text:
Review - Philosophy, Politics, Democracy
Selected Essays
by Joshua Cohen
Harvard University Press, 2009
Review by David Marjoribanks
Mar 9th 2010 (Volume 14, Issue 10)
Joshua Cohen's Philosophy, Politics, Democracy, which brings together a collection of his essays spanning some twenty years of work, includes some of his most significant papers, and provides a very important contribution to work in philosophy and politics on democracy.
It is not without reason that Joshua Cohen is widely seen as one of the most significant contemporary political philosophers. Firstly, many of the essays in this collection are important and recognized original contributions to their fields in their own right. Secondly, Cohen is very much a political philosopher. In the Introduction, he states that political philosophy is continuous with politics; the point of political philosophy is to contribute reflectively to the public reasoning about what we ought to do that already forms one part of political life (4). This is reflected generally by Cohen's work over the last twenty years, and specifically in the selection of essays here. Cohen combines philosophical reflection on democracy itself with its implications for free expression and privacy, and applications such as to the case of the funding of political parties, and provides here not only philosophical work elaborating a distinctive normative conception of democracy, but also more practical work on how to achieve it -- something which is unfortunately often absent in work in political philosophy -- drawing on empirical evidence to supplement philosophical reasoning. The result is a powerful and incredibly valuable volume, which ought to occupy a place on the shelf of anyone who is interested in what democracy means and how we might realize it.
Although the material is quite varied, as the title suggests, occupying a position at the border of political philosophy and politics, a clear theme underlies all of the essays here. Running throughout the collection is an ideal of democracy, called 'deliberative democracy'. The deliberative conception of democracy emphasizes that democracy is not simply about fair bargaining between groups, or treating people as equals in collective decision-making processes, but about reasoning together as equals on matters of common concern. Essays One, Two, Five, Seven and Ten are devoted to developing this conception.
Essay One, sets out the deliberative conception and argues that this provides the most compelling account of the democratic ideal. The deliberative conception treats democracy as a fundamental political ideal, not simply a derivative ideal which is explained in terms of the values of its effects. Cohen takes John Rawls' work as his starting point. For Rawls, justification of a theory of justice takes place by hypothetically situating ourselves in an 'original position' in which we eliminate all particular knowledge of our place in society, etc. By excluding this particular knowledge, and hence removing any tendency to privilege our own interests, we may decide fairly on principles of justice. This original position therefore serves as an abstract model of what fair conditions are, which we ought to strive to mirror in political institutions. Cohen argues that Rawls' conception of 'Justice as Fairness' is right in accommodating three conditions -- that democracy involves public deliberation focused on the common good, it requires some form of equality for liberties to have fair value, and it shapes the identity and interests of citizens -- but Rawls implausibly sees these as a natural consequence of the ideal of fairness. By contrast, Cohen sees these as comprising elements of a political ideal of how to arrive at collective decision. To understand this ideal, he writes, "we ought not to proceed by seeking to "mirror" ideal fairness in the fairness of political arrangements, but instead to proceed by seeking to mirror a system of ideal deliberation in social and political institutions" (21).
Cohen outlines five features of deliberative democracy (22-3): it is an ongoing and independent association; free deliberation among equals is the basis of legitimacy; it is pluralistic (members have diverse convictions/ideals), although members share a commitment to the deliberative resolution of problems of collective choice; the terms of the association are not merely the result of deliberation, but are manifest as such; and members recognize each other as having deliberative capacities. Cohen then sketches an ideal deliberative procedure as free, reasoned, equal, and aiming at consensus, and this ideal is to be reflected in social and political institutions.
Essay Two, similarly starts with Rawls, and confronts the problem of pluralism, or the diversity of conceptions of the good in present society. Rawls came to emphasize that liberal societies are marked by pluralism, and a conception of justice therefore had to win support from various diverse points of view in an 'overlapping consensus'. The question is, 'can an egalitarian conception of justice be maintained in the face of such pluralism?' Cohen argues that the issue is not really about pluralism per se, but reasonable pluralism, and a theory of justice is not weakened by accepting reasonable pluralism of moralities, because it excludes the unreasonable, although not arbitrarily. By excluding the unreasonable, justice is not hostage to de facto power. The test of reasonableness proposed is to consider for any proposed conception of justice, whether it provides moral reasons within the different views which could be expected to arise in a society governed by it. The ideal must accommodate the real, he argues, because the real manifests the ideal -- accommodating reasonable pluralism does not represent an accommodation to power, but to the way that reality reflects the powers of practical reason. Accommodating justice to reasonable pluralism therefore represents not an accommodation to power, but to the way practical reasoning works in reality.
Essay Five, advances a substantive (as opposed to a merely procedural) conception of democracy which is compatible with this fact of reasonable pluralism. Non-substantive, 'aggregative' accounts come up against a familiar dilemma: on one hand, democracy seems too procedural -- some collective choices are surely wrong and illegitimate, no matter how much they result from laudable democratic procedure. On the other, a commitment to democracy seems to rule out any other basis for legitimacy. Cohen shows that this dilemma stems from what he terms an 'aggregative' conception of democracy (according to which democracy institutionalizes a principle of giving equal consideration to the interests of all), and the deliberative conception avoids such difficulties. Substantive liberties which we might think provide alternative bases of legitimacy (because they limit democratic choice) are themselves elements of the deliberative conception. Cohen therefore resolves the dilemma: deliberative democracy reflects the idea of popular authorization not only in the decision-making procedure, but in political reason itself. It is substantive, seeing citizens as equals, yet avoids problems of being non-political/non-democratic.
Essay Seven advances this argument further, and shows how religious liberty, expressive liberty and moral liberty are essential constituents of democracy, and not constraints upon it. Cohen also demonstrates that the deliberative conception highlights the values of community, legitimacy and democracy to a greater extent than aggregative conceptions. Essay Ten returns to the deliberative conception, and responds to criticisms of deliberation and alleged tensions between it and participation.
Cohen is not content to merely theorize about the ideal. Essays Three and Six deal with the more straightforwardly political question of how to achieve the deliberative ideal of democracy. Essay Three, written with Joel Rogers, provides an account of a deliberative politics of associations, termed 'associative democracy', and argues that secondary associations such as trade unions, citizen lobbies, employer associations, etc. can promote participation and deliberation. Associative democracy encourages the use of associations to address unequal participation, particularism and the cost and inefficiency of state-run egalitarian programs. They draw on real-world evidence from numerous countries, particularly from Scandinavian countries and America, to address concerns and show that associations can help forge an egalitarian-democratic order. Essay Six, written with Charles Sabel, likewise sketches a vision of democracy in which the provision of public goods is disciplined by reason-giving deliberation, yet avoids the uniformity of the state and public administration. While the third essay sees associations as playing this provisory role, the sixth describes a general architecture of wider, deliberative, democratic problem solving.
Essay Eight similarly addresses the political question of how to achieve deliberative democracy, although whereas Three and Six look positively for strategies and means, Eight negatively applies the deliberative conception to the case of funding of political parties, and argues that the current system of financing in the United States conflicts with the principles of political equality at the heart of the deliberative conception. In particular, the current system violates the requirement of equal opportunity for political influence. The election of President Obama, and the revolution in funding that occurred with it, offer some grounds for hope here, although Cohen does not address this in the Introduction. However, his critique is as pertinent now as before Obama's election, and provides important resources for thinking about how to reform funding to realize deliberative democracy in the longer-term.
If the essays so far can be collected into two broad themes (development of the ideal theory, and how to achieve it), Essays Four and Nine can be seen to occupy a third in between these. In these, Cohen turns to the application of the deliberative conception to more concrete cases of liberty of expression and the right to privacy. Essay Four returns to political philosophy and applies the deliberative conception to the case of freedom of expression (although it is offered not as a necessary illustration of that conception, but as an independently plausible view). Cohen argues for a non-sectarian (i.e., does not rely on one controversial conception of the good, but is sensitive to reasonable pluralism) justification for free expression, and only very stringent restrictions. Cohen's theory of free expression is founded on three important interests -- expressive, informational, and deliberative -- and the outcomes are considered in four themes: a general presumption against regulation of content, categorization of content regulation (some small set such as child pornography will have lesser protection), costly protections (presence of cost does not suffice to remove protection), and fair access. Cohen draws frequently on constitutional cases to illustrate the argument, the consequences of positions, and to support his conclusions.
Essay Nine focuses on the right to privacy, and argues similarly that this right does not depend on a sectarian -- or 'comprehensive', to use Rawls' phrase -- liberal philosophy. Characterizing kinds of decisions which should be protected as private ought to decided by reference to the weight of reasons that support them, he argues.
Essay Eleven in a sense stands in a fourth theme of its own. While it goes back to the deliberative ideal and the issue of pluralism, and hence might be placed in the first, it is also the most 'philosophical' of the essays here, dealing with the role of truth in public reason. Cohen advances a political conception of truth. He argues that Rawls is wrong to think that politics can do without truth. Rather, taking justice seriously requires caring about truth: a concern about justice is a concern about getting it right. Cohen therefore preserves a place for truth, but avoids, as Rawls wants to, controversy over the nature of truth. His solution is to provide a political conception, compatible with the fact of reasonable pluralism, which denies the sufficiency of truth, but not its relevance.
The sub-division into the above themes is not intended to imply that the book reads mainly as separate essays, it is merely a useful way of summarizing the content of the collection. While the content varies in its focus, the argument for the deliberative conception of democracy is clear and persuasive throughout. Cohen also writes with a fluency, lucidity and clarity which must be the envy of many a philosopher. Consequently, the collection may be read not only by the politics student or philosophy student, but by anyone interested in how democracy ought to be conceived of, and how it might be attained.
© 2010 David Majorbanks
David Marjoribanks writes about himself: I am currently studying for a PhD in the department of Philosophy at the University of Kent, working in moral and political philosophy, on the subject of morality and social justice in Marxist and liberal egalitarian theory. Narrowly, I am investigating what ideas can be found about morality and justice in Marxism, and their adequacy compared with liberal theories. More widely, I am interested in what an adequate approach to a critical morality would look like, and I am interested in anti-foundationalism. Previous to studying at Kent, I completed a Masters in Political Philosophy (The Idea of Toleration), and a BA in Politics, both at the University of York.


text:
Der Architekturpreis Beton wurde 1973 aus Anlass des 25-jährigen Bestehens des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Zementindustrie e.V. gestiftet, um gut gestaltete Betonbauten bekanntzumachen. Er ist mit 25.000 Euro dotiert und wird im dreijährlichen Turnus verliehen. Als einer der ältesten Architekturpreise der Bundesrepublik Deutschland hat er in Fachkreisen einen hohen Stellenwert erreicht. Mit dem Architekturpreis Beton werden beispielhafte Leistungen der Architektur und Ingenieurbaukunst ausgezeichnet. Teilnehmen können Architekten, Ingenieure und Bauherren. Neben Wohn-, Verwaltungs- und Industriebauten können auch Ingenieurbauwerke wie Fernsehtürme, Brücken oder größere Sportstätten eingereicht werden.

