- Good resource for finding architects whether it is for commercial, residential, or institutional architecture.
Canadian Lumbermen's Association - The membership of the CLA is divided into four bureaus primarily servicing the softwood and hardwood lumber manufacturing community.
Coverings - The Power of Being There. The International Flooring Expo/International Tile & Stone Expo.
Hardwood Council, The - Founded in 1993, the Hardwood Council is a coalition of 11 hardwood lumber and product associations. The Council provides technical information on North American hardwood applications for builders, architects, interior designers and remodelers.
Hardwood Manufacturers Association - HMA is a non-profit national trade association of more than 150 U.S. hardwood lumber producers and processors in 34 states.
Health House - Visit this site for suggestions on building a healthy home.
Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association - Since 1897 the Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association has established itself as the authoritative source of technical and general information on maple sports flooring and has attracted a membership of manufacturing mills, installation contractors, distributors and allied product manufacturers who subscribe to the high standards for which the association stands.
National Association of Home Builders - NAHB has more than 182,000 members, including more than 50,000 who build more than 80 percent of all U.S. Homes.
National Hardwood Lumber Association - NHLA is a non-profit trade association made up of more than 1,700 member firms who produce, sell and use hardwood lumber.
National Oak Flooring Manufacturers Association - Since 1909 the principal function of NOFMA has been to formulate and administer industry standards on hardwood flooring.
Southern Pine Council - The SPC is a joint promotional body coordinated and supported by manufacturers of southern pine lumber. These manufacturers are members of the Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA) and Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association (SLMA).
Surfaces - Surfaces, Where the Industry Goes to Market. Hanley Wood Exhibitions.
Western Wood Products Association - WWPA is a trade association representing softwood lumber manufacturers in the 12 Western states.
World Floor Covering Association - The World Floor Covering Association is a recognized industry leader in legislative advocacy, marketing research and education.


text:
Grants and Paper Opportunities
INSPIRE CHALLENGE
About the challenge
Inspire Challenge 2020
Rapid response grants
Data Driven Agronomy
Crop Modeling
Info and Data Management
Livestock Data
Socio-economic Data
PUBLICATIONS & DATABASES
Platform publications
CGIAR Open Access Policy
Data management support pack
Privacy and ethics guidelines
AgroFIMS
AgrO: The Agronomy Ontology
GDPR training course
Ontologies for Agriculture
DIGITAL AGRICULTURE TOOLS
Evidence Clearing House
Youth in Data Connect
Youth in Data Initiatives
Big Data on Gender
Acknowledgement Guideline
Launching the AgriFoodTrust platform
by Hannah Craig | Apr 15, 2020 | Communities of Practice, News, SocioEconomic CoP | 0 comments
Introduced at the Strike Two Summit in late February, the new testing and learning platform aims to build the knowledge base for trust and transparency technologies in food systems.
A new testing and learning platform for digital trust and transparency technologies—such as blockchain—in agrifood systems was launched at the Strike Two Summit in late February.
AgriFoodTrust debuted at the summit which brought together key agrifood system players to discuss how blockchain and related technologies can contribute to food safety, quality and sustainability, said Gideon Kruseman, an economist with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) who co-founded the platform.
"Blockchain is often associated with the digital security that led to cryptocurrencies. However, growing research is providing evidence on its unique potential to bring greater efficiency, transparency and traceability to the exchange of value and information in the agriculture sector," said Kruseman.
"Many of the wicked problems and seemingly insuperable challenges facing dynamic, complex agri-food system value chains, especially in low and middle-income countries, boil down to a lack of trust, transparency and reliable governance structures," said the researcher who also leads the Socio-Economic Data Community of Practice of the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture.
Photo: The New Fork. Future Food panelist speak at the Strike Two Summit in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
A blockchain is a ledger that is almost impossible to forge. It can be described as a data structure that holds transactional records and ensures security, transparency and decentralization. Technology may be at the foundation of the solutions, but technology is the easy part; solving the softer side has proven to be a seemingly insuperable challenge over the past decades, Kruseman explained.
Digital trust and transparency technologies can be used to improve governance structures and limit corruption in agrifood systems in low and middle income countries, said Marieke de Ruyter de Wildt co-founder of AgriFoodTrust.
"This new generation of decentralized technologies is, in essence, improving governance structures. People often think it is about technology, but it's not. It is about people and how we organize things."
"These technologies are neutral, immutable and censorship resistant. You can mimic this if you think about rules without a ruler. Just imagine what opportunities arise when a system is incorruptible, de Ruyter de Wildt.
It is hoped, accessible via QR codes, for example, that the technology can be used to tackle challenges, such as preventing the sale of counterfeit seeds to smallholder farmers, ensuring the nutritional value of biofortified crop varieties and promoting the uptake of sustainable agricultural principles whilst improving the implementation and monitoring of international agreements related to agriculture.
"This is where the platform comes in as a knowledge base. The AgriFoodTrust platform sees researchers from CGIAR Centers and academia, such as Wageningen University, experiment with these technologies on top of other solutions, business models and partnerships to determine what works, how, when and for whom, in order to share that information," Kruseman added.
Findings on the new platform will be used to build capacity on all aspects of the technologies and their application to ensure this technology is inclusive and usable.
Along with Kruseman, AgriFoodTrust co-founders include digital agriculture experts de Ruyter de Wildt, Founder and CEO of The New Fork, and Chris Addison, Senior Coordinator of Data for Agriculture at CTA. Seed funding for the platform has been raised through CTA, the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture and the CGIAR Program on MAIZE and WHEAT.
"AgriFoodTrust sets out to accelerate understanding about these technologies and fundamentally make food systems more integer and resilient," explained de Ruyter de Wildt.
By 2050, farmers will need to grow enough diverse and nutritious food to feed 10 billion people on less land using less resources while faced with the challenges of a changing climate. This has led researchers to push for agricultural technologies that engender more inclusive, sustainable food systems. It is hoped that increased trust and transparency technologies can help overcome counterproductive incentives, poor governance structures, prevailing institutional arrangements and market failures.
