text:
Welcome to the Northwest Explorer, the official newspaper of Wichita High School Northwest!
Northwest Explorer
Review of Chuck
Whitney Clum, Reporter
During our three days of snow, I decided to watch Netflix-lots of Netflix. After scrolling through my comfort shows, starting a new show sounded like a good idea since I had three days to binge and drool over said show if I liked it.
According to the description, Chuck is a show about a guy named Chuck who is an underachiever who gets government secrets downloaded into his head and turns into a government asset. The description alone was what made me avoid it: it sounded dumb. So I went in thinking it would be something like the people who wrote a sitcom trying their hand at a grittier type of show.
I was wrong. Completely wrong.
Chuck is a person who got kicked out of Stanford unfairly who has had all of his confidence crushed by working at a California version of Best Buy and is the head of the Nerd Herd, a group who goes out and fixes computers. His ex-best friend who turns out to be a rogue government agent sends him an email that uses embedded pictures to implant government secrets into his head-and then the only computer holding the secrets now in Chuck's head is destroyed. A CIA agent, Sarah Walker (the love interest) and NSA agent John Casey are sent to protect him-but they soon realize the only way to use the information for good is to take him on missions with them, forcing Chuck to balance his spy life and real life.
The characters were great and likable. Chuck is sweet and has a strong moral code, which conflicts often with the wants of the CIA, and makes for a likeable lead character. Sarah is an agent who uses her looks to go undercover, which distracts from the fact she is highly trained in martial artist with relationship issues. John Casey is a tough, trigger-happy NSA agent with a fearsome demeanor. Together, the three of them form a triad of awesome to head up the "A" plot line. His sister, her fiance Devon (More commonly known as 'Captain Awesome', from the family of 'Very Awesomes), his best friend Morgan and the Nerd Herd usually form the "B" plot, which is what is happening in Chuck's real life and usually pretty goofy. Sometime in the episode, both storylines collide forcing Chuck to cover for himself.
The show is smart, funny, and engaging. No character is useless and the show throws out plenty of jokes without sacrificing plot. By the end of the episode, you wonder how on earth they packed so much into one episode, and it is addictive. I burst out laughing several times, whether it was at Captain Awesome's horrible lying skills ("I didn't pick up my phone because I was decapitating a bear!) or Casey saying everything in the same grating voice. ("Don't puke on the C4") No line is wasted and you end up falling in love with the characters, no matter how bad they screw up. And every character grows, so the show never gets stale.
The Verdict: I loved it. Normally crime shows bore me, but I was able to sit through episode after episode, which makes itself the first show that has not been sci-fi/fantasy to make me do that. This is such an underrated show that deserves to have a bigger fanbase than it does. It's on Netflix, so I would recommend going home and watching it-if you think you can stop at one.
How to be a deadly spy according to John Casey
Quote from the show:
"I wouldn't do that, because I have two protectors that will come running with guns blazing when they hear my girly scream"
"Devious Licks" at Northwest!?
Spirit Week Themes
New releases: Students prefer Drake to Kanye
Melatonin and Sleeping Schedules
Masks and Vaccines
Homepage Carousel
Controversy in the Parking Lot: Trump spots spark heated debate
Dress for You: Students Share Their Fashion Aesthetic
Northwest Orientation brings freshmen, sophomores back early
Students return to school a day early for orientation.
Most listened to artists on Spotify
The Student Voice of Wichita Northwest High School
Contact Us: nort[email protected]
All Northwest Explorer Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest


text:
David Ho (born 1952) is a Taiwanese American AIDS researcher

David Ho may also refer to:

 David Ho (artist), Chinese-American artist
 David Ho (businessman) (born c. 1953), Vancouver-based entrepreneur originally from Hong Kong, founder of Harmony Airways
 David Ho (oceanographer), American oceanographer and founder of Bamboo Bike Project
 David Ho Sue San (born 1949), Malaysia Chinese pharmaceutical entrepreneur

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


After completing the admission process, qualified applicants will be admitted in a pre-petition status and should then complete the Start of Semester Checklist. Applicants will then be selected for entry into core program courses through the petition process. Petition requirements vary by program; review the Associate Degree Nursing (R.N.) Petition Requirements for details.


text:
Photo: Nancy L. Ford
On the surface Ryan Cassidy '17's interests sound disparate, but when he talks about them, they form a triad.
The theatre and philosophy major is a member of Hamilton's swim team, primarily a distance freestyler. For Cassidy, swimming and theatre are about getting there. If you don't enjoy the journey, he says, you're going to be miserable in both.
"What I like most about the process of training for swimming and the rehearsal process for theatre is seeing how things that, at the beginning of the process seemed impossible or at least too difficult for me to accomplish, slowly become possible," he says. Early in the season it's very difficult for swimmers to hit their race pace, but it happens as the season progresses. In theatre, giving life to a role, a play or a particular moment, can also stretch out over time, Cassidy says.
As for philosophy, he fell for the subject when he took the class Telling Right From Wrong. Now he draws on it for his other two pursuits. "It has given me a concrete approach to working through the difficult points in both processes. When writing a work of philosophy, you have to identify a problem and then come up with the best solution for it — and be able to fully support why it is the best. You also have to know in advance what the problems might be with your solution. I can apply this to both swimming and theatre," says Cassidy, who is headed toward a theatre career and may pursue a master's degree in acting.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Vikings will sign quarterback Rhett Bomar off Giants practice squad
Updated Apr 01, 2019; Posted Dec 20, 2010
By Mike Garafolo/The Star-Ledger
Saed Hindash/The Star-LedgerQuarterback Rhett Bomar threw for three touchdowns during the 2010 preseason with the Giants, but was signed to the team's practice squad for the second straight season.
A few months ago, the Vikings sent the Giants a quarterback. Now, they're taking one back.
Rhett Bomar, who has spent the past two seasons as a member of the team's practice squad, is on his way to Minnesota to sign with the Vikings, according to someone who spoke to Bomar today. The person requested anonymity because the transaction had not been officially announced by either team.
Bomar, the Giants' fifth-round pick in 2009, completed 40-of-77 passes for 545 yards, three touchdowns and two interceptions this preseason after Jim Sorgi was lost with a shoulder injury, but it obviously wasn't enough for the Giants to make him the backup to Eli Manning. The team traded for Sage Rosenfels and kept Bomar as a member of their practice squad. The Giants haven't carried three quarterbacks since the 2007 season.
That Bomar would end up in Minnesota is interesting for a number of reasons. For one, the Giants' acquisition of Rosenfels from the Vikings before the season likely pushed Bomar to Minnesota. Secondly, Bomar's idol is Brett Favre, the injured Vikings starter. And thirdly, Bomar was active for only one game as a Giant -- Week 17 last season at Minnesota.


When Ozzy Osbourne canceled his June 20 show in Germany at the last minute, fans were most assuredly bummed but also concerned that there may be something seriously wrong with the "Prince of F---ing Darkness." Now a statement from Osbourne's reps has put everyone's mind at ease.
Ozzy Osbourne has been at it for a long time. In fact, he might be the most career-driven rocker in his age bracket. Perhaps that's why fans became very concerned when the 63-year old canceled the Ozzy and Friends gig at the SAP Arena in Mannheim, Germany. Another factor that most definitely caused concern was the timing of the cancellation -- it was so last minute that opening act Black Label Society had already completed their set when the announcement was made.
Fans were no doubt disappointed, as the Ozzy and Friends dates were already a substitution for the initially planned Black Sabbath reunion tour. Those in attendance have been instructed to check for updates on the venue's website to make sure their money is refunded.
As for the reason behind cancelling the show just minutes before Ozzy was set to take the stage, a rep for Osbourne relayed to TMZ that it was simply vocal problems. The representative further explained that Ozzy's overall health is good. Unfortunately, the Osbourne family has already been dealing with health issues of late, as Ozzy's son Jack was recently diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
The next scheduled date on the Ozzy and Friends tour is still on for June 22 at Dessel, Belgium's Grasspop Music Meeting, and will continue through early July. Ozzy and Black Sabbath (minus drummer Bill Ward) are currently crafting their first studio album together since 'Never Say Die,' which was released nearly 34 years ago.


Deadly cold weather has brought what meteorologists call a "once-in-a-generation" deep freeze to the US.
The most extreme Arctic blasts, caused by a spinning pool of cold air known as the polar vortex, could bring temperatures as low as -53C (-64F).
Weather officials in the state of Iowa have warned people to "avoid taking deep breaths, and to minimise talking" if they go outside.
At least five people have been reported dead across several states.
More than 55 million people currently face below-freezing temperatures.
The Illinois city of Chicago has set up 62 "warming centres" for the homeless, where the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) estimates there are about 80,000 rough sleepers.
Police stations have also opened their doors to shelter homeless people.
But the New York Times reports that homeless people are still out on the streets in the city, and spoke to one man who was trying to collect $45 for a motel room.
"A lot of us don't go to the shelters because of bedbugs, we don't go because people steal from you, we don't go because you can't even really sleep in the shelter," he said.
Chicago police say people are being robbed at gunpoint of their coats.
Those wearing Canada Goose jackets, which can cost as much as £900 ($1,100), have been targeted, local media report.
Reuters reports that hundreds of schools have been closed in the affected states and more than 2,000 flights cancelled.
Animal rights organisation Peta has warned people to bring animals inside.
The coldest temperatures are blasting the Midwest from Tuesday to Thursday, with forecasters predicting that Chicago will be colder than Antarctica.
The city experienced a low of -33C (-27F) overnight, with freezing winds making that feel closer to -46C (-50F), officials say.
As much as 2ft (60cm) of snow is forecast in Wisconsin, and 6in is expected in Illinois.
Alabama and another southern state, Georgia, are expecting snow too.
How did President Trump inject controversy?
President Donald Trump, who has questioned whether humans are responsible for climate change, tweeted about the conditions.
But one of the US government's own meteorological agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, posted what was widely interpreted as a rebuttal to the president.
Forecasters are attributing this cold snap to a sudden warming above the North Pole, caused by a blast of hot air from Morocco last month.
This weather system split the polar vortex and caused it to drift south, Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research, told AP news agency.
The world's leading scientists have said that climate change is primarily human-induced and can lead to harsher winters.
Will you be working outside in the cold weather? How are you planning to cope with the extreme cold? Let us know by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.