Liste der Preisträger

 1975: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Peter Faller + Hermann Schröder Architekten/ E. Berning/ Josef Paul Kleihues/ Karl Schwanzer/ Steidle + Partner
 1977: Dieter Oesterlein/ G. Kreisel und G. H. Müller, Architekten/ Heinz Mohl/ Hochbauamt der Stadt Düsseldorf/ Ackermann + Partner mit Alexander Freiherr von Branca, Universitätsbauamt Regensburg/ M. Walter/ Walter von Lom
 1979: Billing – Peters – Ruff/ Georg Küttinger und Ingrid Küttinger/ Joachim Schürmann/ Onno Greiner/ Gerkan, Marg und Partner und Klaus Nickels/ Werkgruppe 7 und Bauturm
 1981: Fa. Wayss & Freytag AG/ Helmut Striffler/ Herbert Dörr/ Karljosef Schattner, Jörg Homeier und Gerold Richter für das Gebäude Ostenstraße 18 in Eichstätt / P. + U. Trinkt mit Dieter Quast
 1983: Behnisch & Partner/ Harald Deilmann/ Harald Leonhardt, Edgar Schirmer, Siegfried Meyer/ Planungsbüro Obermeyer/ Rolf Gutbrod, Johannes Billing, Jens Peters, Nikolaus Ruff/ Rüdiger und Christa Selugga
 1985: Auer + Weber/ dt8 Planungsgruppe/ Erich Schneider-Wessling, Ilse Walter, Burkhard Richter/ Gottfried Böhm/ Landbauamt Passau für Trinkwassertalsperre Frauenau

 1987: Behnisch & Partner/ Enno Schneider & Heinrich Lauter mit Bernd Kreykenbohm/ Koerber + Hager und Walter von Lom/ Peter Haas mit Arno Lederer/ Planungsgruppe Bonn, Wolfgang Krenz, Bernd Meier/ Straßenbauamt Kempten, Karl Wolf, Michael Mühlbauer
 1989: Behnisch & Partner/ Eberhard Schunck und Dieter Ullrich/ Herbert Pfeiffer und Christoph Ellermann/ Katarina Hrankovicova und Miroslav Volf/ Rolf Hoechstetter
 1991: Behnisch & Partner/ Hermann Schröder und Sampo Widmann/ Joachim Schürmann mit Margot Schürmann
 1993: Axel Schultes in BJSS mit Jürgen Pleuser/ Kauffmann Theilig/ Erich Schneider-Wessling/ Günter Pfeifer und Roland Mayer/ Hans Wächter/ James Stirling und Michael Wilford mit Walter Nägeli/ Rainer Hascher/ Staatliches Hochbauamt Ludwigsburg/ Thomas Spiegelhalter
 1995: Busmann + Haberer, Oksiuta + Püschel/ Diego Rodriguez und Andreas Hanke/ Ferdinand Heide und Rudolf Reitermann/ Michael Peter und Markus Bauer/ Schunck und Partner – Sonderpädagogisches Förderzentrum Eichstätt/ Sudau, Storch, Ehler/ Tadao Ando mit Günter Pfeifer/Roland Mayer
 1997: Allmann, Sattler, Wappner/ Dolmetsch-Haug-Schlenther/ Gundula Zach und Michel Zünd/ Hild & Kaltwasser – Lager- und Verkaufshalle Kemeter/ Hilde Léon und Konrad Wohlhage/ Mike Szybalski/ Prof. Günter Zamp Kelp und Julius Krauss, Arno Brandlhuber
 1999: Anin-Jeromin-Fitilidis & Partner/ Axel Schultes Architekten/ Carsten Roth/ Christine Remensperger/ Coop Himmelb(l)au/ Fritschi-Stahl-Baum/ Gruber + Kleine-Kraneburg/ Jourdan & Müller – PAS Projektgruppe/ Sauerbruch + Hutton Architekten/ Schlaich, Bergermann und Partner GbR/ Weber + Hummel
 2001: Andreas Meck und Stephan Köppel/ Artur Mandler/ Gesine Weinmiller Architekten mit Michael Großmann/ Herzog & de Meuron/ Klaus Sill mit Jochen Keim/ netzwerk Architekten/ Sauerbruch Hutton Architekten/ Scholl Architekten/ Volker Staab Architekten
 2003: Architekturbüro von Seidlein/ Büttner Neumann Braun/ Günther Domenig/ Ingenhoven und Partner/ Janson und Wolfrum/ Manuel Herz/ Pekka Salminen Architects/ Peter Kulka mit Konstantin Pichler/ Wulf & Ass
 2005: Beat Consoni/ David Chipperfield Architects/ David Chipperfield Architects/ Fink + Jocher/ Hufnagel Pütz Rafaelian Architekten/ Oxen+Römer und Partner/ Schneider + Schumacher/ Zaha Hadid Architects
 2008: AFF Architekten/ Ben van Berkel – UNStudio/ Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa – SANAA/ KSP Engel und Zimmermann Architekten/ Pahl+Weber-Pahl Architekten BDA/ Realarchitektur: Jens Casper, Petra Petersson, Andrew Strickland/ Studio für Architektur – Peter Haimerl, Jutta Görlich. – 2008 wurde der Architekturpreis Beton erstmals in Kooperation mit dem Bund Deutscher Architekten (BDA) vergeben.
 2011: verteilt sich das Preisgeld auf fünf Empfänger: becker architekten für das Wasserkraftwerk an der Iller; Diener & Diener Architekten für den Neubau des Ostflügels am Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Fritzen + Müller-Giebeler Architekten für den Umbau des Parkhaus Stubengasse in Münster; David Chipperfield und Julian Harrap für den Wiederaufbau des Neuen Museums auf der Museumsinsel Berlin sowie Behnisch Architekten für den Marco-Polo-Tower.
 2014: Barkow Leibinger aus Berlin für das Hochhaus "Tour Total Berlin", Burger Rudacs Architekten aus München für TU Chemnitz, Umbau des Adolf Ferdinand Weinhold Bau in Chemnitz, Hess Talhof Kusmierz Architekten und Stadtplaner aus München für die Grundschule am Arnulfpark in München sowie Koeberl Doeringer Architekten BDA aus Passau für "Haus über der Gasse" in Passau, Staab Architekten, Berlin, für Besucherzentrum am Herkules, Bergpark Kassel.
 2017: Peter Haimerl für Konzerthaus Blaibach, Meili Peter Architekten für Erweiterung Sprengel Museum Hannover, Steimle Architekten für E_20 Wohnhaus Plietzhausen, hartwig schneider architekten für Krativwirtschaftszentrum Mannheim
2020: Wolfgang Zeh für Baulücke Köln, Lederer Rgnarsdottir Oei für Erweiterung der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, Brandlhuber+ Emde, Burlon/Muck Petzet Architekten für Terrassenhaus Berlin / Lobe Block, David Chipperfield Architects Berlin für James-Simon-Galerie

Siehe auch
 Liste der Architekturpreise

Weblinks
Architekturpreis Beton

Einzelnachweise

Architekturpreis
Beton
Erstverleihung 1973

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Odds are you found this article after watching my video on YouTube! If that's not the case, I highly recommend watching the video below, so you can get a better context of this method before diving deeper.
Even if you don't plan on using this website and would rather post your links through YouTube videos or through some other social media, you'll need a website to get approved for the program.
In my opinion, it's best to use a website and then help promote your site through social media and other means. It's great for the long term and you'll probably be more successful this way.
If you don't know how to create a website, that's not a problem either. Start with an easy to use site builder like Wix, Weebly, Blogger, etc.
I suggest building with WordPress. It's really easy to learn, allows you tons of flexibility, and there is a ton of information online to help you build with it. There is a learning curve, so allow yourself at least a week or two to get used to the platform.
If you'd like to invest a little bit of money, purchase a domain and hosting plan for your site. For example, I own this domain: BrianMFischer.com. I pay about $12 a year for it and about $100 a year for the hosting.
You should be able to get hosting from Namecheap.com for $10-$35 for the first year to get you started.
I plan on creating another video and writing another article on how to create great content, but in the meantime… it's all about just doing it. You don't have to have a specific topic or reason to write, just write about anything and consistently post it every day.
I can already hear some people saying they can't write, they're going to sound stupid, or whatever other excuse they can come up with. If that's the case and you really believe that, then quit reading now and leave my site. It'll save you a lot of time in the long run because a lot of these methods require you to do things that make you uncomfortable.
If you're stuck on ideas, start writing about the things happening in your life. Maybe you're currently a biology student in your senior year. Write about how much time you should spend studying, how to balance that with a social life, the most interesting things you've learned, etc. It can literally be just about anything.
If you browse through some of the articles on my site, I write about everything – using my cast iron skillet, carry on luggage, meal preparation, car maintenance.
If you're a Mom or Dad, write about your kid, tips and tricks you've learned to get them to stop crying while out in public, or the best toys to keep them entertained. Some of these topics have generated thousands of dollars for people just because they kept doing it.
At the end of the day, just write, write, write. Make sure you have good grammar; proofread it once or twice before posting, and disregard what anyone else thinks.
This should go without saying, but your content needs to be original. No copy and pasting. There's no shortcuts on the road to success.
After you've established your blog and posted 5-10 good articles, the second step is to sign up for Amazon's affiliate program which can be done through this link here (Opens in New Tab). Go through the sign-up process and answer everything to the best of your abilities. 95% of the time you'll be accepted without question as long as you've published a decent amount of content on your site.
Although this video below is older, it'll give you a good idea of what you need to do to sign up and walk you through the process. You only need to watch the first five or so minutes.
However, in the event you are not accepted, it's best to contact Amazon directly and simply ask what the problem is. It could be your site doesn't receive enough traffic, or the topics you've written about are deemed inappropriate.
It will take a day or two for them to approve your account and you may need to provide some more information. Once you're approved and in the dashboard, you can start sharing your links.
Since you probably didn't read the Terms and Conditions on Amazon, there are a couple rules you'll want to follow so you don't get kicked off the platform. I highly suggest going back and reading through them here (opens in new tab).
These are just a few things you should be sure to follow so you stay within the program's guidelines. Again, read through the entire thing you so you know what you're getting into.
I will continue to update this article as I get more time, but this is just to give you the 20,000ft view of how it's all going to work. Yes there are some more technical aspects of the program and method, but you can have most questions answered with a quick Google search.