Matthew O'Leary
Q&A: Susanne Köhler explores how blockchain can create social and environmental impacts
Researchers urged to use common gender keywords to improve data impact
100Q: Boosting household survey data usability with 100 core questions
Webinar – Potential climate-related impacts on future maize and wheat yiel...
The Platform for Big Data and the digital future of CGIAR
Webinar – Digital innovations in agriculture
Webinar – All about GARDIAN
Webinar – Old data for new insights
The Platform is led by
The Platform for Big Data in Agriculture harnesses the power of big data for agricultural research and development. It is one of three CGIAR research platforms and it is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund, UKAID and through bilateral funding agreements.
This document presents a recommended template on how to acknowledge Big Data's support.
SUPPORT TYPE EXAMPLE
100% funded by big data This work was undertaken as part of, and funded by, CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture.
Funded by big data and other donors This work was undertake as part of CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture. Funding support for this work was provided by CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture, (names of other funders in alphabetical order).
Shared services The (name of the product) used in this work was provided by CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture as a Shared Service.
Event/ training program The (name of the event or training program) was organized and funded by CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture.
/* ----------------------------------------- */ /* View slug: global-search-3 - start */ /* ----------------------------------------- */ .form-group { margin-bottom: 40px; } .global-search-box { width: 72%; padding: 10px !important; font-size: 14px; color: #888; border-color: #d3d3d3 !important; border-right: none !important; } .search-submit-button { font-size: 14px; background-color: #f7941d; color: #fff; font-weight: bold; padding: 10px !important; border: 1px solid #f7941d; } .count-global-search { margin-bottom: 50px; } /* ----------------------------------------- */ /* View slug: global-search-3 - end */ /* ----------------------------------------- */
Discover agricultural data and publications
Powered by GARDIAN
Become a youth in data partner
Submit an initiative!
AgroFIMS: Your new companion for easy standardization of data collection and description
The Agronomy Field Information Management System (AgroFIMS) allows users to create fieldbooks to collect agronomic data that is already tied to a metadata standard (the CG Core Metadata Schema, aligned with the standard Dublin Core), and semantic standards like the Agronomy Ontology (AgrO), generating data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) at collection. AgroFIMS therefore standardizes data collection and description for easy aggregation and inter-linking across disparate datasets. The fieldbooks you create can be exported to the Android-based KDSmart data collection application, and collected data imported back to AgroFIMS for statistical analysis and reports. In 2021 AgroFIMS will allow you to set up agronomic survey questionnaires, for data collection via ODK. It will also allow easy upload of your "born FAIR" data to Dataverse repository platforms with Dublin Core-compliant metadata schemas. Funding for AgroFIMS was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Open Access, Open Data Initiative, and the CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture. AgroFIMS is under GPL license. Go to AGROFIMS →
Responsible Data Management Guidelines to protect privacy
CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture advocates open data for agricultural research for development. It considers that opening up research data for scrutiny and reuse confers significant benefits to society.
However, the Platform appreciates that not all research data can be open and that a broad range of legitimate circumstances may require data to be restricted.
As an integral component of its advocacy for open data, the Platform promotes responsible data management through the entire research data lifecycle from planning, collecting, storing, disclosing or publishing, transferring, discovery and archiving.
These guidelines were created from information collected from: review on best and emerging practices across various sectors in the fast changing landscape of privacy and ethics (130 external resources); privacy and ethic materials sourced from seven CGIAR centers; first draft was circulated for input and feedback across CGIAR and incorporated into this edition. It's important to note that this is an evolving document, the next stage is to consult externally for further input.
These Guidelines are intended to assist agricultural researchers handle privacy and personally identifiable information (PII) in the research project data lifecycle.
Check the guidelines →
REUSE / TRANSFER
Ensure consistency with the DMP-PII and the purpose for which prior informed consent has been obtained
Revaluate likelihood of (re-)identification and risk of harm, particularly if it involves a public data-set containing PII (as above)
Ensure PII is stored securely to protect privacy (as above)
Minimize use of PII and risk of disclosure through pro-privacy access controls and analytical tools (as above)
Don't transfer data containing PII unless have explicit consent
Don't transfer data containing PII in the absence of a data sharing agreement identifying aspects such as purpose and scope of use, privacy protections measures, confidentiality and any limitations)
Don't reuse or transfer PII until any inconsistencies with the DMP-PII and/or purpose compatibility have been resolved (e.g. through updated ethics review or consent from participant)
ARCHIVING / DISCARDING
Plan for archiving or data destruction early in the process. Destroying data can be more secure, however, archiving can be beneficial if the data has ongoing evidentiary, scientific or cultural value. If archiving, identify where and how, the budget require
Ensure DMP-PII and purpose compatibility (as above)
Ensure adequate security measures to protect privacy (as above)
Don't wait until the end of the project to assess archiving needs when time and resources may be limited
Don't assume the longevity of a particular format, future-proof your archives data
Don't forget to budget for archiving data, this should be done as part of your Data Management Plan
PUBLISHING AND DISCOVERY
Revaluate likelihood of (re-)identification and risk of harm, particularly if it involves a public data-set containing PII
Indicate in metadata the availability of raw data or minimized data containing PII, if available bilaterally
Minimize use of PII and risk of disclosure through pro-privacy access controls and analytical tools
Don't include PII in public datasets unless absolutely necessary to preserve the data's analytic potential, scientific utility or benefit to the participant (and subject to participants informed consent and a rigorous risk assessment)
STORAGE AND ANALYSIS
Ensure compatibility with the DMP-PII (as above) and also the purpose for which prior informed consent has been obtained
Ensure PII is stored securely to protect privacy, through organizational or project specific safeguards to prevent unauthorized access, accidental disclosure or breach of data (physical & technical)
encryption for the storage and transmission of PII
access control measures to limited access to PII
two-factor or multifactor authentication
cloud services & back-end security
Don't store data in unsecured locations or on unsecured devices or servers
Don't store encrypted data and encryption keys in locations where they can be easily accessed simultaneously
Don't underestimate the importance and value of administrative safeguards to standardize practices (i.e. organizational policies, procedures and maintenance of security measures that are designed to protect private information, data and access)