Answering questions about complex issues often requires analysts to take into account information contained in multiple interconnected datasets. A common strategy in analyzing and visualizing large and heterogeneous data is dividing it into meaningful subsets. Interesting subsets can then be selected and the associated data and the relationships between the subsets visualized. However, neither the extraction and manipulation nor the comparison of subsets is well supported by state-of-the-art techniques.
In this paper we present Domino, a novel multiform visualization technique for effectively representing subsets and the relationships between them. By providing comprehensive tools to arrange, combine, and extract subsets, Domino allows users to create both common visualization techniques and advanced visualizations tailored to specific use cases. In addition to the novel technique, we present an implementation that enables analysts to manage the wide range of options that our approach offers. Innovative interactive features such as placeholders and live previews support rapid creation of complex analysis setups. We introduce the technique and the implementation using a simple example and demonstrate scalability and effectiveness in a use case from the field of cancer genomics.
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (InfoVis '14), 20(12): 2023--2032, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346260, 2014.
This work was supported in part by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (840232), the Austrian Science Fund (J 3437-N15), the Air Force Research Laboratory and DARPA grant FA8750-12-C-0300, and the United States NIH/National Human Genome Research Institute (K99 HG007583).


text:
Home / Angora Cat / claim construction / infringement / novelty / patentability / product-by-process claims / More on Product-by-Process claims - what is the law, why is it, and what should it be?
More on Product-by-Process claims - what is the law, why is it, and what should it be?
Darren Smyth Friday, December 12, 2014 - Angora Cat, claim construction, infringement, novelty, patentability, product-by-process claims
My post on Wednesday morning has attracted a large number of comments, including many thoughtful contributions, and so I would like to follow up concerning the wider issue of product-by-process claims (independent of the specific Hospira v Genentech case), gathering up, and responding to, some of the comments.
In the meantime, readers interested in the decision itself may care to visit the report by Katfriend Suleman Ali (Holly IP) posted on the PatLit blog here, which has a more detailed analysis of the whole judgment and the claims actually at issue.
There is a lot of material, and so I will try to organise into subjects.
1) What kind of claim do you mean?
In my experience of discussing the law of product-by-process claims with a large number of people, it is important to have in mind the right kind of claim. It won't do if you are thinking of claim where the product is not actually new as such (such as erythropoietin in the Kirin Amgen case). It may seem irrelevant, but actually I think that your legal instincts will be led astray if you are not actually thinking of a situation which satisfies the T 0150/82 criteria, namely:
Claims for products defined in terms of processes for their preparation (known as "product-by-process" claims) are admissible only if the products themselves fulfil the requirements for patentability and there is no other information available in the application which could enable the applicant to define the product satisfactorily by reference to its composition, structure or some other testable parameter.
This is the "EPO" standard that has been adopted in the UK. Curiously, as one anonymous commenter helpfully pointed out, only the former of these two criteria appears in the corresponding EPO Guidelines, so at first instance at least the EPO seems to have resiled somewhat from the latter criterion.
Usually a product-by-process claim "X obtained/able by process Y" represents a novel subset of generic X. It will necessarily have an ill-defined structure. And pretty much always (I think), the claim will not define a single composition, but a genus of compositions, either because "process Y" itself contains a number of variables, or because "process Y" does not define absolutely all of the parameters that may affect the identity of the final product, and so by varying non-defined parameters, a number of products can be obtained.
A good example of the kind of claim that I think we should be considering was suggested by an Anon:
"A mixture of compounds obtainable by oxidising compound A under conditions x, y and z"
[This is now my comment, not Anon's] This may well produce a complex oxidised mixture that is difficult to characterise otherwise. The claim is unlikely to define a single mixture, but, either because x y and z are defined with ranges, or because other conditions v and w also affect the outcome but are not specified, a number of mixtures are possible that fall within the scope of the claims.
The Anon went on to say
"Said mixture not being characterisable by techniques in common practice today, but identifiable by a 3rd party using their new fangled gadget, such that they are able to readily prepare said mixture quite easily."
I accept that this is possible in principle, and we should allow for the possibility, but I believe that in the majority of cases that would be unlikely to happen in the lifetime of the patent.
Some commenters pointed to the possibility of a claim to a single X, or something conceptually definable but not able to be structurally defined in particular circumstances. One Anon stated:
I have a case to a new chemical entity that has been transferred post-drafting (getting my excuse in early). The claimed structure was in error, due to a re-arrangement taking place unbeknownst to the inventors. The characterising data all looked fine until recently when it was discovered otherwise.
New claims have now been drafted to the product obtainable by the disclosed manufacturing process. These claims, when granted, will be infringed by third parties making the same compound by a completely different route. Third parties will be well aware of the true structure because it is now in the public domain. In fact, third parties will only make this compound because they will be copying my client's work once their product becomes successful. One day!
This approach may be successful on those specific facts (I don't really want to adopt a view on that), but I don't think it typical of the situation in general.
And I don't think it should be overlooked that even when a product cannot be defined structurally, there are other means of characterisation that should be preferred over product-by-process definitions.
One Anon answered his own comment:
First comment:
Crystalline form of compound X obtainable by crystallisation from methanol, having crystal structure parameters a, b, c, melting point y, DSC peak at z, IR peaks at y1, y2, y3.
Fully characterised so that third parties can determine whether they fall within the claim when they make the same material by a different process.
e.g. Same crystal form obtained directly from the reaction mixture used to synthesise the compound, said crystal form crashing out of solution on work-up.
Follow up comment:
Question mark over my crystal form example would be whether the form is sufficiently characterised by the data, therefore not requiring the process step. However, we could add a functional feature not shown by all forms having the required data, yet would be testable by a third party to determine whether they infringe.
I think in general crystal forms can be defined without reference to process, and, even if a product-by-process limitation is additionally used, the spectroscopic characterisation in the claims allows third parties some greater clarity about whether an individual product infringes.
2) How plausible is it that a different process will achieve the same product?
One issue that led to lively debate was whether the situation that "obtainable by" language would lead to a different outcome in infringement from "obtained by" was likely to be a common or a rare occurrence. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding here, so I shall set out my thoughts from the beginning.
As I stated above, the usual situation is that a product-by-process claim "X obtained/able by process Y" represents a novel subset of generic X. The whole of X is not new, otherwise the limitation defined by the process would not be needed. These situations are quite common. I gave examples of "the products of processing or purifying complex mixtures, products of polymerisation, metallurgical compositions, and the like." A later anon added "oxidation process, re-arrangement reactions, extrusion processes, desalination processes, osmotic processes, filtrations processes, hardening, softening, annealing, centrifugation, mixing, stirring, blending, injecting, stretching, not-stretching, crystallisation, spray-drying, etc."
If the test for infringement of an "obtainable by" claim is that set out by Birss J in Hospira v Genentech, namely that it "must have every single characteristic which is the inevitable consequence of that process", then I do believe with the greatest of respect to the Anon who clearly strongly disagrees with me, that the cases where a patentee may be able to prove infringement of an "obtainable by" claim, where an "obtained by" claim would not have been infringed, will be rare. That is, I think it will be very difficult for a patentee to prove that the material produced by the infringer's process is identical in all material respects to material that could be obtained by a different process that is defined in the claim. That is not just from my experience, I think that there are conceptual reasons why this is likely to be so as well.
The product by process claim is in the domain X, that already encompasses some prior art compositions X(prior), which the process limitation excludes. So the whole of X is not new, only the part that is effectively delineated by the process feature – let us call this X(claimed). To prove infringement by the accused composition X(infringe), the patentee has to both a) prove that X(infringe) has every single characteristic which is the inevitable consequence of a composition of X(claimed) but also b) ensure that it does not stray close to X(prior). If the process is completely different, I think that in most cases this will be an impossible task.
On the other hand, if the process is only slightly different from that defined in the claims (which I expect would be a more likely scenario) then there is a better prospect of demonstrating infringement. However, in that case, I think that there is also a realistic prospect of infringement of an "obtained by" claim under normal principles of purposive construction.
In summary therefore, I think that situations where it will actually make a difference which language is used will be rare. I have still not been persuaded otherwise.
3) What are the principles that are at stake?
An early commenter suggested two principles:
1) The 'Angora Cat' principle of construction, which neatly explains why the same interpretation of the claim should be adopted for infringement as for novelty. A patentee can't adopt a broad construction for infringement having argued for a narrow one for novelty (this protects the public) BUT, by the same token (and by general judicial principles: equal treatment of parties etc etc), one (in particular an infringer/challenger) should not be able to argue for a broader interpretation for novelty than for infringement - this protects the patentee. Deciding arbitrarily that a 'reverse Angora' scenario is fine is unjust and unfair on patentees/inventors.
2) The protection conferred by a patent should correspond to the patentee's contribution to the art. Post Kirin-Amgen, to be allowable, a product-by-process claim must be directed to a NOVEL product. The contribution to the art is hence the product per se, not the process, and the scope of protection should reflect that.
I would first point out that neither of these is a statutory principle. The over-reaching statutory principle is Article 69 and the Protocol, to which I will return later.
Even though I referred to an anti-Angora Cat situation, actually the symmetry is not perfect, and so I don't think that what has happened is "deciding arbitrarily that a 'reverse Angora' scenario is fine". There are cogent reasons why, in the special case of product by process claims, the symmetry between novelty and infringement is broken. But there are already such situations – such as lack of enablement of the prior art (for example in the UK case of Synthon v SmithKline Beecham) – where the symmetry between novelty and infringement is broken, so actually this is not a fundamental principle at all. (Other commentators may consider that the axiom that what infringes if later, anticipates if earlier was laid to rest even earlier, in the terfenidine case)
I don't think it follows that just because the product has to be novel per se that the contribution to the art is the product. On reflection over the last few days, I think actually what the contribution to the art is may not be the same for all kinds of product-by-process claims. But at least in some cases, I think it will really only be the process, even if the product of the process does happen to be new.
My view of the applicable principles is probably easiest explained by reproducing exchange with Norman:
Norman:
I don't have a realistic example, but here is a conceptual example, just to make sure I understand your position. Suppose the patentee produces a new product by a certain process, and with the available technology, the product cannot be described by except by that process. The patentee claims the product "obtainable by" the process and separately "obtained by" the process. After grant, but before expiry, advances in the technology used to characterize products of that nature allows the product to be fully characterized and described by structure. Another party, armed with knowledge of the structure, then produces the exactly the same compound by a different process. Does that party infringe either of the claims? As a matter of policy, in your view, should it be considered to infringe?
In the situation that it subsequently becomes possible to structurally describe characterise the product, then I think under UK law as it stands, an "obtained by" claim is not infringed and an "obtainable by" claim is infringed.
I hope it will be clear to other readers that such a situation is difficult to imagine in reality. Usually things that cannot be characterised stay uncharacterisable for a long time.
But to answer your last point, as a matter of policy I think that it should be considered NOT to infringe. Essentially I suppose I am arguing that "obtainable by" language should not be able to be used by the patentee to expand the monopoly to cover things that only afterwards can be ascertained to infringe, because I think that it completely offends the Protocol to Article 69 – there is no certainty for third parties. It also offends the principle that the monopoly should be commensurate with the technical contribution – the real technical contribution is the process, even if the product is actually novel. (Here I completely disagree with ANON from Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 10:12:00 GMT)
Otherwise, if "obtainable by" claims are allowed to cover the same product made by a different process, then the patentee has used his difficulty – "I cannot describe my product any other way" not only to get a product claim (rather than only a process claim), but to get a product claim that covers things that the patent itself gives no guidance as to whether they infringe or not. In your example, the patent has provided a process A, and an uncharacterised product X. Someone else, possibly the putative infringer himself, has to establish the structure X, the different process B, and that the different process B produces X, and not X' or Y. In my view, the burden on third parties and the putative infringer is intolerable, compared with the little that the patent has contributed (really only A). If patentee's difficulty to describe his product produces adverse consequences, these should be shouldered by the patentee, not by third parties.
It can even be framed as an estoppel point. To get the claim at all, the patentee has represented that the product cannot be described except by the process. But then to assert infringement, the patentee must represent that the product can be characterised in another way, necessarily not revealed in the patent, but only later. I don't consider it far-fetched to say that the patentee should be estopped from this change in position, even if it is technically justified by interim developments.
Your point regarding certainty for third parties is well taken. To expand my example, suppose that before the advance in characterizing technology, the second party develops the same product, but by an entirely different process. There will be no way for the second party to know whether it infringes, and indeed, the second party might also get an "obtainable by" patent for what is in fact exactly the same compound.