Oh, Kay! advertised on the side of a London bus by an unknown photographer.
The George Gershwin musical Oh, Kay! began its Broadway run at New York's Imperial Theatre on this day. Starring Gertrude Lawrence, it introduced such pop music standards as "Someone To Watch Over Me" and "Do-Do-Do". The show ran for 256 performances before transferring on 21st September, 1927 to His Majesty's Theatre in the West End of London, where Ms Lawrence gave another 214 performances.
The musical is advertised on the side of a London bus in this picture taken by an unknown photographer. Behind the bus is The Court theatre, where two Hollywood stars of the silent movies era, Lya de Putti and Vilma Banky, were appearing.
They were both Hungarian and Banky spoke no English when producer Samuel Goldwyn met her in Budapest and signed her to a Hollywood contract. The story goes that he taught her to answer, "lamp chops and pineapple" whenever a reporter asked a question!
She became known in Hollywood as "the Hungarian Rhapsody" and for several years was the biggest box office attraction in Goldwyn's studio. She played opposite superstar Ronald Colman but was especially noted for her films with heart-throb Rudolph Valentino: the daughter of a Russian aristocrat in The Eagle and an Arab dancer in The Son of the Sheik – Valentino's last film.
Lya de Putti was the daughter of a Hungarian baron and countess. She began her stage career on the Hungarian Vaudeville circuit, made several films in Germany, then moved to America in 1926 to try for stardom in Hollywood.
Unfortunately for both women, when the talkies came many film-goers complained that they could not understand their accents and their fortunes went into rapid decline. Both came to England and took to the stage in an attempt to improve their accents, which is how they came to be appearing at The Court.
Tragically, in 1931 de Putti died aged only 34 when she contracted pneumonia following an operation to remove a chicken bone from her throat. In contrast, Banky lived to be 90, dying of heart disease in 1991.


The Axis Certification Preparation Training is a one day, instructor led course designed to introduce and prepare you for the Axis Network Video Exam. The course will take you through a review of material covering the different subject areas on the test. You will receive practice questions on each knowledge area in order to measure your preparation level, and get a variety of tools to help you continue to prepare for the exam after you leave the classroom.


So when are you open?
Our intention is to hold a Sunday Session, or some other activity, every weekend.
So how do you know what we're doing? It's easy – check the Upcoming Sessions widget on the left hand side of the page. The event will have the date/time and location of what we're doing and any other info. which might be useful.
Continue reading So when are you open?
FeaturedPosted on May 2, 2013 June 26, 2018 Author markpaCategories Announcement, Sunday Sessions, WelcomeLeave a comment on So when are you open?
Well it's an immersive cultural experience. A warm and friendly place to connect with people, great music, performance, art being created LIVE! plus bike recycling/repair, organic veggies.
The wonderful people at Kick Start Arts are developing Musiq Garden where you'll have the opportunity to be part of your community and enjoy live music, art , food, drinks, … and Hobart Bike Kitchen will be there to do some bike recycling/repair (as well as enjoy the music, art, food, drinks, …).
Click Musiq Garden to get the details.
While the sites been quite for a while I hope you've been keeping in touch with what's going on at HBK via fbook.
But if you haven't seen it there here's a cool event you might want to ride along to. But don't worry if cycling the family to Mt. Nelson is a bit too hard you'll be able to spin the legs when you get there and help power the entertainment.
Are you interested in a retro cycle, perhaps something from 1997 and earlier that might be road or track related.
We have a once a year auction to raise the funds that keep us operating for the rest of the year.
We'd like to share with you what we have to offer on this special weekend as there are some bikes that deserve the love of someone with a real passion for them.
We're happy to take offers if you can't attend, or to follow up on any questions you might have re size etc..
We'd also be happy to organise delivery, at your expense, if you'd like.
I'm happy to advise that the AGM (& Special General Meeting) will be help on Tuesday 1st November at the New Sydney Hotel commencing at 6pm.
That Hobart Bike Kitchen Inc. request the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs exempt our association from an audit for last financial year.
If you have anything you'd like added to other business please let me know.
Also very happy to accept nominations for any positions.
Doesn't matter if you have been involved with HBK during the last year or not everyone is welcome. If you would like to volunteer for a role, have an idea on how expand our engagement, have ideas on making HBK better or just want to know more about HBK then please come along .
We're going to be with all the wonderful people at the Sustainable Living Festival once again.
There will be more stuff coming soon about the Auction Bikes so come back and check that out. In the meantime here's the run down.


text:
The Supreme Court Blocks The Biden Administration's Latest Ban On Evictions
Judge Pushes Back On Protections For The Sacklers In The Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy
One Of The Men Charged In The Mich. Governor Kidnap Plot Gets 6 Years In Prison
LA Sheriff's watchdog is reviewing deputy shooting investigations after KPCC reports
Maya Sugarman/KPCC/Image filter by Prisma
Annie Gilbertson | April 4, 2018
"Stop. Stop. Put your hands up," a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy shouted at a man leaving a burglarized home in an unincorporated neighborhood of South Los Angeles.
The man, Tennell Billups, had no desire to go to jail that morning in April 2011. So he ran.
The deputy "just started shooting," Billups later recalled.
Deputy Gonzalo Inzunza fired several times, striking Billups in the leg, buttocks and back – each time from behind, according to Billups' medical records. The day of the shooting, Inzunza told investigators Billups had a gun and had pointed it at him, according to sheriff's department records.
Officials ultimately found the shooting was within the law.
Now, following a KPCC investigation, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's inspector general has ordered a review of issues raised in that shooting investigation, as well as other issues from KPCC's reporting on deputies with multiple shootings.
[Podcast: Listen to our investigative podcast Repeat]
Erika Aguilar/KPCC/Image filter by Prisma
KPCC's investigation found Billups was one of four people fired at by Inzunza in a seven-month span, according to district attorney records. Each time, Inzunza said he feared for his life, and each time officials found Inzunza was justified to shoot.
Two of the four men shot were unarmed, according to official records. The other two men, Billups and Alejandro Trejo, told KPCC it didn't happen the way officers said it did, that they too were unarmed at the time of the shooting. Billups' public defender later made that argument on his behalf in court.
Billups leveled a serious accusation: He claimed Deputy Inzunza planted a gun.
KPCC's investigative podcast "Repeat" sought to untangle the facts in Inzunza's shootings and how officers with multiple shootings are held accountable. We combed through hundreds of pages of district attorney, sheriff's department and court records and found:
More than 30 Los Angeles County sheriff's officers opened fire at least three times during their careers.
These officers were responsible for an outsized share of shootings in Los Angeles County. Altogether, they used deadly force at least 136 times.
Time and again, some of these officers were returned to the field, including after investigations found the person they shot was unarmed.
"My assignment to my people is to review the podcast," said Max Huntsman, the inspector general and chief watchdog of the sheriff's department.
Huntsman said his staff would look for "systemic issues" and may recommend changes.
Tennell Billups was one of four people fired at by L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy Gonzalo Inzunza in a seven-month span, according to district attorney records.
Courtesy of Tennell Billups/Image filter by Prisma
Billups was in the hospital when sheriff's homicide investigators confronted him about the gun Inzunza alleged he had, according to sheriff's investigation records provided to KPCC by Billups.
"I didn't have a gun, sir," Billups told them.
Investigators pushed again, asking why then was a gun recovered in this case.
"I don't know how you recovered a gun...and it was fired?" Billups said.
Billups faced a potential third strike, which could put him behind bars for life in California. More than a year after being charged, he decided to take a deal – a lesser sentence contingent on him admitting guilt for two burglaries, resisting an officer and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
When asked if his department had thoroughly investigated Billups' claim that he was unarmed, Sheriff Jim McDonnell told KPCC he'd look into it.
Huntsman said he wants his staff to determine whether officials are making good on the sheriff's promise.
"Essentially," Huntsman said, "that they are following through with what they said they would do."
Max Huntsman, the inspector general and chief watchdog of the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, said his staff would look for "systemic issues" and may recommend changes.
Pool/Getty Images/Image filter by Prisma
KPCC's investigation raised a number of questions, including: Why did Inzunza's partner, who was standing nearby, not see a gun in Billups' hands? According to court and homicide investigators' interview transcripts, Inzunza also said he saw Billups drop the weapon and, fearing the suspect would grab it again, picked the weapon up and put it in his own pocket.
The sheriff's department, like many other law enforcement agencies across California, investigates its own officers' shootings. That gives the department control over the collection of evidence, interviews of deputies and material gathered about the suspects who were shot.
The information gathered can determine the course of justice: It is the record used by the district attorney to weigh whether an officer should face criminal charges and can be fodder for costly civil lawsuits against the county.
Public trust in accountability at the L.A. County's sheriff department, which describes itself as the largest sheriff's department in the world, has frayed in recent years. A federal probe into allegations of corruption and excessive force resulted in the convictions of more than 20 current or former officers, including internal investigators involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Since taking office, L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell has tightened use of force policy, banning deputies from shooting into moving vehicles unless a deadly weapon is present.
Frank Stoltze/KPCC/Image filter by Prisma
McDonnell sought the top command post in 2014 after much of the scandal had unfolded, promising to "restore the luster to the badge." His administration not only oversees internal investigations into shootings, but determines consequences for officers, be it discipline, retraining, reassignment – or none at all.
"We tear these things apart," McDonnell told KPCC earlier this year. "We hold our people accountable to a very, very high degree."
And yet, McDonnell's staff has kept much information unearthed from officer shooting investigations secret from the public, as allowed under California law, protecting the department from scrutiny and making it difficult for the public to know whether accountability is improving.
Among the records from Inzunza's shootings the sheriff's department declined to make public are evidence reports, 9-1-1 calls and booking photos of inmates.
Nationwide, pressure is mounting for local law enforcement to ensure accountability in police shootings, especially those of unarmed black men. The discontent reignited in California last month after two Sacramento police officers fatally shot Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man and father of two.
Screenshot from a video provided by the Sacramento Police Department following the shooting of Stephon Clark.
Sacramento Police Department/Image filter by Prisma
This week a state lawmaker introduced a bill that would end law enforcement agencies' ability to shield police shooting investigation materials, such as video, by mandating records in those and other serious incidents be made available to the public.
Since taking office, McDonnell has tightened use of force policy, banning deputies from shooting into moving vehicles unless a deadly weapon is present. The department also began reviewing deputies with multiple shootings to spot potential issues; senior officials can recommend reassigning the officer.
Huntsman said he'll also be making inquiries about how the department handles deputies after shootings, including Deputy Michael Coberg, who was one of the officers with multiple shootings identified in KPCC's investigation.
Coberg had worked his way up to the department's elite gang unit.
"My partner and I developed a skill of finding the worst of the worst," Coberg said.
So far, Coberg's been in four shootings.
Though all his shootings had been found within the law, Coberg told KPCC he was pulled from the field and assigned menial work: washing trucks, sorting equipment and cleaning weapon, tasks he felt were far beneath his skill level. Coberg was still being paid his regular salary: about $100,000 in 2015.
McDonnell said Coberg's characterization of his work was "not accurate."
"We do not have people doing maintenance duties or washing buses or those kinds of things that were taken out of the field for use of force," the sheriff said.
With contributions from Aaron Mendelson
Parents of teenager killed by LA Sheriff's deputies sue
Barstow police shot unarmed black man 10 times, lawyers say
Sacramento police issue new directive on muting body cameras
2 LAPD officers injured, suspect killed in shooting after pursuit
5 ways police shooting investigations could become more transparent
Listen to KPCC's new podcast Repeat
KPCC's Crime & Justice coverage is a Southern California resource provided by member-supported public radio. We can't do it without you.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Teen sensations Chloe Bailey and Halle Bailey have been giving us loc envy ever since they arrived on the scene with their epic Beyoncé covers. Since signing a $1.5 million record deal with the diva's Parkwood Entertainment label, the ladies have continued to up their game on all fashion and music fronts.
The sisters (who are actually one year apart) have already mastered the art of twinning in real life and on the hit show Grown-ish and know how to serve up hair goals with their loc'd tresses.
Having worked the red carpet in everything from bantu knots and funky hair accessories to fishtails and updos, they have us rethinking our hair lives. Seriously. Swipe through to see why this singing duo is this week's hair crush.


