, producing carbon dioxide in the process. The intense heat required in the processes is most easily and economically provided by coal or gas, although given time, electricity will doubtless make its way into these processes.
Then these materials must be shipped from mines to refineries to manufacturing plants to distribution depots, and then to wholesalers, to shops and finally to Chowdhury's home. Although electricity is starting to appear in the transport sector for lighter vehicles, except for railways, it isn't yet the energy provider for heavy transport. In India, rail transport is extensive, and while electrification is making good progress, there is still a large role for oil.
With a refrigerator, family life for the Chowdhurys will undoubtedly improve. It will be easier to manage food supply and meal preparation, so productivity in other areas may well rise. This could translate to more income, further purchases and perhaps the first opportunity for air travel, which will almost certainly be powered by a hydrocarbon fuel.
This story first appeared on:
Emerging Nations
@BrockMeeks
2001 Second Warmest Year on Record
ByJohn Snyder
Cooling is warming the planet, but market failures are freezing the AC industry's innovation
ByElizabeth O'Grady
There is no 'new normal' for climate — only change
ByRichard B. Rood
Lost jobs and the collateral damage of climate change
ByPeter Poschen
It's time to bid adieu to HFCs
ByJames Murray
2015 EHS and Sustainability Software Buyers Guide
The End Of An Era: Say Goodbye To Cheap Water


text:
Dave Glynn
WHITE LIGHT CEMETERY – Careful What You Wish For
WHITE LIGHT CEMETERY RAISE THE DEAD IN LOUSIANA
From Lafayette, Louisiana, the center of Cajun and Creole culture in the US, comes a new band to the Decibel Geeks – White Light Cemetery. Together for 6 years now, Careful What You Wish For is the second full-length album on Ripple Records from (in their words) "a bluesy amalgamation of influences like Lynyrd Sknyrd, Pantera, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Crowbar, and Deep Purple." Crowbar? Anyway, with a description like that, I had to check them out.
The album opens with a deep bassline intro and spooky guitar over the top, and then proceeds to kick ass. "Misery Loves Company", at over 6 minutes long is an unusual album opener, but it's got a great groove and shows off the band's strengths right from the start. Ryan Robin's and Shea Barden's guitars complement Robin's voice perfectly, as they keep the sound low and gruff. Tara Miller's bass playing, heard right from the first note is stellar. In fact they use that trick again on the very Sabbath sounding intro to "Looking Out (for Number One)". Thomas Colley, as "angry tubthumper," has the drums holding everything together, with great fills and loud and noisy crashes at all the right moments.
The album is unusual in its song lineup, too. With three songs over 6 minutes and two more over 5 minutes, they have time to really develop those basslines into great songs. "Looking Out", for example, starts with that brooding intro, then has a Skynyrd guitar line in the verses, and vocals that sound somewhere in between. The same is true of "Misery", and "Waiting" just blisters all the way through. I guess if I could ask for an improvement, it would be more freestyle guitar solos, especially in the long tunes. "Bullet to Erase", not my favorite song and a disappointing finale, nevertheless has a great solo that's worth waiting for.
The shorter songs, "Sky River" and especially "On a Dime", for example have a more southern, bluesy feel to them. To be fair, this kind of blues-influenced music has always been right up my alley. But I think White Light Cemetery has put out one of the best albums early into 2017. I'm looking forward to giving it a lot of airplay, and expect I'll see it on a list or two at the end of the year.
Misery Loves Company
Sky River
Looking Out (For Number One)
On a Dime
Quit Work, Make Music
Bullet to Erase
Buy Careful What You Wish For on Amazon
White Light Cemetery Facebook / White Light Cemetery Twitter
Dave Glynn's Twitter
[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MnQRNrN_CA[/embedyt]


text:
Assistant Dean-Managers
Academic/Faculty
The Michigan State University College of Human Medicine's Office of Academic Affairs invites applications for the Community Assistant Dean of the Lansing Community Campus. The college was one of the first community based medical schools in the nation and conducts its clinical training for third and fourth-year students throughout the state in seven communities - Lansing, Flint, Grand Rapids, Midland, Southeast Michigan, Traverse City, and the Upper Peninsula - fulfilling its mission of serving the people of Michigan. The Community Assistant Dean role is the chief academic officer for the community campus and is responsible for developing and maintaining collegial educational partnerships with local and regional health systems. The Community Assistant Dean will administer the medical student education program, manage the community campus team, assure compliance with accreditation requirements, advise students in career and professional development, recruit and support community faculty, work toward advancing inclusion and diversity and responding to the needs of the underserved, and develop community resources to support the undergraduate medical program. The position is 0.5 FTE and academic department and rank will be determined based upon qualifications and experience.
All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, citizenship, disability or protected veteran status.
The successful candidate will have:
A terminal degree including MD, DO, PhD or equivalent;
Experience working within medical education;
Demonstrated dedication to student success and effectiveness working with students at a variety of performance levels;
Collaborative approach to academic governance;
Experience working with faculty teams.
Please upload:
A current curriculum vitae,
A statement of interest in this position to include a description of past activities or accomplishments relevant to the position and commitment to diversity and inclusion,
The names of three references. The search committee is committed to respecting confidentiality and references will not be contacted without permission of the applicant.
Review of Applications Begins On
MSU Statement
Michigan State University has been advancing the common good with uncommon will for more than 160 years. One of the top research universities in the world, MSU pushes the boundaries of discovery and forges enduring partnerships to solve the most pressing global challenges while providing life-changing opportunities to a diverse and inclusive academic community through more than 200 programs of study in 17 degree-granting colleges.
About Michigan State University
Spartans work every day to advance the common good in uncommon ways.Together, we tackle some of the world?s toughest problems to find solutions that make life better?from alternative energy to better food safety to breakthrough medical and environmental applications achieved through rare isotope research.We teach. We explore and we discover. We collaborate and lead. We innovate, inspire, and empower. We achieve our potential and create circumstances that help our students and others achieve theirs.We're good at it, and we've been at it for more than 150 years.The nation?s pioneer land-grant university, MSU began as a bold experiment that democratized higher education and helped bring science and innovation into everyday life. The revolutionary concept became a model for the nation.Today, MSU is one of the top research universities in the world?on one of the biggest, greenest campuses in the nation. Home to nationally ranked and recognized academic, residential college, and service-learning programs, we?re a diverse community of dedicated students and scholars, athletes and artists, scientists and leaders.In ways both practical and profound, we work to create a stronger, more sustainable, and more hopeful future for all.
Connections working at Michigan State University