However, I'm not sure the principle that the monopoly should be commensurate with the technical contribution is offended, because I'm not convinced that the true contribution is necessarily only the process. I do agree that in some cases the true contribution would be only the process – eg where the desirability of isolating a compound is well known, and the patentee is the first to do it – and in such cases I agree that infringement should be limited to the particular process. But I'm not sure that is always the case. Suppose that the technical insight is that a certain plant compound has medicinal properties, and the only known way to obtain the compound is to extract it from the plant, but once the decision to extract is made, the extraction itself requires only well-known methods. The technology needed to characterize the product might subsequently advance by incremental unpatentable steps, until the point where the product can be readily characterized and synthesized, in which case the subsequent party would have contributed nothing inventive. Even if the characterizing technology or synthesizing technology were patentable, I would have no trouble with the subsequent party getting a patent on their particular novel process, but still, the thought of synthesizing the compound would never have occurred to them without the original invention. In this situation, I would say that the real technical contribution is the compound itself.
So, I don't see this as a (relatively) easy case in which all policy considerations point in the same direction. It strikes me as a hard case where there is a real tension between the need for due notice to subsequent parties, and the need to reward the patentee for their contribution.
I would finally note that the disconnect between novelty and infringement has been endorsed in the USA by the CAFC in the case Amgen v Hoffmann-La Roche:
"In determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the focus is on the product and not on the process of making it"
"In determining infringement of a product-by-process claim, however, the focus is on the process of making the product as much as it is on the product itself".
4) Words from another commenter (with whom I generally agree)
I was very grateful to Freddie Noble who expressed some principles clearly (and I think in a refreshing way), and I so I would like to repeat some of his contributions here:
Freddie:
I do like this decision. And I do not think it necessarily breaches the "Angora Cat" principle.
To start with you have a claim, and have to decide what it means. Fundamental to that is that is whether the claim is for a product or a process. If it is ambiguous in that respect then a clarity objection is proper.
Clearly this type of claim is for a product. So the question is - is the product novel? i.e. is it a new product? If the product is identical to a prior art product (albeit obtained by a different process) then the claim is not novel. I think this is what Birss means by a "rule of novelty" - notice there is no "construction" of "obtained by" at this stage, the "process" is just not relevant to the novelty of *the product*, apart from in so much as it defines the features of the product.
Then we come to infringement, and the question is "has the alleged infringer done what the claim says he must not do?" The "obtained by" claim says that the product, specified in terms of how it is manufactured, is the monopoly. If the product is not manufactured like that, then it does not infringe.
Alternatively, if the claim says "obtainable by" rather than "obtained by", then the alleged infringer has to make something which really is "obtainable by" the specified process. In other words, if it is made by a different process then it must be indistinguishable from the "obtained by" product.
The implication seems to be that it is (very slightly) better to say "obtainable by" than "obtained by" in your claim. And irrespective of whether the EPO might allow an "obtainable by" claim where there is an alternative, if there is an alternative way of defining the novel and inventive features of the product then that alternative is probably going to be better for the patentee.
Anon: "More than "very slightly" I would suggest"
Yes, you are right in that "obtainable by" instead of "obtained by" could make the difference between infringement and not, which in an important case could be worth an awful lot.
What I meant was that cases where it does make that difference are likely to be rare, bearing in mind the narrow definition of "obtainable by" - it "must have every single characteristic which is the inevitable consequence of that process".
I completely agree with you both in the sense that this is what the UK law is, following Kirin Amgen and as admirably now expounded by Birss J, and also as I think that it should be.
It is only at first blush that a fundamental precept of claim construction is breached; on careful consideration, as you have done, it is clear that this is not so.
Moreover, in my opinion, this approach is the only one that satisfies the Art 69 EPC requirement for an claim interpretation "which combines a fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties". The "expansive" approach gives complete uncertainty for third parties, as Tim Roberts notes that such a claim is unconstruable.
What Tim Roberts wrote was:
"Product A obtained by process X" is a claim the scope of which can be decided by evidence (about the process used). What about "Product A obtainable by process X"? What does this include? It clearly includes cases (A') where A has been obtained by process X. But suppose A (A'')has been obtained by another process (Y,not X)? How do you tell whether A'' could have been been obtained by process X? In what sense could it have been so obtained, when it wasn't?
Clearly if the patentee can produce a product A''' produced by process X that is indistinguishable from A'', then A'' infringes. But suppose A''' and A'' differ slightly - or more than slightly? How do you construe the claim? Infringement (no doubt) is a matter of substance. But how do you tell what is an important difference and what is a trivial one? I would argue that the claim is unconstruable. It is no clearer than a claim to 'A substantially as described with reference to the description' - and we know what the EPO thinks of those.
[Clarifying the possible disconnect between novelty and infringement]
When novelty is being assessed, we deny that there is any construction of "obtained by" and instead say there is a "rule of novelty" which says that the product as such must be new. Part of the reason I gave for this was that the claim is either a product or a process - it can't be both - and if it's for a product then it is the novelty of the product which must be assessed.
Then when infringement is being assessed, we say that it is not enough for it to be the same product, it has to be really obtained by the process as stated. In other words, there is a "rule of infringement" which is not the same as the "rule of novelty".
There may well be some room to criticise this state of affairs - where infringement is assessed differently from novelty - but whether it is right or not I maintain that it is reconcilable with consistent construction of the claim, which is important.
As to whether all that is "right" in the sense that it should be the law, as well as in the sense that it is the law, well I think it is, because:
When we assess novelty of an "obtainable by" claim, we insist that the product is new, because it is the product which is being claimed.
When we assess infringement of an "obtainable by" claim, we insist that the infringing product really is obtainable by that process (which is really to say no more than that the infringing product has to be identical to the claimed product), because anything else leaves the scope of the claim uncertain and indeed subject to change in the face of new technology.
If it's an "obtained by" claim then, in certain circumstances (and still I have seen no convincing real-world examples) an identical product will not infringe, which might seem harsh, but then nobody forced the patentee to say "obtained by" instead of "obtainable by" , and if the anon comment @1213 is right, then the patentee has known very well for years that he had better say "obtainable by" to avoid that.
Thanks again to all the commenters for such excellent contributions. I hope and expect that our dear readers may have further comments on this tricky and controversial topic where, perhaps surprisingly, the law is still not clearly fixed.
Addendum 12 December at 21:45 to add this picture of Claim 2 of EP0309477B, referred to in the comments below
More on Product-by-Process claims - what is the law, why is it, and what should it be? Reviewed by Darren Smyth on Friday, December 12, 2014 Rating: 5
product-by-process claims
Anonymous Friday, 12 December 2014 at 13:18:00 GMT
A slight variation on an earlier example:
"Compound A (single compound) obtainable by heating compound B (singe compound of known stucture) at 200 Celsius in a sealed, evacuated container, whereing said compound A has a melting point x, 1H NMR y1, y2, y3..., 13C NMR, z1, z2, z3....", IR spectrum, (etc), mass spec (etc)"
Facts: Compound A has an unknown structure at the time of filing. The manufacturing route is reproducible (100% yield every time producing the same material as can happen with such reactions).
The claim must be written in 'obtainable by' language because once the structure is eventually known it will be possible to prepare by alternative routes. 12 Months later a crystal is found in a sample tube suitable for x-ray determination. The structure is identified.
Q: Is this rare? Today, structural identification is far easier than before, however examples could actually be quite common. In fact, the structures of 'old' compounds are constantly being corrected. Today, even, if you can't get a single crystal of your individual isomer, you can't be sure of knowing which one you have. Filing a patent directed to a single isomer (defined by absolute configuration) when you are even 90% certain which one you have is a dangerous gamble. Always better to add a functional feature (e.g. optical rotation) to the claim.
All of my previous examples (by anon) where thought up on the fly while tuned in to the exciting TV broadcasts. The above example is a clear case (not rare) supporting the obtainable by language.
Other examples are all fact specific. For example, does rapid evaporation with heating in vacuo of mixture A, B and C (or just A alone in solvent) give rise to the exact same product as that obtained by slow evaporation at atmospheric pressure? In some cases, no, in other cases, yes.
A sufficiently defined claim will contain all features necessary to identify the product so nothing is left out. The 3rd party can slowly evaporate his mixture and determine whether he infringes by comparing with the claimed features. The 3rd party may say their product has a feature not mentioned in the claim that is different to that produced by the claimed process. However, if that feature is irrelevant to the clamed function of the product then it is irrelevant. This is no different to a product claimed directly, where an extra feature does not avoid infringement.
There are many clear examples where "obtainable by" is key, so the only argument would seem to be about the definition of rare. I have dealt with a few important examples, and can think of many more, so I settle for more common than not.
"I don't think it follows that just because the product has to be novel per se that the contribution to the art is the product. On reflection over the last few days, I think actually what the contribution to the art is may not be the same for all kinds of product-by-process claims. But at least in some cases, I think it will really only be the process, even if the product of the process does happen to be new."
Not sure I can agree with this.
Product-by-process claims are directed to the PRODUCT, as at least one other commenter has noted. Just because they are defined as the product-of-a-process (perhaps because this was the only way to do so at the time) this does not change the fact that a new product has been made available to the public for the first time, by virtue of the inventor's efforts. The contribution to the art is therefore the product per se, as well as the process by which it is made.
Someone, later, finding an alternative way to make the exact same product infringes such a claim (let's assume it is drafted in 'obtainable by' language to avoid the construction debate for now). Surely this is fine - it is no different from someone claiming a new product structurally, which they are the first to make not because the product itself was not known about, but because no one could previously manage to produce it. Someone coming along later with their own new (possibly even inventive) method to make that same product will infringe: no one would have a problem with that. (esp. since e.g. Generics v Lundbeck).
It is unfair to deny the patentee protection for the product they have enabled, for the first time, just because they were unable to claim it other than using p-by-p language.
Darren Smyth Friday, 12 December 2014 at 16:14:00 GMT
To Anon at 13:18
You say "The above example is a clear case (not rare)", but I don't even find it a plausible one. A chemist performs a reaction on a known compound, can completely characterise the product but has no idea what it is? But files a patent application anyway? I do not recognise such a situation as anything other than completely exceptional. I don't accept that you need a crystal structure to know what you have got. Moreover, even if such an exceptional situation were to occur, I don't think you need the obtainable by definition at all – it should be possible to claim with respect to spectroscopic properties only, as can be done for natural products of unknown structure (See for example EP 0309477). And even if you insist on putting in the product by process feature, it does not have to be defined so narrowly with respect to the process.
I still maintain that product-by-process claims that refer to a single product are not typical of the class, and to keep on harping back to them confuses the issue.
I think that you are referring to the lyophilisation vs air dried example as well. I agree that it is fact specific, but if lyophilised and air dried really produce the same thing, I do wonder what the lyophilised feature is doing in the claim at all.
What I was trying to say is that it is an error to suppose that the technical contribution to all claims of the same class is the same. Even for product claims, the technical contribution is not necessarily the product. In last week's case Idenix v Gilead, the technical contribution of the compound claims was held not to be the compounds as such, but compounds having anti-Flaviviridae activity. That being the case, I don't see how it can be axiomatic that for a product-by-process claim the technical contribution will always be the product as such. It will depend on the specific case. Deploy Generics v Lundbeck with caution, as in that case the patent was claiming a single compound, and that fact is critical to the ratio. I have explained in detail why I don't think this is unfair, and I won't repeat it again.
Darin,
Please take a moment and realize how your statement reads in plain English:
Even for PRODUCT claims, the technical contribution is not necessarily the PRODUCT.
Sorry, but I cannot accept the logic of this statement.
As I posted - you either have the product or you do not. You cannot use two different types of logic, one loose and one tight to reach a different conclusion.
To anon at 18:01 You are welcome to your opinion, but it is not the law of England and Wales, as reflected in the judgment that I cited.
Thanks - I do not doubt that there are laws that are not logical.
But discussions of said laws should not hide behind a gloss statement like yours.
If there be error in my view, I would rather have you point out that error. If you can not point out any error, I would appreciate you acknowledging this and then advancing a suggestion as to how an errorless view and the illogical law it addresses can be brought together - if such should happen. If such should not happen (in your view), then I would enjoy SOME rationale as to why an illogical law should be kept on the books.
"A chemist performs a reaction on a known compound, can completely characterise the product but has no idea what it is? "
erm... YES. Speak to a chemist or two.
"files a patent application anyway"?
Again, yes, just like your EP reference.
"it should be possible to claim with respect to spectroscopic properties only"
EP0309477: The claimed compound is not claimed with respect to spectroscopic properties only.
You might not be convinced Darren, but news just in is that you don't have a monopoly on patent opinions in the chemical field.
To Anon at 19:39 In response to your statement that "The claimed compound is not claimed with respect to spectroscopic properties only" I have added an image of claim 2 of the patent as granted, which is representative. What other limitation do you see?
The limitation I see is "Ecteinascidin 743..."
I accept it is in black and white, but that doesn't make it a spectrocopic property in my humble opinion.