These days, as spring has finally decided to knock on our doorstep and flowers of all colors and shapes are spectacularly commencing their bloom en masse, I, for the first time, was able to see the emerging graphic layout of my upcoming book. After months of negotiating words, illustrating individual drawings, photographing, and collecting pictures from near and far, I am able to see how this book which I named Working Reclaimed Wood – A Guide for Woodworkers, Makers and Designers is quickly approaching the printing press.
The gestalt of putting a manuscript together is complex. It involves a numerous people, time, perseverance, and the strenuous work of boiling down information. One of the hardest tasks in creating an art/craft book, is choosing the images. The process of selecting the best images to enter the book is much like judging a beauty pageant since the author and the editor need to choose the Best in Show from many excellent candidates. According to my book's editor, A.J. Hamler, I had in my A-list of runners up around two thousand images, so of course we couldn't put them all in.
Mustafa's Gok's reclaimed wood, resin and leaves table.
One bounty of images that I had to narrow down into only two photos, was the story of a Turkish woodworker named Mustafa Gök. Mr. Gök reclaims abandoned logs, limbs and other irregular timber from the dump and the side of the road, and then turns them into great pieces of furniture. All the trees and logs that he saves were discarded by developers, farmers or homeowners and could not be utilized by the standard lumber industry. Most of these logs are small in size, partially hollowed out by decay, twisted, deformed, or suffer from complications that make them undesirable by the standard woodworker, and render them a non-lucrative commodity. However, for Mr. Gok, they provide a splendid canvas to draw upon.
Mr. Gök examines them and utilizes them to the best of their potential. Some are resawn into unique shaped planks that he later incorporates into furniture, whereas others – short logs – are used in their entirety, flanked or held together by a transparent resin cast. The reclaimed/resin duo allows us to appreciate both the raw organic properties of the tree, side by side with the modern translucent material, which on top of complementing the overall shape, provides a structural-functional counterbalance.
Thankfully I have this blog, and can provide Mustafa's talents a broader stage. Below, you can see some of the images that he took. They depict the reclaimed material that he uses, and the process that he deploys to achieve his artistic vision.
When the polishing process is finally done.
When the light switch on this sideboards is turned on, the piece comes to life.
But even when this furniture is "off" it is still an amazing piece.
Polishing the resin/wood surface takes a lot of effort and … much sandpaper.
When Ms. Gok is not working with reclaimed wood, he dedicates his time for designing and building bent laminated furniture, and expressive furniture with spectacularly carved surfaces.
If you like to learn more about casting and incorporating resin in tandem with natural edge wood, you have to watch the well made how-to video produced by a British company that specializes in epoxies.


text:
With Paint-It, Azimut Benetti Group takes a step towards an increasingly sustainable yachting industry
By Boatmag International
• 19 Marzo, 2021
The cosmopolitan spirit of BoatMag International covers news and previews about products from allover the world, discovered in first person by its contributors at the main international shows and events.
Azimut Benetti Groupgreen boatingsustainability
With the Paint-It project funded by the European Union Azimut Benetti contributes to developing a green anti-fouling paint.
While it is undeniable that today companies are increasingly attentive to environmental issues (ESG certifications are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg), it is equally true that for some of these the question ends in a so-called "green washing" , that is, a facade ecology that saves the reputation without concrete commitments.
In boating, these dynamics are important because the construction of boats and yachts has an undeniable negative impact on the environment. It is therefore necessary that the reference companies become pioneers and spokespersons of very concrete and replicable initiatives to reduce the polluting footprint on our planet.
Paint-It is a joint effort of Azimut Benetti and more players, funded by the EU
Upon these premises, the Azimut Benetti R&D office took part in the european project "Paint-it A new environment-friendly manufacturing approach for marine antifouling coating". It is a major international research effort, co-financed by the European Union through the LIFE program, in the area of antifouling coatings for hulls, confirming its intention to contribute to a yachting industry that is respectful of the marine ecosystem.
Azimut Benetti has made a contribution to the Paint-it Project, funded by the EU and supported by several leading industrial players, including the research centre of Italian firm Colorobbia Consulting, and the Rome-based universities of Tor Vergata and Niccolò Cusano with their Departments of Engineering.
The research has led to the development of several innovative non-toxic antifouling coatings for marine applications, featuring a high level of environmental sustainability: no biocides harmful to aquatic species are released into the marine environment, unlike traditional antifouling coatings, which leach biocides based on the toxic action of copper compounds and other similar organic/metallic substances. As well as eliminating biocides, these coatings also have a significant environmental impact in terms of lower energy use, greenhouse gas generation and waste production, by reducing the need for hull maintenance, and of greatly reduced CO2 emissions.
_The scope of Paint-It isn't limited to the yachting industry. In addition to the marine sector, the formula tested can be used in civil engineering, in wastewater treatment plants and, more generally, in plants that use water systems in various industrial production processes.
According to Azimut Benetti (and we agree), this commitment not only comes from the corporate culture, but is also a response to the latest market trends driven by the new generation of owners, who are increasingly determined to enjoy their relationship with the marine environment in a more respectful, caring and aware way.
Azimut Yachts to introduce a NASA patent for pure air onboard their yachts
Benetti launches M/Y Joy, the second Oasis 40 m unit
Invictus Capoforte SX200: the essence of the...
Tecnohull Omega 47 is a super fast maxirib who...
Alva Yachts build up a global dealer network for their electric yachts
The first quarter of 2021 brings good numbers for Ferretti Group
ALTRO IN News
Benetti launch the 65m custom Zazou and the eleventh Delfino 95
8000+ Iscritti
MEDIO CRANCHI
MEDIO AZIMUT
MEDIO GARMIN
MEDIO VARAZZE
MEDIO LOWRENCE
MEDIO SCANNER
MEDIO YC
MEDIO RANIERI
VIP SELVA