Ensure compatibility with the DMP-PII
De-identify data to anonymize by default unless it will impair the data's analytic potential, scientific utility or benefit to the participant,
If you cannot anonymize, minimize the PII and pseudonymize to reduce the disclosure risk
Provide research participants sufficient information to use reasoned judgment to decide whether or not they wish to participate in the project
Ensure informed consent is designed to address the following elements:
competence, comprehension, full disclosure, voluntariness
legitimate scientific purpose for which the PII is collected and scope of use (e.g. stored, transferred, published and whether as anonymized, minimized or raw data)
foreseeable risk of privacy loss and consequences
meaningful alternatives including opt-in protection/anonymization
safeguards to protect privacy, conditions on which PII may be shared and any limitations on reuse or third- party access and use of PII
permission to follow-up or contact the participant and for what purpose (including by third- parties)
participant's right to withdraw and rights regarding their data (e.g. to be informed; to access; to rectify; to object; to erase)
inclusion of physical, phone and/or electronic contact (at least two forms of contact) that participant can reach to exert her/rights
explicit consent and participant's acknowledgement of understanding
if written, provide the participant a copy of processed informed consent
Use plain language and adapt informed consent to meet the needs of vulnerable populations (e.g. obtain orally or in local language)
Don't collect PII unless you have a Data Management Plan and any necessary approvals in place, including the recorded approval of the potential participant
Don't collect PII unless you absolutely need it
Don't assume that removal of direct identifiers is sufficient to anonymize data or that all de-identification techniques will result in anonymized data. Consider the risk of re-identification of a research participant, particularly if datasets are combined. If there is a reasonable risk of re-identification the information should be handled as PII (i.e. undertake risk analysis, evaluate stronger anonymization techniques, seek informed consent for the disclosure of data and explain its possible consequences)
Don't include vulnerable participants or communities if their ability or capacity to provide voluntary informed consent is genuinely in question
Don't underestimate the potential of quasi or indirect identifiers to identify an individual, particularly the inherent ability of location-based data to identify participants and their communities, and the increased risk of harm this may pose to potentially vulnerable individuals/communities
Avoid seeking overly broad consent that may call into question transparency or a research participant's understanding regarding the use of their PII, be specific regarding the activities, purpose and limitations associated with PII so that the participant can make a genuinely informed decision and downstream users can evaluate purpose compatibility and seek fresh consent if needed
PLANNING AND APPROVAL
Develop a Data Management Plan which governs the handling of PII in the research project and beyond (DMP-PII). It should address:
the type and nature of PII
compliance requirements (including necessary forms for obtaining consent, and ethics clearance, if applicable)
legitimate research objectives that will be advanced by the PII
foreseeable risks and consequences if participants are identified from the data
privacy protection measures (or lack thereof) for collection, storage, transfer and publishing
process for obtaining informed consent
timeframe or trigger for archiving or deletion of PII
Employ stricter standards for research involving vulnerable populations such as children or illiterate participants or sensitive data such as ethnicity or religious beliefs
Undertake due-diligence of datasets previously collected by you or third parties to ensure you are entitled/permitted to use for your research project
Consult the legal, IRB or ethics clearance committee or any other relevant institutional group for specific institutional, local, regional or national policies and regulatory frameworks that may apply to PII in the context of your work
Don't leave the handling of PII and privacy protection as an after-thought, plan ahead!
Don't forget to check local laws and donor or third-party requirements in addition to institutional policies governing research ethics and privacy protection (seek expert support if unsure!)
Don't ignore ethical practices/standards, if your institution does not have an ethics framework or clearance process in place self-assess!
In assessing whether information is capable of identifying someone (i.e. PII) don't limit your focus to direct identifiers, also consider indirect/quasi identifiers. Appreciate this will depend on the context of the research project, the data in question and external data which is or may become otherwise available (i.e. there is no exhaustive list).
In assessing risk of harm don't forget to consider potential harm to the participant's community or groups of individuals that can otherwise be identified or associated with the participant

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Dragon Bridge is 666m long, 37.5m wide and has six lanes for traffic. It opened to traffic on March 29, 2013, at a cost of nearly VND 1.5 trillion dong (US$88m). The bridge was designed by the US-based Ammann & Whitney Consulting Engineers with Louis Berger Group.
While it's a magnificent sight at any time of the day, Dragon Bridge Da Nang is particularly cool (and packed with sightseers) in the evening as it is illuminated with colourful LED lights. On weekends and annual festivities, the state-of-the-art bridge is also scheduled to spit water or breathe fire from its mouth from 21:00 onwards. There are also plenty of riverfront bars, restaurants, and cafes offering terrace seats that overlook Vietnam's longest bridge. Alternatively, you can opt to sit at the waterfront (where marble carvings of animals and deities are set along the Han River) to enjoy the view.
Location: Da Nang City Centre, Da Nang.


Parenting can be tricky at the best of times. My kids didn't come with a self-help manual, but along with way, I realized that parenting is an art form. It's not a science, and every family is different.
There are, however, five critical parenting traits that you can cultivate to assist you on your journey of raising the next generation for success.
Parents are merely imperfect, loving moms and dads. Parents make mistakes. Kids make mistakes, and that's ok. The real issue is what do we do once we realize we have messed up? Be quick to say you are sorry, sort things out with your child and extend forgiveness, then teach your children to do the same.
At a school recently, I noticed posters all over the communal area declaring: "Go ahead and make mistakes." "Own your mistakes, own your successes." I wish my high school encouraged me to mistakes all those years back. If we can release a generation that isn't afraid of making mistakes, and they learn from them, then I think that they could be fearless. Encourage your children not to be scared of making a mistake, but reinforce learning along the way.
Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. When we parent our children with love and understanding, we are able to put yourself in their shoes and love them in the way they need to be loved. Sometimes we forget what it was like to be 9 years-old or a pubescent teenager. The high-school years can be rough on a person. Take a moment or two and remember your own struggles as a child or teen. Count to 5, take a breath and then respond to your child. When you love with empathy, you allow room for the relationship to grow.
Empathetic parenting goes a long way toward understanding your child from when they are little. This skill can be cultivated, and this is especially needed as you parent them through their teens years.