The best objection to this is that the name adds nothing to the claim at all. However, it would have been pointless to include it had this been the case, although patent agent are free to draft poor claims. However, in this case, I would suggest the name is crucial to determining the scope of the invention. Ultimately, I may even suggest the name is mere shorthand for "A compound obtainable by the process of extraction of the marine turnicate........"
Even more ultimately, this EP supports my case that even with significant characterisation, determining the absolute structure (including configuration) of a molecule is not a done deal. 1987 was not that long ago.
It is an old argument that the contribution made by a novel product is not the product.
I don't buy it and neither do patent offices or the courts.
I haven't ploughed through Idenix yet, but according to the conclusions, no compound claim was determined to be novel and the "no contribution to the art" objection is in respect of medical use claims.
Anonymous Sunday, 14 December 2014 at 13:13:00 GMT
Darren, I wanted to point out a biotech example where product by process claims are crucial:
'Protein X which has post-translational modifications obtainable by expressing it in bacterium Y.'
Here the process bit is very narrowly defined with reference to deposited bacterium Y. The modifications I have in mind are glycosylation which is difficult to characterise structurally. Many other bacteria would give the same results, but we haven't deposited them so cannot refer to them in the claim. I think this example is interesting because we can define it as being restricted to only one feature resulting from the process. Unlike the situation Birss was faced with we don't need to try to identify all the features that result from the process - only post-translational modifications.
What I find interesting - and a bit of a disconnect - is reading the decision, and then reading the posts here that seem to take the decision as an endorsement of what is on its face a forced schism in logic.
I read the decision as recognizing the schism, but by no means whatsoever endorsing it.
Anonymous Monday, 15 December 2014 at 00:02:00 GMT
What a relief to read some solid patent theory (and practice) as a contrast to the very controversial present EPO issues. Thank you!
George Brock-Nannestad
Ashley Roughton Monday, 15 December 2014 at 07:00:00 GMT
VV interesting points - TY. Can I ask a question?
In relation to EP ...477B and claims like the one you cited, do you know of any infringement or validity cases where the accuracy of spectroscopic (or magneto resonance or chromatographic) data has made a difference? I only ask because it is likely that the cost associated with a proper magnetic, chromatographic and spectroscopic investigation is going to be vast. I see at least 10 means of analysis here. I would have thought that the court is likely to require fairly strict compliance on proof.
Given that to prove infringement one would need to carry out experiments, each one of those numbers in the claim is option limiting. I think that the degree of nit picking involved (which always happens where experiments are concerned)might make the exercise costly. Whereas if you say, chemical X obtained by pouring hot A over cooler B then the costs of proof are likely to be considerably lower.
the costs of running the analyses to produce the characterizing data is minimal (less than £2K). In the example provided by Darren, third parties would certainly have the funds to cover the work. In other fields (e.g. food technology) there may be a burden on small outfits, but in their cases the kinds of analyses would differ from those above and would be much cheaper.
In the example, I would consider that at least one of the measurements would show a variation, as well as having a clarity issue, so proving infringement may be a problem, even if all other limitations are met. I would have preferred the agent used "product obtainable by" language, with fallbacks and independent claims covering the data.
GEORGE: I agree. No-one wants to discuss such theories anymore. It is becoming a dummed-down profession.
Darren Smyth Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:21:00 GMT
Dear Ashley
Thank you for your question. I don't know of a case where claims defining a compound by spectroscopic means have been tested in court. I agree with the subsequent anon that this is not likely to be that costly. Chemistry papers quote these characterising details for all new compounds prepared, and in principle it is supposed to be how we determine whether the compound that we have prepared is the same compound reported in a previous paper. In practice of course it is not that simple and I would expect that there would be some quibbling about how precise the correspondence needs to be to count as the same "stuff", which presumably be resolved by expert evidence. Speculatively, I wonder whether putting more characterising data in the claim may allow more wriggle room in the claim, because if one measurement did not quite match, it could be compensated by others that did.
If you say "chemical X obtained by pouring hot A over cooler B" then provided the infringer is also pouring hot A over cooler B then it is relatively simple. Where I think it becomes unacceptably complex is if you say "chemical X obtainable by pouring hot A over cooler B" and the infringer is pouring hot C (different from A) over cooler B. Then were are in the realms of multiple experiments as to whether what the infringer has obtained is actually within the scope of the claims.
The patent I quoted was a natural product. Here the structural determination is much harder than for a synthesis from a known starting material under defined conditions, because you don't have the information about how you made it. This very much limits the possibilities for what the thing could be. Classically, synthesis was the gold standard of structural proof; nowadays it is crystal structure, where this is possible.
"Product by process" features that ARE limited by the process are ubiquitous and so common that we hardly notice them moist of the time – every past participle in a claim might be one – terms that often escape notice such as "extruded", "cast", "moulded". Provided that the infringement is also extruded etc, there is rarely occasion to stop and notice that in principle it is a product by process feature.
PS George – thank you for the kind comment.
Excellent and interesting discussion.
My comment's on Birss J's statement that an "obtainable by" claim "must have every single characteristic which is the inevitable consequence of that process".
Darren: A few times now this has been short-handed to say the infringing product must be identical to the claimed product. I think the scope of monopoly here may be broader than you think. "Inevitable consequence" seems a rather high hurdle. Are there not many characteristics that could be changed by varying process conditions or adding steps that aren't specified in the claim? The list of characteristics that are truly 'inevitable' may be very small indeed.
Dear Anon at 18:01
Thank you for your comment. I think that you may be approaching from one direction something that I have been trying to point out from another. Namely, I have been trying to emphasise that a product by process claim normally defines a genus of products, not a single product, and I have been trying unsuccessfully to steer the discussion to such situations ("And pretty much always (I think), the claim will not define a single composition, but a genus of compositions, either because "process Y" itself contains a number of variables, or because "process Y" does not define absolutely all of the parameters that may affect the identity of the final product, and so by varying non-defined parameters, a number of products can be obtained" in the main post, and "I still maintain that product-by-process claims that refer to a single product are not typical of the class, and to keep on harping back to them confuses the issue" in a later comment.)
I agree that, in the case of a usual product-by-process claim, there are a large number of products that can be explicitly obtained according to the claimed process, by varying or adding steps that are not specified in the claim. I think that Birss's "must have every single characteristic which is the inevitable consequence of that process" does not equate to "is identical to the claimed product". But I think it does equate to the, not very different, "is identical to a product that could have been obtained by a process according to the claim". This will usually equate to a large number of products.
I therefore think that we basically agree. But perhaps I have misunderstood the thrust of your comment.
From a US perspective, I found the thin comments in the decision concerning "consisting of" and "comprising" to be rather confused and confusing.
There is a world of difference between those two terms here, and the decision seems to hand wave them as being equivalent.
Am I missing something in the translation?
That's Google Translate for you.
I wouldn't necessarily put too much weight on the works of Mr Birss, just yet. He isn't addressing ground-breaking issues in the chemical field, which have, for he most part, been dealt with by his more eminent predecessors.
Anonymous Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 13:46:00 GMT
Anon at 18:01 here:
I think perhaps the slight difference in opinion is whether Birss J's 'inevitable consequence' test results in a large decrease in scope for product by process claims compared to 'normal' product claims. I think that if the product by process claim is well drafted (thinking of Anonymous@13:13's point here), perhaps it won't.
On the 'genus of products' point, I totally agree but I don't think there's anything controversial about this or peculiar to product by process claims - the scope of monopoly of most/all patent claims define a genus in one way or another. The fewer criteria specified in the claim, the larger the genus.
Where I think we disagree is the potential breadth of "is identical to a product that could have been obtained by a process according to the claim". You could imagine additions to the process of e.g. purification steps.
E.g. a claim to "A compound obtainable by oxidising compound A under conditions x, y and z" where the process results in an uncharacterised mixture of different oxidised compounds, would have within its scope a purified composition of the one oxidised form subsequently shown to be the active agent, let's call it B. And if the claim reads onto to this purified B, then it could also cover purified B obtained via a completely different process that resulted in a different mixture of initial compounds so long as it also included B. The "inevitable consequence" test would perhaps then only apply to any impurities resulting from the claimed process that were completely impossible to remove from B and weren't present at all in the new process.
Darren Smyth Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 14:15:00 GMT
Dear Anon at 18:01 and 13:46
Please let me clarify whether I have understood you. I think you suggest that "A compound obtainable by oxidising compound A under conditions x, y and z" that leads to "an uncharacterised mixture of different oxidised compounds", let us call them B, C, D, E and F, might be infringed by purified B alone resulting from the purification of this mixture? (Provided that it is has the impurity profile, for example, that came from this preparation process).
I come back to the one statutory principle - the Protocol to Art 69 EPC - and I do not see how such an expansive construction provides any certainty for third parties. How are they possibly to know what such a claim covers, if it is interpreted as broadly as that? I don't agree with this approach personally, and I find it difficult to imagine a UK court coming to such a conclusion.
Anonymous @ 13:46,
And that is why I find the gossamer treatment of "comprising" and "consisting of" unsatisfying.
The two terms remain distinct - and importantly so (comprising, being open-ended necessarily means that there is no - and can be no - "exact" match).
I find it odd that such an "exact match" is being fussed about with a Product by Process when the exact same fallout occurs with a straight up product claim (with a "comprising" term).
Again (because I think it is the same as previous Anon) I find myself not understanding the point you are getting at, this time concerning "comprising" and "consisting of". The judgment says at 122:
"Genentech's fall back position is to replace "comprising" with "consisting of". It cures this defect. The effect of the change is as follows. The word "comprising" allowed for other ingredients to be present. The term "consisting of" in these claims has the effect of limiting the composition to the particular ingredients referred to and no others."
What is not to like?
Preferred language in this regard is "consisting essentially of". These definitions have important differences in construction in different jurisdictions.
Anon @ 18:01 here
Yes, I think purified B could infringe under those circumstances, but I think this is very much in keeping with Protocol on Interpretation of Art 69.
If the patentee discovered that a compound resulting from that process treats a disease, but hadn't yet characterised the chemical formula at time of filing, why should a competitor who goes to the next (perhaps trivial, perhaps not) step to purify the active agent be able to take advantage of the patentee's advance without infringing. By analogy, isn't this the same principle as when a patentee patents a chemical (A compound according to formula X), and then someone comes along and finds that a particular stereoisomer or crystalline form is the active agent. Most would agree that the sale of the particular stereoisomer would infringe - isn't the same principle at play here?
A claim to:
"A compound obtainable by oxidising compound A under conditions x, y and z"
simply lacks clarity and would never be granted. No need to apply the Protocol.
When I say "never be granted" I am being nostalgic regarding EPO examination. Today, it will be rushed through to grant without comment because clarity is confusing to the current crop of examiners.
Breaking down Australia's injunctive online copyri...
"Art is pleasure, invention is treasure, and this ...
Swedes consider the "penal value" of a trade mark ...
The Naked Truth: use of BARELY THERE wasn't even b...
The SKYVolt's the limit, even if you forget the wi...
Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights: a ...
European Copyright Society tells Oettinger that EU...
If China turns inwards on technology, will IP be f...
Endoscope and remedial scope: inside view of an ap...
Out of the frying pan, into the fire: patent infri...
Seasonal greetings to all our readers
What is eating the European Patent Office? Merpel...
Randoms, leggy chicks and youth culture: ice cream...
First confidentiality, now costs: Vestergaard v Be...
Goodbye to "protective" trade marks: a change in S...
Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week
A design infringement case for the holidays
The Story of "Oh": successful sample for Jay-Z, bu...
Can You Make a Porcelain Sculpture Out of a Sow's ...
Battistelli and Kongstad respond to EPO criticisms...
Externalities and innovation: let me count the Waz...
A Kat's 2014 Copyright Awards
BREAKING NEWS: breakfast ruling on unfertilised eg...
The independence of the Boards of Appeal: Merpel r...
Be careful with your requests, especially if you w...
After the INTA conference: some helpful Kat-tips
What is in the Future for Private Copy Levies in t...
2015: the year of blocking injunctions?
Playing by the Rules: or a tale of Fault and Defau...
Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week ...
Come rain or come shine: "wetter.de" vs. "wetter.a...
Oracle v Google: are certain elements of the Java ...
The Battle of Trumpton: parody, or protection of k...
Comments, censorship and editorial balance
More on Product-by-Process claims - what is the la...
BREAKING NEWS: EPO Communique -- Boards of Appeal ...
Badly behaved politicians, Parliamentary Pirates a...
Six more judges criticise Battistelli's actions
Catch-up with Caoutchouc as Dalsouples clash in co...
Google announces end of News in Spain
Leading European IP Judges join the chorus of cond...
Wednesday Whimsies From Across the Pond
Hurray for judicial sense on product by process cl...
Pay it again scam
When Trademarks Overlap With Other IP Rights: conf...
The chorus swells - another entreaty to the AC abo...
Breaking News: Enlarged Board appeals - direct to ...
More misinformation on the Unified Patent Court - ...
Sunday sweeteners
What happened to Svensson and his friends after th...
More end-of-year reading suggestions
TF1 v Dailymotion: meet third generation hosting p...
The Alicantation of the European Patent Office
Swiss cheese, calcium salt, partial priority and p...
Second Circuit Hears Argument in Authors Guild v.G...
Is house of mirrors a bad reflection on a famous a...
BREAKING: AG Cruz Villalón says the distribution r...
In suspense about the European Patent Office? You'...
Audit clauses in IP licences: how easy it is to go...
Merpel revisits the EPO strike
Idenix v Gilead - Patent profoundly invalid
Unrest in Eponia as staff take to the streets
Senior Trade Mark UBER Deluged by Phone Calls from...
3G standard essential patent valid and infringed: ...
Those new European patent litigation rules: a repo...
VOLVO vs LOVOL: "a visual dictionary" in the consu...