text:
Why PoolTogether Matters
Get rich or Dai tryin'.
Saving money is hard
According to a Federal Reserve Board survey from 2015 on the economic well-being of US households, 46% of participants responded that they would have difficulties in covering expenses of $400 or more in an emergency situation. The middle class currently lives from paycheck to paycheck and has a hard time stashing money for rainy days. Currently, 67 million Americans can be considered unbanked or underbanked, a large group of people that have long been ignored by financial innovation.
Richard Thaler, a pioneer within the field of behavioural economics, said in a 2015 Wall Street Journal interview that saving for retirement is an archetypal behavioural economics problem. According to Thaler, long-term saving is cognitively hard — as you need to figure out how much to save in addition to performing self-control over your spending habits. One solution that has been brought to market is the 401(k). The 401(k) is a defined-contribution retirement plan, which means that a person sets money aside automatically in the plan (employers provide and sometimes proportionally match the contributions). Employees may choose to opt out of the 401(k), but they're opted in by default — proving the passive model to be beneficial for getting people to save their money. Thaler remarked that these default plans are "probably behavioural economists' greatest success story".
These default plans are not however available to everyone. Factory gigs conveyed through job centres and heaps of other low-end jobs do not offer retirement plans to millions of Americans. Even if a similar plan was available, it does nothing to encourage short-term savings to combat unexpected situations.
Combining savings accounts and lotteries
Craving for a way out
According to a 2019 study, the 2017 total spending on lottery tickets in the US was 70 billion dollars — or an average of 220 dollars per citizen. Lower-income citizens spend a proportionally larger percentage of their income on lottery than those with a higher-income. A 1999 study by Duke University found that nearly half of all households with incomes below 25,000 dollars regularly played the lottery.
When searching for answers on why people choose to play the lottery despite the low chances of winning, one might easily dismiss it as ignorance. However, according to a 2008 article in the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, researchers made the argument that lotteries are enticing for lower-income people as they offer a chance at an otherwise unattainable substantial economic gain. The lottery may seem like the only way out for several people, hence they keep playing it.
Enter prize-linked savings programs
In 2001, Timothy Flacke and Peter Tufano founded Commonwealth, a financial program to benefit vulnerable lower-income people. The intent was to create a savings program, which would award prizes randomly for the people participating in the savings program. Tufano got the idea from Premium Bonds, which were introduced in the UK in the 1950s. Buyers of these bonds entered a lottery-like system with regular prizes of up to 1 million pounds, which were paid out of the pooled interest generated by the bonds.
Following a number of legal hurdles, it turned out that the laws of Michigan would allow for Commonwealth to give their program a try. Together with their partners they created a program called Save to Win, which offered cash prizes on a monthly basis through the Michigan Credit Union League. The program included a single large prize, which was awarded less frequently, and a series of smaller prizes, which were awarded more frequently. The smaller frequent payouts resulted in hyperbolic discounting, i.e. participants valued short-term possibilities over long-term gains. The possibility to win 50 dollars immediately instead of earning 200 dollars through a small interest over several years was a lot more intriguing for the participants. Having the even slimmer possibility for a grand prize was the icing on the cake.
Fast forward to the present-day, retail giants such as Walmart have also built their own programs around this approach. Walmart's service allows customers to put up to $500 into an account. Once the money is in the account, each dollar participates in one of 1,000 different cash prizes monthly.
However, these services are local and cannot serve global audiences. With 2 billion unbanked people in the world, a global prize-linked savings program could offer an improvement to people's saving habits worldwide.
PoolTogether as a global PLS program
PoolTogether is an Ethereum-based no-loss lottery game, where users provide liquidity to a lending pool on Compound. Users contribute to the pool by purchasing lottery tickets, which are 1:1 to Dai and USDC. The lending pool earns interest on the principal, and after a certain period of time, the interest is randomly allocated to a user who contributed to the lending pool. PoolTogether is non-custodial, which means that users can withdraw their principal at any time. Therefore, the alternative cost of joining PoolTogether is the interest on personally lent Dai or USDC.
PoolTogether user and funds flow.
Currently, the pooled interest from Dai is rewarded to one winner per week. Going forward, PoolTogether could emulate proven concepts from previous PLS programs and add smaller prizes to be paid out more frequently. PoolTogether already provides biweekly payouts of USDC interest, but there is still heaps to experiment in this regard.
In order to increase the amount of interest paid out to the winner/winners, PoolTogether lending pools also include "sponsored Dai". Sponsored Dai is an amount of Dai participating in the lending pool to generate more interest, but does not participate in the lottery. This model presents an effective way for venture capitalists to improve the value proposition of companies such as PoolTogether, as part of their capital can be used to grow the pool through sponsored Dai.
As PoolTogether's infrastructure, namely Ethereum and Compound, exists fully on the Internet, its services are transparent and globally accessible. PLS programs are proven to improve the savings behaviour of lower-income people, who otherwise are not allured by the promise of a small interest on their principal.
PoolTogether has the opportunity to improve people's savings habits at a global scale.
Token Terminal provides financial and business metrics on crypto protocols — metrics we're used to seeing applied to traditional companies, e.g the P/E ratio. Crypto protocols operate like traditional businesses, only they do it directly on the Internet.
For more, check out Token Terminal's website and Twitter.


text:
VISIT A CJH PARTNER WEB SITE
GO TO:YIVO INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH RESEARCH
PREVIOUS ARTICLE: Mincs, Pauls NEXT ARTICLE: Minorities Treaties
Mincs, Pauls
Find more information about
at the Center for Jewish History:
SEARCH LIBRARY & ARCHIVES CATALOG
NOTE: you will be redirected
to the Web site for the
Mincs, Vladimirs
(Mintz; 1872–1945), surgeon. Vladimirs Mincs's father, Jehil Mikelis Mincs, moved to Riga from Daugavpils. Vladimir and his brother Pauls became prominent figures in Latvia and its Jewish community.
Mincs graduated from Tartu University in Estonia in 1895 and spent a year training as a physician in Germany. He then worked at the surgery clinics of Moscow University Hospital, and during World War I was head of the surgery department of Moscow's main hospital. Mincs became a professor at Moscow University in 1917 and headed the city's clinics between 1918 and 1920. In 1918, he operated successfully on Lenin after the attempt on the latter's life by Fannie Kaplan. With Lenin's aid, Mincs was permitted to return to Riga in 1920, where from 1924 he was in charge of the surgical department of the Jewish hospital, Bikur-Holim. In 1940–1941, he directed the surgery department at the Latvian State University's clinics.
As a founder of the modern Russian and Latvian schools of surgery, Mincs published more than 100 articles and books on neurosurgery, plastic surgery, orthopedics, gynecology, urology, and oncology. After the Nazi invasion, in 1941–1943 he was in the Riga ghetto, where he was in charge of the hospital. He was deported to Buchenwald in 1944, and died there in 1945.
Grigorii Smirin, Vydaiushchiesia evrei latvii, ed. Maija Šetlere (Riga, 2003); archival materials on Vladimirs Mincs are housed in Muzejs un Dokumentacijas Centrs "Ebreji Latvija," Riga, Latvia.
Šarūnas Liekis
Copyright ©2010, YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. All Rights Reserved.