3. Parents create healthy and appropriate boundaries.
The world functions on healthy boundaries. If it were not so, the tides would flood our coastal towns, or the sun would burn 24/7. Night and day are perfect examples of rhythms and boundaries. So too, should a family live with healthy and appropriate boundaries. These could include regular meal-times together, perhaps online limits or digital sunsets.
John Townsend says that in healthy development, your children, especially your teens, "will develop self-control and responsibility to the extent that their parents have healthy boundaries." Over time, as your child experiences external structure, you give them something that they cannot provide for themselves. The result of this process is that your child will transition from external structures towards internalizing them as she grows older. For example, you would feed your toddler healthy, nutritious food so that she can learn what is good for her to eat and grow. When she gets older, then she will realize that certain food types are better for her than others.
4. Parents who know and understand the power of consistency bring stability to the home.
Consistency is one of hardest things for parents to maintain. It takes time and energy, but it's definitely worth it. As a family, decide what your values are and how you want to raise your children. Then, take it from there. If you live consistently out of your values, then this will helps you make better decisions for your family.
In my book, Parenting with Courage, I explain that consistency brings stability and freedom. In James 1:17 we read about the consistency of God. "Whatever is good and perfect is a gift coming down to us from God our Father, who created all the lights in the heavens. He never changes or casts a shifting shadow." This gives us hope, that as we follow His example, we can be consistent in our parenting. The rules in our home shouldn't be more strict or less strict because you're tired, or frustrated. In our homes, the laws shouldn't be more lenient because you're having a good day. Being consistent with your rules, values, limits, and consequences establishes a good foundation on which to build the family.
5 Cultivate the skill of not taking life so seriously.
Life can be like a rollercoaster ride. Cultivate the skill of really enjoying your children. One of my friends helps the aging process how they lived when they are on their deathbeds. One of the most common reflections is that they shouldn't have taken life so seriously. Laughter produces endorphins – the happy hormones – and everyone benefits when laughter rings out in the home.
Let love and a long-term view lead you as try these four skills out. I'd love to hear from you so please email me at hello@mandihart.net or leave a comment below.


You are right, optical parameters of a single eye play a role too.
for the same FOV (which is a combination of the distance and focal length.
Also people with one eye can see perspective.
Perspective has to do with relative distance to the subject.
of view for the wanted size of he subject.
> Well, it depends on how the eyes of those aliens are lined up.
> vertically, it will be all very different.
> (usually I needed to be able to catch her or reach her with my hand.
> So, some of the facial views were a bit "alien-like".


text:
NVIDIA CEO, visiting Dubai, says "I'm all Apple"
Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang visited Dubai today and gave a speech at the American University of Dubai (AUD). In a round-table discussion after the speech, Mr. Huang sat down with representatives from the media to talk about his company and its products.
There will be a longer report from Mr. Huang's visit in our December issue, which will include what the talk was mostly about today, NVIDIA's court battle with Intel. At the core of that legal issue, according to Mr. Huang, is that Intel wants to standardize the technology that computer manufacturers use and computer manufacturers, like Apple, want to differentiate. Mr. Huang said "Apple wants to differentiate. So inside your MacBook is an NVIDIA chipset. Because Apple wants to build fundamentally different computers than just the Intel platform. They want to add value."
Mr. Huang said that in his home they're "all Apple." According to him "Apple uses the best technology for their [computers]. Apple says to their customers: if you buy a computer from us you can be sure we have selected the best technology inside for you. That is their promise to consumers. Their promise to consumers isn't we've selected the best technology for you with the exception of what Intel allows us to use. That's not their promise. And that's why Apple uses the best technology where they want whenever they want. And that's why I'm all Apple! At home, it's just Macs everywhere. It's NVIDIA's technology in all of them but I use Macs. My son has two Macs, my daughter has a Mac, there's an extra Mac just in case and my wife has a Mac. It's just Mac, Mac, Mac! Because I know it's got the best stuff inside."
This was first reported by Shufflegazine.
NVIDIA talks tablets, cars and 3D at CES
Apple Scrapping VAD Concept?
FreshFiber shows off new iPhone and iPod touch cases at DCC MEA
Is Apple turning evil?
Most Popular Instagram Stars (2021)
My apple: The excitement of seeing other Apple fans
Etisalat will launch iPhone 3GS October 27
Mac-Chi Releases WhoPaste 4.3 – A Robust Contact Tool for Mac OS X
Converting ISO to IMG on Mac made boot from DVD work
Emily Smith is the chief writer for Shufflegazine. She has written about the various technology trends for over a decade now and has been featured in various publications. Spending time outdoors and reading up on the latest technology innovations is a passion of hers.
You can connect with Emily on Email, Twitter, About.Me
Acer CEO shows off 7-inch Android tablet
Copyright © 2022 Shufflegazine


Nick Lachey and Vanessa Minnillo began dating in 2006 after she appeared in a music video for his song, "What's Left of Me." They briefly broke up in 2009, but rekindled their relationship and became engaged in November 2010. The couple were married on July 15, 2011 at Sir Richard Branson's private island (Necker Island) in the British Virgin Islands, and the pair have two children: Camden John Lachey and Elisabeth Lachey. Nick Lachey is probably best known as a member of the musical group, 98 Degrees, and for his various appearances on reality television. Minnillo is known for being a correspondent for Entertainment Tonight and Total Request Live on MTV.


If you think that you may want to file a lawsuit, you should not make this decision lightly, and there are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account. Obviously, you should never go into a lawsuit without at least consulting a qualified Gilroy, California civil litigation attorney.
The Gilroy, California attorney you end up hiring will be able to advise you on whether you have a good case. If you do, they will also advise you on your best options on how to proceed. Your lawyer can also inform you about what their fees are, and if they have multiple payment options.
Consultation with your attorney: Before you proceed with any legal action in Gilroy, California, you should seek the advice and counsel of a good Gilroy, California attorney. He or she will be indispensable in helping you succeed in your lawsuit.