text:
My Top 5 | 2018-19 GWG leaders at the break
Chris Lomon
My Top 5
Averaging 1.08 points per game, Gabriel Landeskog leads the way with eight in a tight race for the most game-winning goals in 2018-19 so far.
Who are the best in the business when it comes to netting the clutch goals?
With the push for the Playoffs starting to heat up, teams will be counting on their primetime performers to light the lamp when it counts the most.
If you're looking for a player that has the knack for netting the game-winning goals, check out this Fab Five in this week's edition of NHLPA.com's My Top 5.
1. Gabriel Landeskog – 8
Colorado's captain leads the way with eight game-winning tallies in 2018-19. Not a surprise considering the left wing is tied for fifth overall in goals scored. Averaging 1.08 points per game, Landeskog is playing his part in helping the Avalanche seek a post-season berth for the second straight season.
t-2. Connor McDavid – 7
One of the game's most electrifying stars is in the midst of another standout campaign. Edmonton's captain is in the thick of the scoring race, averaging 1.49 points per game, while contributing 23 points on the power-play. The reigning Ted Lindsay Award winner has 29 goals on the season.
t-2. Artemi Panarin – 7
Of Panarin's 19 goals, seven have been game-winners. The Columbus left wing, averaging a stellar 1.15 points per game in 2018-19, also sports a plus minus of plus-10, and has 34 helpers in 46 games for the Blue Jackets.
t-2. Elias Pettersson – 7
Vancouver's rookie sensation has impressed the hockey nation with his head-turning offensive flair. Despite missing games to injury, Pettersson has been a West Coast force for the Canucks. Along with his 1.13 points per game mark, the centre boasts a sizzling 28.0 per cent shooting average.
t-2. Jeff Skinner – 7
To say that Skinner has been stellar for the Sabres would be a big understatement. The left wing, who has already reached the 30-goal plateau, has been a consistent offensive contributor in Buffalo. The veteran forward showcases a 19.6 per cent shooting average for the Eastern Conference club.
United Heroes League, NHLPA announce winners of 2022-23 All-Star Hero campaign
The four winners were selected as special guests of the NHLPA for the 2023 Honda NHL® All-Star Weekend.
Get to know your 2023 All-Star Heroes
Each winner and a guest will receive air travel to Sunrise, Florida to take in weekend All-Star festivities.
Player Q&A | Roope Hintz
Looks like Roope Hintz is in luck. This item on his bucket list will be right in his Dallas backyard in 2026.
Martin Necas embraces fan support from Czechia to Carolina
Necas left home at 15 to suit up with HC Zdar nad Sazavou and HC Kometa Brno, while also representing Czechia on the international stage.
After a whirlwind year, rookie Kent Johnson settles into life in Columbus
The Blue Jackets forward recalls a campaign that saw him play at three different levels of the game.
Predators' McCarron reinstated by NHL/NHLPA Player Assistance Program
McCarron has been returned to available status