Thousands of Europeans die each year waiting for an organ transplant. Tens of thousands are on waiting lists across the EU, but there is a chronic shortage of donors to meet that demand. Could switching to an 'opt-in' system help?
When a person leaves no instructions about organ donation during their lifetime, then doctors often seek consent from next of kin after they have died. Unsure what their relatives would have wanted, the vast majority reject donation, and healthy organs are buried or cremated.
Most European countries now operate an 'opt-out' system, which has boosted organ donation dramatically. However, some countries (including Italy and the United Kingdom) are hesitant. It's an ethically sensitive debate, because many people have personal or religious reasons not to want to donate their organs after death.
What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in by Dimitris arguing that organ donation should be automatic when somebody with healthy organs dies. Is that ethical, though? Would it be better to assume they don't want to donate their organs? Or would more lives be saved by implementing an 'opt-out' system?
Should everyone be considered organ donors unless they 'opt-out'? We asked Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from all sides of the political spectrum to stake out their positions on this question, and it's up to YOU to vote for the policies you favour. See what the different MEPs have to say, then vote at the bottom of this debate for the one you most agree with! Take part in the vote below and tell us who you support in the European Parliament!
I don't see any reason why we should not encourage people to show solidarity by becoming organ donors. It would also be useful to improve European coordination to ensure the safety and security of organ donors. Unfortunately, nowadays there is a black market for organs, and this is a problem that we have to tackle. Of course, encouraging people to become organ donors should not be interpreted as an obligation. It must only be a suggestion that is made through awareness raising campaigns and increasing safety guarantees for all involved.
I think that could be a solution, because I think it's very important that we have organ donation. But I don't want to force everybody to do it, so if they feel bad about it they should still be able to say 'No'. So, maybe an 'opt-out' system is better than the one we have now, where you really have to take the step and say: 'Yes, I want my organs to be donated'. Because a lot of people wouldn't take that step. So, yes, maybe it's better to do it the other way around.
I consider this аs a very personal decision. Each and every European must decide according to his or her personal beliefs whether to become an organ donor or not.
We should not have politicians deciding whether or not people should automatically donate organs. It's a thorny issue and a deeply personal one that raises a number of serious ethical questions over the rights of the individual over his or her body and the ownership of the body in life and in death.
Curious to know more about organ donation? We've put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).
Should everyone be ordered & considered "forced in by the EU"?
"Many people have personal or religious reasons" to rather follow their individual spirituality & wish to remain as free as possible from all these political nanny-isms created by the EU.
Any reasonable & "responsible" person has a choice to clarify such choice in their Testament- made in good time.
I suppose many of those people with "personal or religious reasons" have no problem eating parts of animals that have been donated to them after they have been slaughtered?
ΝΟ! The opposite. It will enhance crime.
the european citizens aren't your property…stop acting like it is the case.
Ask the permission, be respectful.
EU citizens = cattle to be used as Brussels see's fit.
No donations without consent, of course.
Yes. Opt out, instead of opt in would be better.
And how anyone deciding for you?
Yes with the possibility for the family to opt out if they don't feel comfortable with it.
YES! Of course. Not saving lives when you could is criminal.
Europol confirms the disappearance of 10,000 migrant children in Europe. Does anybody know what happened to all these missing children who were trying to save their lives from the wars and disappeared in the civilized christian Europe ? Did they take their organs in the notorious clinics in Kossovo, in Berlin, in Amsterdam ? Who knows?
in una sanità che va verso la privatizzazione ( la UE chiede continuamente tagli tagli tagli alla spesa pubblica e dove si taglia ? Sui servizi essenziali ! Che delinquenza.!!! ) dove si fanno affari anche sulla pelle delle persone la mia risposta è NO. Non vedo l'ora che lo Stato ritorni a fare lo Stato e tuteli la salute , il benessere e la volontà del 99% dei cittadini . in a health care goes toward privatization (the EU keeps asking cuts cuts cuts in public spending and where you cut? Sui essential services! What crime. !!!) where you do business too on people my answer is NO skin. I look forward that the state returns to the state and protect the health, welfare and the will of 99% of the citizens.
da noi esiste già la donazione degli organi senza averlo sottoscritto , con il consenso dei familiari ma la sanità è PUBBLICA , siamo in una società ancora sociale e garantisce la trasparenza, la volontà dell'essere umano di donare senza costrinzioni economiche . Se dovesse diventare un sistema privato come ci sta chiedendo la UE ( non lo chiede direttamente ma di fatto ti sta obbligando ) vedrete le battaglie che usciranno fuori !!!
The French have this too, I believe. Introduced recently.
certainly not. Attaching value in someone's death, is way to risky imo and would certainly lead to temptation, foremost for doctors. You can choose to call yourself a doctor and not take the Hipocratic oath, or do not repeat the 'do no harm' part but if you start weighing saving someones life against saving someone else then you are by virtue of triage, in a state of war, not peace.
you don't know how the system of organ donation works, do you?
Listen, I don't have anything against people who want to be organ donors. Personally I live in a country where trust is a luxury if not a dream, but even if I did not live here, I would not be an organ donor, and I am also opposed to assisted suicide. In any case I do not care to find out how it works. If I ever wish to donate something I am sure I will be accommodated if its possible to do so. But until then, thank you, but no thank you.
Good. Opt out then. Dont let people die just because you can't be bothered to register as a non donor.
Christos, that ambulance driver would have to have some awesome superpowers to be able to know if the person he is carrying would be genetically compatible with his sick auntie. And then he would have to, somehow, control the rest of the hospital staff to make that specific surgery. That hipothetical situation is absurd. And even if it wasnt, automatic organ donation makes the premisse for such situation to disapear, since there is no shortage of organs in a society where most people are organ donors. Any inconvenience from this system pales by comparison to the horrors of black market and the waste of functional organs while people who desperatelly need them, die.
And for the story you shared (wich sounds pretty silly, but lets pretend its true), it just reinforces my argument. Automatic organ donation means no one can make money like this. There is no demand to suply.
Ana Antonio the driver would just be doing as he is told by the paramedic who would say the patient is under control, who was told by the doctor that they are on the lookout for e.g. a heart. And its not just about money its mostly about people and how their judgement and ethics can get blurred, they get lost. You are making good points, I will stand by mine: If saving someones life means someone else dying then there is reason and justification for that someone to die. There are advances in medical science concerning growth of organs which has advanced considerably with stem cell research, to me this is a much more viable route since its the same persons stem cells as well, no rejection issues. And I do stand the same way on receiving as well. I would not want to benefit from someones death. Death is a fact of life and its not about how long people live in my opinion. Anyway I do respect your point of view yet I believe its the right of every person to make his own choice on the matter and not be forced on this issue.
Exactly. No room for black market.
exactly, so if in need, can kill someone, and one time in the hospital, kan remove the organs! Good for the powerful people, they have always plenty of organs, no need to pay!
@Ferre Jaime Don't be paranoid. Statements like those make you look crazy.
Ferre Jaime, well, that is exacly what happens now, because of organ scarcity. If organ donation is automatic, there are more avaliable organs. No need to kill people.
We have it in France and I dont see why it is so shocking for you. You dont want to save others life instead of being eaten by worms ? Good, just opt out !
On this occasion, I agree with the French PoV – although I do hope that organ donors are relieved of their organs only AFTER death.
Yes, this is the situation in Belgium too.
No, it should be the other way around!
That's the system we have in Portugal. I don't see why that possibility shocks some of you so much. Nobody's trampling on your rights: you can opt out if you want. It only means that more organs will be available to people who still actually need them.
Hell, no! We are responsible for our own bodies. We are more than "spare parts"!
Well, you can opt out. That simple.
It's a matter of basic principles. Our governments consider us as their possession? No. Just as the prosecutor must prove that someone is guilty and not the other way around, it is the individual that will ultimately decide if he/she want to donate his/her organs. We don't have to start signing papers that opt us out. If someone didn't want that but neglected to sign the damn papers, then nobody -including his family- can do anything to stop the doctors from taking anything they want. The right is our own and our family's to decide what will happen to our organs.
Spanish system is one of the most successful in the world and saves thousands of lives every year, it should be copied by every country.
In a perfect world yes, however we are not. So no.
Yes laura.. your right. .I need to get out more and make some friends.
My body is mine, not some kind of "ressource" for whatever, stay off !
Yeah, try to use it after your death, genius.
it will serve the worms then !
Nature is holy to me, artificial life extension is a sin, we are far to many on this planet already ! And who would get those organs ? Only the rich, the poor can die … So I refuse to be a part of that crooked system… Don't want no organs, don't wanna give them too, fair enough, no ?
It's nobody's concern what Sam van Gestel should decide to do with her belongings after her death. And because her body is hers, it's her own property, so that means to me that it's simply not my business. Even if it would save lives. Maybe her jewelries could save a life in Ethiopia, should we take them away and give them to the poor as well?
After someone "leaves" , why his/her organs shouldn't be given to someone to continue life? In a way this is a prolongation of life, for those who are desperate to extend their stay on earth the longest possible in any way…. Macabre but true.
Is it better to burn it all, as it is "in fashion" lately in Greece?
I think each country should consider the people automatically as donors unless they opt out themselves. I don't care what political parties say and it scares me a bit when it is asked by Brussels.
Personal reasons against organ donation? I don't understand. Religious reasons? What do religions know about transplants?
Nope! What about Habeas corpus?
I voted "other" because I think that instead, when you register for an identity card or passport, you should have to OPT-IN if you wish to donate organs. If you do not choose it, then your organs can't be harvested without some other legal document granting permission. The state, not even the EU (which I love!) should have that kind of control over our bodies. The opt out solution implies that the state has a right to one's body: it does not!
No, our body isn't community or society or state property. It's our private property. It would be unjust to use somebody's body, even after death, without clearly expressed consent, in the name of a greater good.
Yes, everyone should be considered organ donors unless they tell otherwise, aka opt-out. Some people may have religious or personal reasons to why they don't want to donate their organs, and in that case they are able to opt-out. I think there are individuals who don't really mind if their organs are being donated or not but they don't bother to opt-in. We should not let this laziness or carelessness or whatever, get in the way of saving lives that actually could have been saved. In my opinion, the EU is not forcing anyone to donate their organs by this opt-out system. You still have a choice to choose whether or not you would like to donate your organs when you die, if you even die with healthy organs. Instead of having to registrate as a donor, you registrate as a non-donor. It is really not that hard. If it is really so important to you, you will opt-out. Guardians will decide for minors whether they would like them to donate or not.
This is not a matter of how the government owns us. We are not in their possession. This is about saving as many lives as we can, nothing else. You can't use your organs when you are dead either way. I promise you, no one from the government will play soccer with your kidney, in case you choose to donate it.
In countries where health care is free at the point of use like the UK. Perhaps people should be prepared to give something back. Give and Take.
People should be encouraged to be organ donors but should not be trapped in a default system UNLESS there is a strong and effective education process for the WHOLE POPULATION.
Educate the people first! Then make laws.
"We should not have politicians deciding whether or not people should automatically donate organs. It's a thorny issue and a deeply personal one that raises a number of serious ethical questions over the rights of the individual over his or her body and the ownership of the body in life and in death.
I'm going to side with Eurosceptics here and agree that politicians have no business telling people what to do with their vital organs.
The Green suggestion for an opt-out system is also kinda okay, I guess, but I'm more in favour of individual consent by question rather than by default.
"politicians have no business telling people what to do with their vital organs" dude you're gonna be dead, you won't do anything vital with any organ. You're gonna be dead ok? What is your fear? You're afraid someone is telling you how to use your liver after you're dead? It's because you're dead!!!
Andrea Morrone Calm the heck down.
I mean, I get what you're saying, but at the same time I'm not sure making that an automatic donation would be the best option from an ethical standpoint either.
To keep it optional works, I guess.
I don't like having to vote for EU parties based on one opinion. I want to vote for ethics or vote against lack of ethics. In this particular issue. It should be voluntary to give consent-not compulsory unless you refuse consent.
Absolutely not. There is very serious risk with donating organs and it needs to be voluntary. Beside politicians you want to help someone like that then you can give them yours. Just if you are not willing to do it. Then nobody else should be forced to do it either.
If I'm dead why not ?
No, should remain a mater of choice. As for all key issues.
No! It should be a matter of choice. Noone can decide in my name! F.ck off!
We have opt out in Spain and it is better this way, otherwise many people will not opt in, not because they feel strongly against it, but simply because it is uncomfortable to think about or plan around your own death.
Transplantology is a contemporary form of cannibalism and will lead to the killing and breeding of humans in order to obtain transplant organs.
Organ transplantation occurs with the intention of saving a life, not for feeding purposes. The donor needs to agree with the transplant, in case he is still alive, or a responsible needs to authorise in case the donor is dead. Seems like a very civilised practice, can you say the same about cannibalism? I seriously cannot see how the two could be placed on the same level.
Wouldn't one think that a greater number of organ donations would diminish the need for organs trafficking?
If anything, the integrity of the body after death should gain constitutional protection under national laws to prevent this sort of attempts at pillaging deceased people's bodies.
But most importantly, it is a matter for separate nation states to decide upon. It has nothing to do with Europe, just like so many other of the questions you post. Why do you keep trying to frame the mindset of people into acknowledging Europe is there to decide upon everything?
Why would the body of a deceased be so sacred to gain constitutional protection?
End poverty to snuff out the black market and all forms of exploitation because people are poor, vulnerable and out of sight. A GMI is compulsory in this society. Anything else is conscious cruelty.
That would be the perfect scenario but we are far from that! What other measures can we take immediately? BTW, ending poverty would not solve the issue… There is a shortage of organs… What can we do about that?
Nando Sousa we can change the attitude of living! We can change our lifestyles and live healthy to prevent illness, for example. This should be one of the main goals of the EU, to educate and lead our society to a healthier and better future, not to treat the symptoms!
Nando Sousa, are you suggesting black market organ selling is the solution to a shortage of organs?? And are you suggesting maintaining poverty so people can steal their organs is the solution to shortage of organs?? Compulsory organ donation is also not a solution. Forcing people against their will to give their organs is not ethical. And who is to say that organ murders won't take place in society because someone is a perfect match, and their death would mean somebody else lives? Technology is on the case and society will just have to wait. Offering all citizens an optional donor card would increase willing donors. We cannot save everybody on earth today, otherwise war would be illegal too.
No definitely no and nothing should be considered as a donation if it is not formal and under strictly law protection.
Yes, and gobsmacked at the loony comments on this thread!
Yep that is a good policy. Saves lives.
Debating Europe Yes. That would be a good policy.
Should everyone in Europe make me their universal heir unless they opt-out? The everpresent desire to enlighten us, sheer mortals, with the wisdom emanating from that ivory tower to tell us and impose us what is good and bad is rather irritating and shows resonance of totalitarian regimes.
Why don't we focus on creating artificial organs instead?
We are already focusing on that, its just not a very quick process as one can imagine, and it's very costly too!
Yes if is util of any wan!
Can you please enlighten me how this compares to cannibalism?
No, human body belongs to the person, not the community. This should be sacralized.
Based on what? As far asI know the "person" is no longer there when the body is dead!
The body & the mind is one as far as science can proove, and the law is no one can use your body without your agrement & within legal borders. Of course it is still protected in some countries. Did you know about human organs theft market, forced prostitution, aso ?
The body & the mind is one as far as science can proove, and the law is no one can use your body without your agrement & within legal borders. Of course it is still protected in some countries. Did you know about human organs theft market, the many murders, forced prostitution, aso ?
In Portugal it already works like this for years. I really don't understand whats the big issue here. If you don't want to be donor, you simply opt-out.
Of course everyone should be donor automatically and the narcissistic cruelty of refusing to give away your organs when you don't need them any more should be severely punished by high taxes f.e.
I think the opposite! "the fascistic cruelty of forcing the society to accept giving away their organs when they're dead should be severely punished by death by hanging". Because until it is automatic, everyone is a potential target of killing.
Oh really? I think statistics show that far more people suffer from severe paranoia than are killed to harvest their organs.
No, it's time we moved beyond Frankenstein science and made replacement organs from our own cells. We are not created to be a package of spare parts for other people.
And who's going to pay for that?
Should we all have extra organs stored somewhere for when we need them in a hurry?
A heart transplant costs a million pounds – who pays for that?
also why would we if we have ones already..
there was a lot of work done with people with goal to initiate talk about that sensitive matter because, practice teach, that problem with perception of donation has to be changed way before something happend. and, as croatian high donor contribution (one of highest on the world) shows that's the path to gain life when we lose one. It's slogsn says Život na dar – Life as a gift. Signed donor card is one element, it isn't registered nowhere, and usualy it's one giant step easyer for the family to make a decision when asked. What is knewn to me, family decision is always respected, signed donor card is tool to make that decision in hard moment easier.
For me, that should be done in that way. Without forcing people to be kind to each other because, croatisn model shows it, people are kind if we as socity give them enough "space" to show that kindness.
Situation in Croatia was before entering in EU that donor organs were permited to "go out" in EU but it wasn't posibble to recieve donated organs from EU. There was clear vision of a problem, for somebody, which sistematic and well designed procedures can help, and that approach saved or improved a lot of lives outside Croatia. That was win-win situation in which free available organs were sent to first on the EU list if in Croatia nobody needed it, which often was the case. Life is a gift, and when loosing it you can save one or more, why not. In that sense, life is borderless, and we show that, first to us, here, and everybody else.
Love and respect. Love first.
No, never! Only with it's own agreement!
Usually I don't comment on posts like these, but this is something that I will, since I want to live in an empathetic society. I work in neuroscience, and I have opted to donate my organs after, yes, *after* my death. Once my brain is dead, it does not matter if my tissues are kept perfused and usable. I am dead.
I feel happy knowing that my organs might benefit others and help them live.
What if I am compatible with my countries' president's son or daughter? If they need my heart, in the second moment I'll be dead. I am donor blood, but I say no. Only your family can know your choice.
No . No.No . This practice should be forbidden. When your body is fucked you must be prepared to go.
yes, simply because you don't need organs as a corpse.
You are not a corpse yet when you donate. Most organs are harvested on living, usually when you are brain dead. But nobody knows if you can't feel even then. Just inform yourself before answering.
If you are brain dead you are dead, you cannot even breathe without help.
NO, mind and body has no frontiere, it's one and shall be respected.
This is a verry personal decision ,human right!
No you idiots. This is a violation of free will and sovereignity, as this must be an INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUS DECISION.
No! It is personal choice of everyone and after death of our close ones.
For all you talking about "individual decisions" and so on, you have the option to OPT OUT. Nobody is taking any kind of freedom from you. And like someone has pointed out before, this is already the case in Portugal and nobody has a problem with that.
Yeah, right. And then they will say they did not find the paper whereby you opted out and, tough luck, they've already harvested.
Alina Badea No, that's not actually what happens. That's just your imagination going wild.
Yes. People who want to can always opt out, and this would prevent a lot of organ loss just because people forgot to make this very important decision before their death.
Your soul is independent of your body, if you die, you don't need anything of your body in the next stage of your soul, so let it be useful.
Yes. A relative of mine got in an accident and died. He was an organ donor, but the doctors wouldn't do anything before contacting the family for consent. They reached them too late and the organs were no good for use. They needed the family's consent, EVEN THOUGH he was a registered donor. Because of this delay, my relative did not only tragically lose his life, he also didn't have his wishes respected, and as though the situation was not tragic enough, someone missed out on perfectly good organs that could have saved their life. A crying shame all around. How can anyone object to this? We don't need our organs when we're dead, we'll have new bodies in Heaven, so someone else might as well make use of them. What more beautiful than to give someone life after we have lost our own. It's morbid to think about, but I know that if I need organs, I'm going to be hoping in the generosity of others to donate what they can't use anymore.
I am worried about potential abuse of this legal way. Anybody watched House?
No. Those who really want to be an organ donor, he or she makes the commitment. Others are either against this option for variety of reasons or hesitant. It shall not be assumed that they would agree though.
Yep. If you're dead why do you need your kidneys?
Yes, of course. Everyone should be obligatory considered an organ donor without an opt out option.
I think that everybody who wants to donate organs should get a organ donor pass and be registered both in his county and in an EU wide registry.
I think it is not correct that I have to object to be a donor in each country of the EU since this issue is handled differently in the different member states of the EU.
not democratic at all. This is a sign of a totalitarian system.