Drafting The Complaint: Once you decide that pursuing a lawsuit in Gilroy, California civil court is worth your time and effort, you need to file a complaint. The complaint can set the tone, and frame the issues, for the rest of the litigation process, which can drag on for months, or even years (and decades, in some cases). This is because the complaint lays out all the allegations against the defendant. It also usually asks the court for specific relief, should it rule in the plaintiff's favor.
Serving The Defendant: Once you and your attorney have written a good complaint, and filed it with the court, it needs to be served on the defendant within a certain period of time. This is required under the law of Gilroy, California to ensure that the defendant actually knows that he's being sued, and has time to find a lawyer and prepare a defense. Generally, the defendant should be served in person. However, when this isn't possible, service by mail is also acceptable in a few instances.
Awaiting the Defendant's Response: Once a lawsuit has been filed, and the defendant has been served in Gilroy, California, the defendant has time to respond. They usually do so by drafting an answer to the complaint, in which they deny the plaintiff's allegations, or assert a legal defense. If the defendant fails to respond within a set period of time, they will be in default, and you may be able to get a "default judgment" against them, in which all of your allegations against the defendant are treated as if the defendant admitted them, and you only need to prove that you've suffered losses that warrant the damages you're asking for.
How Can A Gilroy, California Tort Lawyer Help?
This article gives you a basic picture of what is required to file a lawsuit in Gilroy, California. However, it should not, under any circumstances, be read as a complete guide to the litigation process.
You should seek the advice of a qualified litigation attorney if you are planning on filing a lawsuit against somebody who you think has wronged you in Gilroy, California.


text:
The US military is developing technology that reads the minds of soldiers
The US military is pouring money into neuroscience research, in an attempt to try to decipher the meaning behind different brain signals. The ultimate goal: build a system that allows soldiers to communicate with nothing but their thoughts.
According to the specialized site C4ISRNET , it is a bold initiative that "highlights the strange ways in which medical technology could change the very nature of war and the soldiers themselves."
The Army Research Office (ARO) has committed to spending $ 6.25 million on the project over the next five years, taking the first steps toward a future where telepathic cyborg troops can be deployed on the battlefield.
By now, neuroscientists at ARO say they have learned to decode and analyze the neural signals that direct the behavior of the rest of the brain's output. For this, they carried out an experiment where they monitored and discerned the brain signals of a monkey that hit a ball over and over again.
And while this is not properly a mind reading, it represents an important advance in truly understanding what the different brain signals mean.
"We are not only measuring signals here, we are interpreting them," ARO program manager Hamid Krim told C4ISRNET. "Now it's time to decode other categories of brain signals so that a computer can finally interpret a soldier's thoughts and is really in full duplex communication mode with the human brain."
According to the scientist, the latter is probably still decades away.
Source: Futurism


text:
Obama Administration Wins Delay on Sanctions from Senate Democrats
January 27, 2015 April 5, 2017 By Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin
The Obama administration sent two top officials to Congress twice in the past week, to defend ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and to argue against two Iran-related bills gaining ground in the Senate. The lobbying effort was partially successful, as Senate Democrats today announced plans to delay a vote on new sanctions until after a late March negotiating deadline.
In a January 21 hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen and Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken were repeatedly asked to justify their opposition to the prospective sanctions proposed by Senators Kirk and Menendez, which would take effect only if no final deal is reached or if Iran reneges on its terms. Deputy Secretary Blinken argued that such sanctions would be perceived as a violation of the interim nuclear accord by Iran and by U.S. negotiating partners. He warned that the sanctions "could provoke Iran to walk away from the negotiating table," or that they could lead Iranian negotiators "to adopt more extreme positions," and that other countries would be less willing to enforce existing sanctions or adopt new ones. He called on Congress to "be patient for a few more months to fully test diplomacy."
It seems this call was at least partially successful. At a Senate Banking Committee hearing one week later, Senator Menendez called for postponing a floor vote on the new bill until after March 24, the deadline the administration has given for arriving at a "framework agreement" on the core elements of a final deal. In a January 27 letter to President Obama, Senator Menendez and nine other Senate Democrats said that while they "remain deeply skeptical" about Iran's intentions in the talks, they are willing to delay a vote, "in acknowledgement of […] concerns regarding congressional action on legislation."
This decision may buy the administration some time, but it places additional pressure on the late March deadline. Little detail emerged from the most recent round of multilateral talks, which concluded last week in Geneva, or from bilateral U.S.-Iran talks, held late last week in Zurich. It does not appear that negotiators are much closer to reaching agreement – even a basic "framework agreement" – on the most controversial aspects of Iran's program than they were last November, when talks were extended.
Senators also grilled Under Secretary Cohen on sanctions during the January 21 hearing. He argued that sanctions had been "vigorously enforced," including the period since the interim accord was struck in November 2013. Since then, according to Under Secretary Cohen, "the United States has sanctioned nearly 100 individuals and entities that were helping Iran evade our sanctions, aiding Iranian nuclear and missile proliferation," among other sanctionable activity.
Meanwhile, European Union sanctions continue to be challenged in court. In the latest such example, the European General Court struck down sanctions against Bank Tejarat in a January 22 judgment. On the same date, the Court struck down sanctions against a handful of companies associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) that operate in Cyprus, Germany, and Malta. The European Union now has two months to appeal these decisions or to reimpose sanctions under new grounds. In most past challenges, the EU has chosen to do one or the other, thus limiting the effect of these cases.
Bank Tejarat, which is also on the U.S. blacklist, has helped other designated Iranian banks evade sanctions, and has facilitated the purchase of yellowcake uranium by Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. It has also facilitated payments on behalf of U.N.-sanctioned entities such as the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) and the Ministry of Defense Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL).
Showdown on Iran Sanctions
GOP Threatens to Boost Sanctions
What Does a One Year "Breakout" Really Mean?
Obama Fends Off Congress but Putin Complicates Talks
Export Controls & Sanctions
Gary Milhollin


Romford was first recorded as Romfort in 1177. Historically, Romford was a market town and was further developed in 1839 when a railway station was opened in the town. Through the years, Romford's key industries have changed from agricultural and light industry to retail and commerce.