text:
Expatriate Health Insurance News: Expats in UAE spending 30% of income on school fees
May 2, 2013	by Expatriate Healthcare
Expatriates living in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are spending as much as 30 per cent of their income on the fees to send their children to school.
That is the finding of the Education UAE Survey conducted between March and April this year by WhichSchoolAdvisor.com, reports Xpress.
It found that one in five families are putting 30 per cent of their household budget each month into educating their children.
There was a slight discrepancy between parents in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, as those in the former city are spending the most on school fees.
James Mullan, cofounder of WhichSchoolAdvisor.com told the news provider: "Our survey has revealed that 46 per cent of parents in Abu Dhabi pay 21 per cent or more of their household income on their children's school fees, as opposed to 36 per cent of households in Dubai."
The cost of education is something that should be taken into consideration when families are considering moving abroad.


text:
$30,000 Reward Announced for Family Dog FD-14 Big Brother and The Holding Company Avalon Ballroom 6/24/66 Concert Poster by Psychedelic Art Exchange
July 25, 2017 • In The Press
World record prices offered for 1966 Family Dog Avalon Ballroom concert posters in any condition.
PARK CITY, UTAH (PRWEB) JULY 25, 2017
A $30,000 reward has just been announced by Psychedelic Art Exchange for anyone that has an authentic, undamaged original first printing of the Family Dog FD-14 "Zig Zag Man" Concert Poster. The concert poster promotes two performances by Big Brother and The Holding Company and Quicksilver Messenger Service that took place at the Avalon Ballroom on June 24 and 25, 1966.
Family Dog FD-14 Big Brother and The Holding Company Avalon Ballroom 6/24/66 Concert Poster
"We recently auctioned off a copy of the famous FD-14 Zig Zag Man concert poster that generated tremendous interest around the world," explained Scott Tilson of Psychedelic Art Exchange, the auction house offering the reward. "Now we have 2 other collectors begging us for this important concert poster. We're hoping our $30,000 reward for an undamaged copy brings at least one seller out of the woodwork. Collectors need to know we would be thrilled to acquire this special poster in any condition and we're willing to pay a world record price to get it," explained Tilson.
The Family Dog FD-14 Zig Zag Man concert poster has special historical significance because it is the very first time that the legendary artists Stanley Mouse and Alton Kelley collaborated on a poster together. The famous duo would go on to create dozens of concert posters together that are widely recognized to be amongst the finest ever created. About 1500 original first printings were produced and just a small fraction of those are known to exist today. If you have a Family Dog FD-14 Zig Zag Man concert poster you wish to sell, or any other Family Dog Avalon Ballroom concert posters from 1966, call Scott Tilson at 435-659-1660 or email Scott (at) ConcertPosterGallery.com