I love black and white photos so… Happy Monday! Enjoy some not-so-colorful art!
And…some of the best movies are black and white. And not all of them are "ancient" either. Woody Allen's "Manhattan" comes to mind.
Beautiful pictures! I think color can sometimes take away from a picture, I much prefer black and white.
Oh I sure do agree. Some of the most stunning photos are in b/w. I love Ancel Adams. Your photos are beautiful.
I figured it was a function of my age – I grew up with most of my windows to the world being monochromatic. News magazines didn't have color interior photos until the mid-to-late 80s and color televisions were few and far between. I think because of those restrictions creative people had to be better in other areas – better composition, better handling of light/dark/shadow and in the case of movies/TV the writing had to be that much better. You couldn't fall back on color to dazzle the viewer.


In September, MacArtney Singapore delivered a TRIAXUS ROTV with customised sensor payload to the Chinese Academy of Science for oceanographic research projects in the South China Sea.
Marine Observation Technology is a developing market as research organisations seek out cutting-edge technology to facilitate their research. In this case, the areas of the Marine Observation Technology focus are triple-fold as the TRIAXUS will be facilitating research into the South China Sea Circulation, Tropical Ocean-Air Processes, Climate Effects and Eco-environmental Consequences of Dynamical Processes in Tropical Oceans as outlined by the South China Sea Institute of Oceanology (SCSIO).
"This sale has marked a significant milestone for MacArtney as we delivered the first TRIAXUS ROTV into the Chinese oceanographic research market. The TRIAXUS is a robust and versatile piece of marine observation technology and we feel confident that this sale will lead to further sales within this emerging market".