Romford has grown in the 20th century due to the suburban growth of London. This suburb to the north east of London is now one of the biggest commercial, retail and leisure areas outside of Central London.
At Romford Greyhound Stadium you are sure to find an exciting atmosphere and a fun filled day or night out. Romford Market originated as a sheep market and has been in one of the largest and most popular street markets in the UK for centuries.
Retails and commerce are the main business industries in Romford. The area is offers great leisure, entertainment, retail and commercial facilities outside of central London.
Romford offers excellent transport links to London and has regular services to Canning Town, Stratford, Leytonstone and Dagenham. Romford town centre has received a very high Public Transport Accessibility score of 6 because of the area's road, rail and bus links.
Romford has a wide range of bars and clubs to choose from and offers a great night out. With the town's proximity to London, visitors have a host of world class shows and theatrical productions to choose from.
Romford's most famous landmark is its historical market. The market is still run today and offers hundreds of stalls selling food, clothing and groceries.
The Prodigy filmed the video for their song 'Voodoo People' at Romford Market.


text:
Mexican cartel murders bride at altar during her own wedding, kidnaps groom
Published by admin On Jan 16 Leave a response
A Mexican bride's happiest day turned into her last, after the gang rivals of her brother burst into her wedding and shot her dead. Her husband-to-be was then kidnapped by cartel hitmen who sped away in vans.
The grim scene, shocking even by recent standards in the crime-battered country, played out at Our Lady of San Juan church in Celaya in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato, the Sun and Daily Mail report.
The assassins who undertook the savagery are believed to have come from the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) led by feared boss Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, a former policeman known as El Mencho, who has overtaken the jailed Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman as Mexico's main criminal bogeyman.
The bride, Karem Lizbeth Yépez Ortiz, was at the altar with her beau, himself an alleged narco named "El Calamardo," when the shooting started at around 2.30 on Saturday. The bride was also the sister of José Antonio Yépez Ortiz, alias "El Marro," who leads the Santa Rosa de Lima Cartel, which is embroiled in a long-running feud with El Mencho's CJNG.
#Celaya #Guanajuato
La tarde de este sábado se registró un ataque armado en una iglesia mientras se efectuaba una boda en la comunidad de "Pelavacas" en Celaya. "Levantan" a 2 y ejecutaron a otros 2, al novio y presuntamente la hermana de José Antonio Yepes Ortiz "El marro" pic.twitter.com/dhmmpbgnzc
— REPORTINQUIETO🇲🇽💫 (@REPORTINQUIETO) January 12, 2020
During the attack, which came right as the wedding ceremony was about to wrap up, Mexican site La Silla Rota reported that armed men arrived in vans at the church door, unleashing a hail of bullets. When the congregation had finished scattering, the bride was dead and the groom was nowhere to be seen. He was, it was reported, among numerous hostages taken by the CJNG, whose sicarios sped away in a number of vehicles, taking shots at anyone who dared to even look in their direction.
A completely innocent civilian who just happened to pass the church at the wrong moment was also killed, hit by a bullet as he rode on his motorcycle. Local media reports that the attorney general of Guanajuato state is investigating the matter, but none of the victims have yet been officially named. La Silla Rota, citing a law enforcement official, reported that the bride had in fact been killed.
The assassins are said to have been wearing bullet-proof vests emblazoned with the logo of the CJNG — vests which have shown up at a number of cartel massacres in Mexico in recent times.
A 'Wanted' poster for El Mencho.
DEA Los Angeles/Twitter
As well as its feud with El Mencho's CJNG, El Marro's group has made threats against new Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, intelligence website InSight Crime reports. While El Mencho operates in three-quarters of Mexican states and oversees a drugs empire spanning the Americas and Europe, the upstart Santa Rosa de Lima Cartel is mostly involved in the theft of fuel from local pipelines in Guanajuato.
A scene from near Saturday's wedding shooting in which a bride was killed at the altar.
@REPORTINQUIETO/Twitter
A recent banner or narcomanta reportedly left by the group in Salamanca, Guanajuato is said to have ordered the president to take his security forces out of the area, or else "innocent people would die." El Marro denied placing the banner, InSight Crime reports, and instead blamed El Mencho's crew for setting up the stunt to make him look bad.
InSight Crime reports that the CJNG first came to Guanajuato in 2015 to themselves gain a foothold in the local oil-theft economy. The Santa Rosa de Lima Cartel, it is said, was formed to fight back against El Mencho's crew.
The wedding atrocity comes just days after the murder of María Guadalupe López Esquivel, known as La Catrina or "The Dame of Death." The 21-year-old cartel leader, one of El Mencho's main underlings in Michoacán state, was killed when her heavily armed group launched a firefight with police. Having abandoned her family to go and live with the CJNG in 2017, she had commanded her own squad of assassins and regularly posted photographs to Instagram that showed off her cartel lifestyle.
Subscribe to get latest news from site


Hello friends! I know this post is a little late, but alas here it is! If you are new to The Latina Next Door I started doing a roundup post for all of my projects for the previous month in case you subscribe in the middle of the month and happen to have missed out on some.
So here's a quick overview at what I blogged about real quick this past April.
I have a few more I will be adding, and I am a little behind, but if you are just joining I share the exact recipe for one of the best smoothies I use to lose weight quickly (cause you know, bathing suit season is already here… yikes!). The coolest part is that I already got my first testimonial (see below) so I know I am not the only one it works on!
This is my first post where I share what's going on behind the scenes and the things I am working on. In it I talk about my upcoming projects with Sherwin Williams and my latest Craigslist find that is just gorgeous!
I shared how to make literally the easiest farmhouse sign since sometimes you just can find what you're looking for online OR sometimes it's too expensive. All you need is some reclaimed wood and some letters. So easy!
I put together a quick Mother's Day gift guide in case you needed a little help coming up with ideas. I know I want some of the items on the list. That's for sure!
Well that was pretty much it! It was a pretty slow month, but that is all about to change. I have a lot more content coming at ya in the next few days!