text:
Black Culture Does Not Exist Without Black People
Bonded By Parris OH Sep 30, 2015
What's your view?
Have your say on Twitter
#DoILookDstrkt
Now, more than ever the lack of diversity, discrimination and race are at the forefront of conversations taking part all over the UK & further. With the visibility of discrimination escalating at the height of social media, we're on the brink of change or at least are taking the right steps to bring equality to a longstanding issue of diversity in the UK.
Just one of the longstanding and deeply rooted issues within the lack of diversity across a multitude of businesses, industries and even including door policy at nightclubs, is often that culture is treated as a separate entity from it's people. Often white men in positions of power, think that it is okay to pick parts of the culture out that suit them and appropriate them in order to enable them to benefit both financially and from a marketing perspective. Too often the parts that suit them are everything but the people, essentially 'pimping' out cultural aspects in order to market their own businesses.
Appropriation of culture is never more evident than in the case of DSTRKT, a Mayfair Club in London's West End, racist and sexist door policy. If you've ever been out to nightclubs in the West end of London, you are probably not oblivious to the term 'We've reached our ethnic quota' or the refusal of entry for no evident reason other than your skin colour. The irony is, that when these nightclubs exclude black and dark skin people, they are saying no to the very people who's cultural aspects such as the music are being played all night inside, just without the people.
These clubs then go on the defensive and tired out cover up of inviting black celebrities, such as Karrueche (who's presence was not appreciated by Racist Club Protestors ) or Lewis Hamilton and playing the biggest black Hip Hop artists across the globe. Too often these 'Culture Vultures' will choose one 'spokesman/woman' for black people and use the token 'see we do like black people' by making an example out of one.
Reactions on Twitter to DSTRKT's policy ranged from outrage to pure apathy from what is now culturally known as 'black twitter'. Black twitter can be strong, we've seen the likes of #BlackLivesMatter spawn from the outrage and premature death of unarmed teenager Mike Brown, shot by a police officer in Missouri last year, to conversations becoming more open about race with programmes such as Reggie Yate's 'Race Riots USA'. However one thing sadly seen is the amount of ethnic minority people who put incidents like DSTRKT's door policy down to living in the 'real world' and people having to 'deal with it'. People have put up with this for so long, to them, this is the way it is. However there is a large majority, including public figures who are willing to take a stand against the status quo and use their voices to speak out against these outdated policies.
We are far past the days of 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish' so to not speak out against the pimping of black culture and the exclusion of black people in 2015 would be futile. As I said before "No issue is too small to stand up against, especially if it enforces inequality".
As people have often found out, not all publicity is good publicity and nobody shouts louder than a woman scorned. It's outrageous that in 2015 women and more often than not, darker skinned women are subject to being at the 'bottom of the chain' and are subject to a screening before any entering anywhere. Being told that you're "too dark" or "too fat" or to "wear less" is not only insulting but a stark and bare faced reality of what women are dealing with in this day and age, STILL.
Social media right now is our loudest and strongest voice, continuing these conversations and speaking out against these types of organisations brings awareness but also forces people of all backgrounds to face the reality of issues of the lack of diversity that people face every day. By speaking out, we can create change.
Tagged in:Feminism Black Lives Matter Music Industry UK Music Discrimination
Cover, Video
Cover, Video, Shots
Floor Sixx Announce Music Industry All-Dayer


text:
Literary: correspondence with consultants and others on WSC's war memoirs ("The Second World War", mainly volumes 1 to 4), J-Pownall., Jan 1946 - Apr 1950
Scope and Contents Correspondents include: R V Jones on bombing science (4); Lieutenant-General Wladyslaw Anders [former Commander, Polish forces in Iran and Palestine] on the Katyn [Soviet Union] massacre; Denis Kelly [WSC's literary assistant] (7); William Deakin (10); Daniel Longwell [editor of Life Magazine]; Frank Rye on the Westminster by-election [1924]; "Bill", 1st Lord Camrose [earlier Sir William Berry, Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Telegraph]; 1st Lord Portal [of Hungerford, earlier Sir Charles...
Dates: Jan 1946 - Apr 1950
Found in: Churchill Archives Centre / GBR/0014/CHAR and CHUR, The Papers of Sir Winston Churchill / Churchill Papers / Literary
Literary: "The Second World War", Volume 1 "The Gathering Storm": Appendices: Copy and provisional proofs., 20 May 1938 - 20 Feb 1948
Scope and Contents Includes typescript and galley proofs of the appendices to Volume 1 including: Appendix A "A Conversation with Count [Dino] Grandi" [Italian Ambassador to Britain]; Appendix B "A Note on the Fleet Air Arm"; Appendix D "My Statement on the Occasion of the Deputation of Conservative Members of Both Houses to the Prime Minister, July 28 1936"; Appendix F "Tables of Naval Strength, September 3 1939"; Appendix G "Minute of September 12 1939, Plan 'Catherine'"; Appendix H "New Construction and...
Dates: 20 May 1938 - 20 Feb 1948
Speeches: House of Commons: speech notes and other material., 09 Jul 1941 - 01 Oct 1941
Reference Code: GBR/0014/CHAR 9/148A-B
Scope and Contents Hansard copies of WSC's statements (9 July) on the occupation of Iceland by United States troops, the appeal for arms from Eire (Southern Ireland) to the United States, and British losses in Syria. Published: Complete Speeches VI, pp 6446-7.Notes for WSC's statement (15 July) on the production debate, the Anglo-Soviet Agreement against Germany, its effect on Poland, and the end of the Syrian campaign. Also includes relevant extract from Hansard. Part published: Complete Speeches VI, pp...
Dates: 09 Jul 1941 - 01 Oct 1941
Speeches: House of Commons: Speech notes and source material., 25 Jun 1940 - 21 Nov 1941
Scope and Contents Speech notes for WSC's speech (25 June) entitled "The fall of France" on the capitulation of France, the surrender of the French fleet to Germany and his visit to see [Paul] Reynaud [Prime Minister of France]. Published: Complete Speeches VI, pp 6239-41.Statement by WSC (4 July) on the British destruction of the French fleet at Oran [Algeria]. Source material includes notes on the co-ordination of intelligence, the role of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces [General Sir Alan Brooke,...
Dates: 25 Jun 1940 - 21 Nov 1941
Speeches: House of Commons: Speech notes and source material., 30 Sep 1941 - 11 Dec 1941
Scope and Contents Speech notes for statement by WSC (30 September) on the war situation including: the threat posed by Hitler, WSC's intention not to publish shipping losses to U-Boats, food and rations, the strength of the United States and the Soviet Union, Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, the army and Bomber Command, and events and operations in Persia. Also includes correspondence from 1st Lord Woolton [earlier Frederick Marquis] Minister of Food, Frank Wood, and Major-General Bernard Paget,...
Dates: 30 Sep 1941 - 11 Dec 1941
Speeches: speech notes (some by WSC as First Lord of the Admiralty) and other material., 30 Mar 1940 - 01 Oct 1940
Scope and Contents Notes for WSC's broadcast (30 March, BBC) entitled "A hideous state of alarm and menace" on the fate of the neutral nations, German atrocities, particularly in Poland, and wishing to avoid conflict with the Soviet Union. Also includes various cuttings reporting the speech. Part published: Complete Speeches VI, pp 6199-201.Notes for WSC's broadcast (19 May, BBC) entitled "Arm yourselves and be ye men of valour" on the war situation in France and the formation of the coalition government,...
Dates: 30 Mar 1940 - 01 Oct 1940
Subject: United Kingdom (nation) X
Subject: Soviet Union X
Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) 2
Asia-Pacific War, 1941-1945 1
Battle of El Alamein (1942) 1
Domestic animals 1
Economic policy 1
North Africa (general region) 1


NIV 36 "This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. NIV 36 "This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king.
NIV 36 "This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king.


text:
Poestenkill- Erika M. Piller, 92, of Jones Road, died on Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at the home of her grandson. Born in Berlin Germany, Erika was the daughter of the late Paul August and Maria Louise Smolarski Hoedt and wife of the late Hugo Maka and John Piller. Erika lived in Berlin during WW II and had many stories to tell of what life was like during Hitler's Reign and the life her family endured during those years. She came to the US in 1948 and settled in Albany. She worked in the Automotive Industry during her working career including Quality Glass in Troy where she was an Upholsterer. She had resided in Pleasantdale, Averill Park, Clifton Park before settling in Sebastian Florida for a number of years. In 2016 due to declining health she moved to Poestenkill to be with her grandson and his family.
Erika was the mother of the late Barbara Cummings of Glass Lake.
Survivors include her devoted grandson and wife Robert D. (Aletha) Cummings of Poestenkill, great grandson Andrew Cummings and a niece Karin Apfel of Canada.
At Erika's request services will be private.