text:
Kickin' It Old School Valiant Central
Kickin' It Old School: Harbinger #2
By Former Contributor
On 18 November 2014 17 June 2017
It's Tuesday, which means it's time for another new edition of Kickin' It Old School, our weekly column in which we look to the past and review books from the original Valiant universe! This week, I'll be discussing Harbinger #2.
Harbinger #2
Published in February 1992
Written by Jim Shooter
Penciled by David Lapham
Inked by John Dixon
Colored by Janet Jackson, Maria Beccari & Co.
We start off with Pete abusing his powers to get Kris help in a hospital. After being unable to force anybody to help her, he decides to use his powers to remove the bullets. Doctor Heyward, who Pete attempted to force into removing the bullets offers to help if the crew behaves. He allows them to stay at his house while Kris recovers.
While there, Pete shows off the strength of his powers to Dr. Heyward, lifting all of the water out of the pool and holding it in the air. While Pete's with the doctor outside and Torque and Charlene are fooling around inside, Faith sneaks out to go back to the scene of their last fight. She gets jumped and Pete shows up to save her. He gets some info out of Harada's goons and investigates with Faith, which eventually leads them to one of Harada's headquarters. They all go together and find Harada and crew waiting for them.
They quickly take down the rest of Pete's group, but Harada underestimates of what Pete is capable. He uses an unconscious Flamingo's powers to start a fire and brings in water in from a pool to revive Torque and Zeppelin. Torque utilizes the water to drown Lump, whom he couldn't defeat by simply beating him. Zeppelin takes down Sparrow by slamming her down. Pete effortlessly casts Weasel away. They look up to discover that Harada has fled. They head up to the top floor to discover Harada's office. They break into his safe to discover tons of money, and that's where the book ends.
This issue has done a lot to show Peter's character growth. The scene in which he removes the bullets to save Kris was emotional and intense and showed his strength of will and determinedness, while also showing his emotion and compassion for Kris. We also see some development in Faith's character. She's excited to have powers and be part of something, but she's still frustrated at being the odd man out in the group, while Charlene and Torque flirt and Pete and Kris are intensely focused on what to do next. She's being called Zeppelin instead of Zephyr, a shot at her weight, and she puts up with it in order to be able to be part of the group. Torque and Charlene are still completely flat characters, though. Jim Shooter tries to add depth to Torque by having Pete repeatedly explain the inner fear behind Torque's obnoxious behavior, but you can't explain character growth. It has to be illustrated through behaviors.
Originally from ValiantCentral.com
HarbingerHarbinger #2Kickin' It Old SchoolPaul TesseneerreviewValiant CentralValiant ComicsVH1
Previous Post First Look: DIVINITY #1
Next Post X-O Manowar #30
About The Author Former Contributor
Former All-Comic.com Contributor
Valiant Central Podcast: The Life And Times Of Joshua Dysart
Valiant Central Podcast: EXCLUSIVE: Talking Rai With Lysa Hawkins
Valiant Central Podcast: Talking The Visitor With Paul Levitz


14 x 17 2-Ply Smooth Surface 400 Series Tape Bound Bristol Paper - 15 Sheets: A high quality multi-ply bristol. Smooth finish is excellent for fine line drawings using pen and ink or marker. Vellum finish is excellent for pencil and pastel as well as airbrush and mixed media. Rated good for charcoal pen and ink marker and oil pastel. Not recommended for traditional watercolor techniques. Acid-free.
It came in two days. Strathmore Strathmore ST475-14 14 in. x 17 in. 2-Ply Smooth Surface 400 Series Tape Bound Bristol Paper - 15 Sheets works and I have presents for my children.


text:
Formula One F1 - Bahrain Grand Prix - Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir, Bahrain - Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel in the garage FIA/Handout via REUTERS
'Seen That at Red Bull': Stroll Explains Sebastian Vettel's Ferrari Struggles
Bhargav Gopal
It is not a hidden mystery that Sebastian Vettel endured a horrid final season with Ferrari. A culmination of problems resulted in his downfall and thus, he spent his time scraping away to attain points finishes with sub-par machinery.
Aston Martin F1 team owner Lawrence Stroll touched upon Vettel's recent struggles. He believes in the German's ability as a four-time F1 champion, which could lead to a possible rejuvenation at his new team.
Stroll stated, "Sebastian had a very challenging year last year. All of us would find it challenging that you lose your job before the season starts. That's mentally very difficult, and you know how mental a game F1 is for drivers."
Sebastian Vettel has a 'second to none' work ethic, says Stroll
"He had a car he found tricky to drive that didn't suit his driving style. We've seen that before in his last year at Red Bull [in 2014]."
That said, Vettel still managed a podium finish in the Turkish GP last year and reminded his critics what he was still capable of. At Aston Martin with a renewed car, it can possibly revitalize Vettel to perform even better, competing at the front of the grid.
Formula One F1 – Turkish Grand Prix – Istanbul Park, Istanbul, Turkey – Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel before the match Pool via REUTERS/Clive Mason
Stroll continued, "But he's a four-time world champion. I don't think he forgot how to drive in one year. He has a work ethic that is known as second to none in the paddock in terms of how hard he works.
"One of the ways we are going to be world champions is to get my guys to think and act like world champions. And how you do that is bring a four-time world champion into the team," concluded the Aston Martin team owner.
Vettel will look to hit the ground running with Aston Martin at the earliest
The 33-year-old has a few good years left in him in the top division. After turbulent times at Ferrari, the move to Aston Martin, which had one of the best cars on the grid last year, will personally give him motivation.
Formula One F1 – Abu Dhabi Grand Prix – Yas Marina Circuit, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates – Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel in the garage before practice FIA/Handout via REUTERS
Subsequently, the team will also try to help Vettel get back to his natural best by providing him the best car possible. Together, then, they will share similar and realistic objectives of fighting for P3 in the Constructors' title fight and securing as many podiums as possible.
Tags: Lawrence StrollSebastian Vettel
F1 Throwback: When Sebastian Vettel Hilariously Blamed a Certain 'Stupid Couple' for Defeat to Lewis Hamilton
F1 Throwback: Sebastian Vettel's Gift to Lewis Hamilton's Dog That Hilariously Disturbed Him All Night


text:
Q: Is it better to use AWS IAM User Group, or IAM Role for users to assume? So after reading through this: AWS IAM Role vs Group I'm not entirely sure what would be better for a group of users.
We're looking at implementing a group of users with least privileges, but doing it by giving them all a 'dev' role to assume, rather than a group.
This seems reasonable but what's the best practice here? What advantages do AWS User Groups have over Roles or vice versa?

A: IAM groups and roles, they both serve different purpose.
An IAM group is primarily a management convenience to manage the same set of permissions for a set of IAM users. Groups can be granted permissions using access control policies. This makes it easier to manage permissions for a collection of users, rather than having to manage permissions for each individual user.
IAM roles allow you to delegate access with defined permissions to trusted entities without having to share long-term access keys. You can use IAM roles to delegate access to IAM users managed within your account, to IAM users under a different AWS account, or to an AWS service such as EC2.
Please check out AWS IAM Faqs for more details.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


With Creative Cloud for teams, you can deploy apps the way that works best for your business. Simple license management, robust data security, technical support, and training resources help you work efficiently and make the most of your software investment.
Let IT deploy apps and updates from a central console, or have team members do a self-install. Licenses are tied to your company, not individuals, so you don't have to worry about licenses walking out the door. And you can reassign seats as your business needs change.
From rigorous software development processes to cross-functional incident response teams, we've built Creative Cloud for teams with your security in mind. We also collaborate with partners, researchers, and industry organizations to proactively protect against threats.


STARR-Louis. Age 91. Died on November 8, 1998. He is survived by his wife, Abbey Kissel Starr of Far Hills, N.J. and his brother, Ogden Parrish Starr of Antigua, W.I. Mr. Starr is also survived by his daughter, Frances Starr Todd and her children, Mary Starr and Christopher Bray and his daughter-inlaw Elizabeth Nelson Starr and her children, Christopher Parrish and Elizabeth Abbey. Mr. Starr was pre-deceased by his son, Dillwyn Thorn Starr, who died in 1988. Mr. Starr was associated with Laidlaw & Company in New York City. He was a Trustee of the Upper Raritan Watershed Association, a Trustee of Purnell School in Pottersville, N.J. and he belonged to Holland Lodge, New York City. Mr. Starr was a member of the Squadron A Association in New York and was a veteran of World War II in which he served as Lt. Colonel of the 8th Air Force in England. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be sent to the Upper Raritan Watershed Association, Box 273, Gladstone, New Jersey 07934 or to the Tewksbury Foot Bassets, Box 31, Pottersville, N.J. 07979. A memorial service will be held on Friday, November 13, 1998 at the Lamington Presbyterian Church, Bedminster, N.J. at 10 A.M. Interment will be private.


text:
Home News Parika NDC accuses Police of non-support to enforce court order
Parika NDC accuses Police of non-support to enforce court order
After obtaining a court order instructing the removal of a squatter, the Mora-Parika Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) has been faced with strong opposition, as the Police are being accused of not assisting in enforcing the court order.
The building which the court ordered to be demolished by the Parika NDC
Mora-Parika NDC Chairman Jaideo Sookhoo told Guyana Times on Wednesday that there was a piece of land, referred to as Parcel 176, which was reserved as "Highway to Parika Stelling".
However, an individual by the name of Anita London has been operating a business on the piece of land. The title owner would have sold the plot, but the buyers were having an issue with the loan approval, since an illegal structure was constructed on the land.
"Anita London was squatting there for a couple years now and the matter went to court and they applied for prescriptive right and the matter was thrown out in 2015. The title owner sold the land and when the person went to the bank for a loan… the bank didn't want to approve the loan because of the incumbent squatter."
This resulted in the owner, Edwin Doobay, taking the NDC to court, where it was ruled that the law must be adhered to and as such, the Council must demolish the building.
"The owner took the NDC to court and on the 28th September, the Judge stated that we had to comply with the law… the court instructed the NDC to demolish the building," the Chairman told this publication.
While the NDC would have sought to peacefully resolve the matter, London obtained a stay of execution, which was also dismissed, and the court upheld its decision that she must remove from the property.
Sookhoo insisted that there has been no cooperation or support from the Police in handing the matter despite several requests to have them present when the NDC was going to have the building demolished. He said that one of the excuses he was given was that the Police did not have the "full force" to regulate the activity.
Previous articleWerk-en-Rust residents blame city business for sewage in yards
Next articleConvenient action
Car flips after dropping into pothole, driver seriously injured
Orin Boston shooting: Dartmouth residents block roadway, burn tyres, debris
3 charged for dumping garbage in Georgetown