Greg R. Fishbone grew up in Massachusetts. Through reading and role-playing games, Greg developed a healthy obsession with science fiction and fantasy, and scoured the library shelves for any book that hinted of magic spells or laser battles with aliens. Greg especially enjoyed the humor of Douglas Adams, the worldcraft of J.R.R. Tolkein, the logic of Isaac Asimov, the plot twists of Frederic Brown, the imagination of Madeleine L'Engle, the weirdness of Ray Bradbury, the wackiness of Terry Pratchett, and the terrible puns of Piers Anthony. Between (and often during) classes, Greg crafted spaceship designs and wrote plotted his first stories, which were often accompanied by crude illustrations.
During college, Greg wrote for and edited Event Horizon, the University of Pennsylvania's speculative fiction magazine. His writing improved as he worked with talented staff members to review and edit student submissions and exclusive works by the likes of Buzz Aldrin and Isaac Asimov. During Greg's tenure, members of Event Horizon also released a shared-world anthology called Starship Alethea about a gigantic spaceship that was part scientific research vessel, part military flagship, part cruise ship, and entirely insane.
During law school and afterward, Greg participated in the legendary superhero parody project, Superguy. Among Greg's stories was one that revolved around Sal the Garbageman, the absolute and uncontested ruler of the world and all-around nice guy. That story formed the basis of Greg's first published novel, The Penguins of Doom. Greg also led a number of Superguy writers to publish an internationally-distributed print magazine called "Mythic Heroes," which explored the superhero genre in contemporary and historic contexts.
A lawyer by day and author/illustrator by night, Greg fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and fun. He and his wife live in the Boston area with their daughter and two cats of varying temperament.


text:
782 F. 2d 1094 - Snell v. Suffolk County a P P
782 F2d 1094 Snell v. Suffolk County a P P
39 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1590,
39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,836, 54 USLW 2408
Clement A. SNELL, Willie Lawrence, Oscar Byrd, John Hammond,
Raymond Ramos, James Henderson, and Victor Delgado, For
Themselves and All Persons Similarly Situated, Toni L.
Jackson, William M. Berry, Leonard A. Hopson, Ronald
Williams, Walter L. Richardson, Vincent Richardson, James B.
Richardson, Anna Lewis, Camellia Turpin, Darlene Pressley,
Joseph E. Neal, Paulette Trent, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
SUFFOLK COUNTY, A Municipal Corporation Organized pursuant
to the Laws of the State of New York, and John P.
Finnerty, as Sheriff of Suffolk County, Defendants,
John P. Finnerty, As Sheriff of Suffolk County, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 558, 687, Dockets 85-7455, 85-7499.
Argued Dec. 13, 1985.
Decided Jan. 22, 1986.
James M. Catterson, Jr., Sp. Counsel for Suffolk Co., Port Jefferson, N.Y. (Snitow & Pauley, William H. Pauley, III, Scott M. Yaffe, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
William M. Brodsky, New York City (Baden Kramer Huffman & Brodsky, P.C., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before KAUFMAN, TIMBERS, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that an employee has a right to a working environment free of racial harassment. On this appeal, we are presented with the assertion of this right in an uncommon context. Appellees, sixteen black and Hispanic correction officers, seek to enlist their employer's aid in cleansing an atmosphere universally recognized as harsh and oft-times cruel--a prison facility. Acknowledging that racial slurs in prisons are often difficult to control, we nevertheless believe the County's prior efforts must be augmented, and affirm the judgments below.
Before proceeding to the merits of this action, we pause briefly to set forth the factual background that led to this appeal.
In May 1981, four black and Hispanic Suffolk County correction officers filed charges of racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In separate but identical complaints, Officers Oscar Byrd, John Hammond, Raymond Ramos and Willie Lawrence1 alleged that Suffolk County and its Sheriff's Department ("the County") had purposefully maintained policies and practices that discriminated against them, and others similarly situated, by failing to recruit, hire and promote racial minorities. According to the officers, the County refused to assign racial minorities to "more desirable" positions within the Sheriff's Department and failed "to take appropriate action to correct the present effects of past discriminatory practices."
These complaints were brought to the attention of the Sheriff by the Suffolk County Attorney's office in both June and July of 1981. When no action was taken by the EEOC within 180 days of the filing date, the minority officers obtained identical "right to sue" letters from the Department of Justice, authorizing each recipient to bring suit in his own behalf. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1).
On December 30, 1982, the four men, together with black and Hispanic officers Clement Snell, James Henderson and Victor Delgado--who had not previously filed charges with the EEOC--brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Echoing the substance of their EEOC complaints, the officers charged appellants Suffolk County and Suffolk County Sheriff John P. Finnerty (as administrator of the Suffolk County Correctional Facility) with establishing a pattern and practice whose intended effect was to deny black and Hispanic officers their right to equal employment opportunities.
The officers sought both equitable relief pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Appellees requested a declaratory judgment that the alleged practices were unconstitutional and an injunction requiring their prohibition. Moreover, the officers sought assignment to the jobs they claimed they would have had but for the County's discriminatory practices, as well as damages for lost wages.
Appellants denied all the substantive allegations in the complaint, and appellees moved for class certification. Chief Judge Weinstein denied the motion because the proposed class was not sufficiently numerous to prevent joinder of all interested persons. Thereafter, the district court instructed appellees' counsel to canvass other minority officers and permit them to join in the action if they desired. By order of January 4, 1984, thirteen plaintiffs, none of whom had exhausted his or her administrative remedies, were joined in the action. Chief Judge Weinstein waived the EEOC filing requirements, however, and the trial proceeded as nineteen separate lawsuits, each involving a Title VII action to be considered by the court and a section 1983 claim to be tried by jury.2
During presentation of the plaintiffs' case, it became apparent that the minority officers were experiencing difficulty specifying instances in which they had been denied assignment or promotion because of their race. Accordingly, plaintiffs' testimony increasingly focused on specific incidents of racial harassment and ethnic slurs, depicting a general racial animus in the prison against black and Hispanic officers.
Correction Officer Ramos testified, for example, that in January 1983, several white officers dressed an Hispanic inmate in a straw hat, sheet and sign that read "Spic," and referred to him as "Ramos's son." Ramos stated he reported the incident to his supervisory lieutenant and wrote directly to Sheriff Finnerty, Warden Romano, Deputy Warden Flammia and Chief of Staff Antoncic. Ramos claimed the lieutenant accused him of trying to "make waves," while a fellow officer warned him, "we know how to take care of fellows like you."