text:
Build Your Cloud Environment
Nutanix Enterprise Cloud Supports the Private Cloud Construction of SAIC Volkswagen
In the fiercely contested auto industry, a rapid responsive IT system and constantly upgraded IT infrastructure is needed to meet the changing demands of consumers.
Nutanix Enterprise Cloud Platform NX-1065-G5
Accelerated the R&D of new products and shortened the launch cycle of new projects
Fast deployment and high efficiency and being trouble-free enabled IT team to direct more energy to application innovation and client service
SAIC Volkswagen is a Sino-German joint venture between Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC Motor in short) and Volkswagen Group. The joint-venture agreement for SAIC Volkswagen was signed in October 1984, which marked it one of the oldest auto joint ventures in China. As one of the largest passenger vehicle makers in China, SAIC Volkswagen owns two auto brands, i.e. Volkswagen and Skoda, with products covering a several market segments, including A0 class, A class, B class, C class, SUV and MPV.
The IT revolution led by the Internet technology in recent years has brought many changes to the traditional car industry. In the face of new opportunities brought by the information technology, the auto industry, while maintaining stable growth of existing businesses, also needs to update their products and explore new business models. With the expansion in business development, SAIC Volkswagen Automotive Co., Ltd. (SAIC Volkswagen)'s requirement on information department for full-system security, operation and maintenance, has become more stringent. According to Wang Chunxiao, SAIC Volkswagen project leader, IT support is required in all aspects of the company's business, i.e. R&D and manufacturing, transportation and logistics, car sales, after-sales services, and new forms of consumer relations programs such as fan club and car owner association.
Currently, SAIC Volkswagen has two datacenters in Shanghai and a disaster recovery data center under construction in Jiangsu. Earlier, the applications and databases at SAIC Volkswagen were mostly deployed on Unix-based small computers. In addition, it also had many web servers and small application servers. As a result, the total number of servers exceeded 1,000.
The IT team of SAIC Volkswagen faced three challenges in operation and maintenance: First, the existing legacy data center with server and storage ran a wide variety of IT applications. As a result of the expansion of applications and services, the pressures and costs of managing hardware infrastructure) have increased.
Moreover, the computing capability and storage capacity are not fully utilized. Third, the scale-up expansion model can hardly meet the performance demands of applications, when there is a need to expand the computing and storage resources. In addition, it also entails a lengthy internal procurement processes, which makes it difficult to meet the demand of business departments in a timely fashion.
To overcome these challenges, SAIC Volkswagen made the decision to run a trial of private cloud after careful consideration. The hardware used in private cloud is the standard x86 hardware. While reducing procurement and maintenance costs, it also streamlines the internal procurement process, increases the response speed to the request of the business departments, and delivers more agile support. Once the plan for private cloud was made, SAIC Volkswagen immediately started selecting vendors. SAIC Volkswagen found that the products offered by Nutanix are very much in line with its planned private cloud project. The distributed storage of Nutanix products saves the trouble of buying the entire fiber-optic network and centralized storage, which makes it very appealing and advanced no matter in cost and management or in horizontal expansion.
Through several technical exchanges with the Nutanix team and the early-stage POC test, SAIC Volkswagen finally decided to launch the building of private cloud with seven Nutanix1065 nodes.
"After the early-stage test, we found that Nutanix's products are very much consistent with the SAIC Volkswagen's plan for private cloud in both functions and performance. Some of its features are even beyond our expectation," said Wang Chunxiao. "In addition, Nutanix is pioneered in hyper-convergence, and its Enterprise Cloud technology is in a leading position in the market, which echoes SAIC Volkswagen's leading position in the auto industry."
If we could use one word to describe the benefits brought by Nutanix, that would be 'trouble-free'. The virtual environment in the past relied on manual operation, which would normally take two days to deliver. But now, only one hour to two hours are needed to complete the same workload.
Wang Chunxiao, SAIC Volkswagen project leader
SAIC Volkswagen started deploying the Nutanix solution. In less than a day, all the environments were in place, and the users could deploy their applications directly on the enterprise platform. As such, the R&D process of new products and launch of new projects accelerated, which greatly shortened the period of the project.
Wang Chunxiao was particularly impressed by the ease of use and high efficiency of the Nutanix solution during deployment and utilization. "To upgrade the system, all you need to do is to download the upgrade package from the official website, upload via the web management interface, and click the button to upgrade. All the seven nodes were automatically upgraded, and the user at the front would not even notice the upgrade during the whole process." The ease of the management process makes it most suitable for teams with limited manpower. Wang's department, which is responsible for operating of the infrastructure, only has 20 staff, but manages over 1,000 servers. Thanks to the efficient and trouble-free solutions of Nutanix, the IT team of SAIC Volkswagen can now direct more of its energy to application innovation and client service.
The rapid deployment and launch of Nutanix solution not only accelerates the R&D of new products and shortens the launch cycle of new projects in SAIC Volkswagen, but also saves the space of computer rooms. The seven Nutanix nodes only need 4U cabinet space, while under the previous model integrating server, centralized storage and fiber-optic SAN network, at least 20U space would be required.
The seven Nutanix 1065 nodes purchased by SAIC Volkswagen accounts for 10% of the volume of its resource pool. The easy scalability of the Nutanix solution allows the user to start from a relatively small number of nodes, which gives them much space to expand on-demand. The private cloud project of SAIC Volkswagen is still under deployment, and may consider enlarging the scale in the future.
As a leading manufacturing company, SAIC Volkswagen has a rather complicated structure and a large business portfolio. Its experience of private cloud building can be of highly relevance and learning value to similar companies.
© Nutanix 2022 | Nutanix – Australia: Level 10, 201 Kent Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia | Phone: (02) 8520 3138 | Privacy Statement


text:
This Town Vodcast Videos
Become a Supporter of AXXIDENTAL Site!
Tegan and Sara Release New Album "Hey, I'm Just Like You"
September 30, 2019 September 30, 2019 ABComments Off on Tegan and Sara Release New Album "Hey, I'm Just Like You"
"For their ninth studio album and follow-up to 2016's Love You to Death, twin sisters Tegan and Sara Quin re-recorded songs that they wrote in high school. The duo kept almost all of the lyrics—written between the ages of 15 and 17—and took turns singing songs the other wrote. The album was created with a team composed entirely of women, from production and engineering to mastering and drum and bass tracking."
Listen on TIDAL
Listen on Amazon Music
Buy at Rough Trade
Back in 2017, Tegan and Sara Quin embarked on a 10th anniversary tour of their indie classic The Con. They'd spent much of the decade since its release performing their supersized synth-pop on the global festival circuit, so for that victory lap, they opted for a stripped-down acoustic presentation that harkened back to the twin sisters' coffeehouse roots. That trip down memory lane led them down a wormhole through their past.
They took a break from writing new music and contemplated starting a podcast to chronicle their offstage lives, but ended up instead writing a memoir, High School, about their early days as teenage folkies breaking into the music industry and embracing their queer identity. While doing research for that project, Tegan and Sara rediscovered the demo cassettes that contained the first songs they ever wrote—essentially, the musical equivalent of an old yearbook photo. But when they listened to them, they were taken aback by their own lack of embarrassment.
"Just like everybody, when you think back to the things you did 20 years ago, you imagined you'd cringe and you'd listen once and be like, 'Yeah, cool, bye'—put it back in the box and be done with it," Tegan tells Apple Music. "But the more I listened to the songs, the less I cringed and the more I thought, these melodies are great! It's like: Why write a bunch of new songs when there's this pile of amazing songs that we can work on?"
Those demos would become the raw material for Tegan and Sara's ninth album, Hey, I'm Just Like You, which marks a return not just to the sisters' earliest songwriting efforts, but to the more guitar-centric alt-rock sound of their mid-2000s albums—the driving lead single "I'll Be Back Someday" stakes the middle ground between Warped Tour-worthy pop-punk and the New Wave melodies of fellow Vancouverites the New Pornographers. According to Tegan, some of the tracks, like the soaring opener "Hold My Breath Until I Die," essentially retain the structural integrity of their original versions in refurbished form. But the seemingly simple acoustic ballad "Please Help Me" was actually pieced together from multiple songs through what Tegan calls strategic "cutting and sewing." And then there are the ones that required more intensive surgery.
"There were some songs that we had to rewrite because we couldn't make out what what we were saying [on the cassette]," Tegan says. "We probably argued for two hours about the lyric in 'Hello, I'm Right Here' where Sara says, 'Right now, I wish I was older/Right now, I wish I had closure'—because there is no f**king way we would've said 'closure' when we were teenagers! But that lyric—'Right now, I wish I was older'—has so much maturity in it. She's acknowledging that she can't handle what's going on and that she wished could be older so that she could understand it better. And that is really, deeply mature, I think, for a 17-year-old. And so when we finished the line—'Right now, I wish I had closure'—I think it's us having a conversation with our younger selves, and speaking from the point of view that she wished she could've had back then. It's really dark, actually—it's us saying, 'You don't get closure! You're 39 years old and you're still thinking about your first girlfriend!'"
But while the process of reanimating their past was not without its complications, for Tegan, Hey, I'm Just Like You's greatest virtue is its simplicity. "I realized, 'Wow, we really overthink things now,'" Tegan says. "Like with the song 'We Don't Have Fun When We're Together Anymore'—that is just something that I would never say as an adult, but as a young person I felt it so deeply. It's just so heavy, whereas now, we would try to say that in such a complicated and artistic way. What's beautiful about a song like that is that we're not trying to say or do more than this exact thing. In a time where things have become very complicated, there's something really powerful in putting a straightforward message out there."
http://www.accidentalbear.com
The Anarchist's Skateboarding Utopia – Video
David Hasselhoff Covers Echo and The Bunnymen, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Ministry & More!
Naked Dude Chilling in Field (NSFW)
January 8, 2020 January 8, 2020 AB
Meet Designer Aitor Goicoechea Aburuza
Joris Robert Photographed by Hommes Made Images (NSFW)
December 31, 2019 December 31, 2019 AB
Oliver-Kinley + Kyle Kupres Create Fireworks in Foxy Photoshoot (NSFW)
Gay-For-Pay Porn Star Explores His Prostate LIVE
Male Model – Liam Bergan by Harold Mindel
Artist Spotlight- Marcos Carrasquer
"ODD VIRTUE" – Photography by Antonio Velez
Johnny Utah – "4Tounce" Official Music Video
CHAV – "Patient Zero" (feat. Brett Castro) Music Video
2012 2013 2014 art Arts bear beard Beards Bears Conner Habib Fall/Winter fashion gay Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Gay Men Hair Ball of Day hairy Health HIV hunk LGBT lol Lookbook male model Marriage Equality masculine Matt Baume MEN mens fashion music Music video mustache new music NSFW NYC photography pic of day PSA San Francisco Shopping Spring/Summer United States video Where the Bears Are YouTube


Our luxurious suede range is perfect for displaying your jewellery. Our presentation items are made with top quality materials, and this suede is guaranteed to be a show stopper. These necks/busts have broader shoulders designed to hold any style of chain or necklaces. The black suede is a classic, yet elegant colour choice .Available in a variety of colours.


Several times each month, a family member, friend, colleague, or reader will ask me about dress shirts for men. Questions range from what to look for in a quality dress shirt to the names of some of the best shirtmakers in the world. For the sake of efficiency, I sat down this weekend and wrote a beginner's guide to dress shirts for men, which can serve as a reference. This makes it easier for people to find, and save me time because I can point to it whenever a question arises, not having to repeat myself.
I was reading the news when I saw that a drug-addicted fool in Florida burned down one of the world's oldest trees, a 3,500 year old Cypress named "The Senator".