Several days later, Chief of Staff Antoncic informed Ramos that his investigation revealed the incident had never occurred. When Ramos produced photographs of the inmate in Hispanic dress, the Chief of Staff then stirred himself to refer the matter to the Internal Affairs division. Ramos stated his car had been vandalized in the jail's parking lot, and he repeatedly received harassing telephone calls at his home, presumably because of his complaints. A civil service hearing was held several months later, but Ramos was never officially notified of the result.3 After testifying at the hearing, Ramos was greeted with a sign and chants by white officers declaring, "We have the spic. We won."
Testimony of other minority officers revealed that Officer Ramos's experience was not an isolated incident. They too had been repeatedly subject to offensive racial epithets and demeaning ethnic quips concerning their appearance and intelligence. The evidence at trial painted a bleak picture relating to the daily usage of such slurs as "nigger," "coon," "black bitch," and "spic." These sentiments were echoed by a proliferation of racially derogatory "literature" posted on bulletin boards and walls throughout the main thoroughfares of the correctional facility. Included among these vilifications were "study guides" for minority officers comprised of puzzles commonly found in children's books, as well as a questionnaire for black officers containing virtually every conceivable racially offensive cliche. Minority officers were confronted with cartoons and "doctored" photographs favorably portraying the Ku Klux Klan, offensive photographs of half-naked black men and women in African garb, a picture of a black man with a noose around his neck and another whose message clearly likened black people to "game" fit for hunting.
Moreover, two minority officers testified they had been denied access by white guards to a locked bathroom. Accordingly, one officer was forced to urinate in a receptacle he found in the inmates' living quarters. Other officers stated they had anonymously received Ku Klux Klan applications and "advertisements" for the "Niggers Back to Africa Movement" in their mailboxes at work. Yet another officer testified she felt so demeaned by the constant racial derision that she chose to eat lunch apart from her fellow officers to avoid unnecessary harassment. Finally, more than one employee stated that the level of racial hostility was so acute that they feared white officers might not respond to their calls for assistance.
Aside from Officer Ramos's experience with an inmate dressed in Hispanic garb, two other incidents were formally investigated. Walter Richardson complained that at a "Family Day" gathering of prison employees and their wives, he and his spouse were offended by a white officer's supposedly humorous quip that prison employment fosters racial prejudice. The white officer said he no longer enjoyed watching basketball because the sight of black men running up and down the court reminded him of his working environment. The incident was investigated and the responsible officer was relieved of his community relations assignment.
Similarly, female officer Pressley testified that a white civilian employee had referred to her as a "nigger" and a "black bitch" in front of other employees. Sergeant Pressley complained that such conduct undermined her authority in the workplace. After an investigation by Internal Affairs, the white woman received an official reprimand. We note, however, that the results of these investigations were never publicly disclosed.
The district judge carefully charged the jury on appellees' two section 1983 claims--discrimination in assignment and promotion and an atmosphere of racial harassment.4 The jury found for the County on appellees' claims of discrimination in assignment and promotion, and awarded damages to only three of the remaining sixteen plaintiffs based upon the Sheriff's failure to correct an atmosphere of racial and ethnic hostility within the Suffolk County Jail.5
Following the jury's verdict, Chief Judge Weinstein rendered his decision on the Title VII claims. He found appellees to have been "subjected to vicious, frequent, and reprehensible instances of racial harassment," constituting a "concerted pattern of harassment," which deprived them of their Title VII rights. Snell v. Suffolk County, 611 F.Supp. 521, 526 (E.D.N.Y.1985). Because he also determined appellants had taken inadequate steps to redress the continuous racially invidious climate of the institution, the district judge ordered the Warden of Suffolk County to appear before all correction officers and "declare that the County will not tolerate any correction officer's action discriminating against another correction officer because of his or her minority status." Id. at 532. The Warden was further instructed to forbid the use of racial epithets; the posting or distribution of derogatory bulletins; mimicking officers in stereotypical fashion and the use of racial, ethnic or religious slurs and humor. The court ordered the Warden to state also that such actions would result in prompt and severe discipline. Id. at 531-32.6
Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellants raise four issues on appeal. Because two of appellants' arguments present questions of first impression in this Circuit, we now address each claim ad seriatim.
A. EEOC Filing Requirements (The "Single Filing" Rule)
Appellants contend the district court erred by waiving the EEOC filing requirements for those officers who neither filed charges nor received "right to sue" letters.7 Citing Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979), they argue the policy behind Title VII filing requirements is to encourage "[c]ooperation and voluntary compliance ... as the preferred means" for achieving equality of employment opportunities. Id. at 373, 99 S.Ct. at 2349 (quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1017, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974)). Accordingly, appellants claim the EEOC was denied the opportunity to arbitrate and possibly resolve each individual allegation of discrimination.
The appellees urge this Court to adopt the "single filing rule," which provides that where one plaintiff has filed a timely EEOC complaint, other non-filing plaintiffs may join in the action if their individual claims "aris[e] out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame." Ezell v. Mobile Housing Board, 709 F.2d 1376, 1381 (11th Cir.1983). The rule thereby avoids unnecessary repetition of EEOC filings where the initial complaint went unaddressed. This presupposes, of course, that the subsequent claims are sufficiently similar to the original complaint and the employer received adequate notice and an opportunity for conciliation.8 See, e.g., Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319 (D.C.Cir.1981); Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788, 554 F.2d 876 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 891, 98 S.Ct. 266, 54 L.Ed.2d 176 (1977); Wheeler v. American Home Products Corp., 563 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir.1977).9 Accordingly, the officers contend that because the initial filings were not investigated, additional filings concerning similar allegations of discrimination were unnecessary.
In Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that the statutory time limit for filing charges is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a Title VII suit in district court. Rather, the Court analogized the filing requirement to a statute of limitations, which could be waived or tolled where deemed equitable by the district court. Zipes, however, reiterated the principle underlying the filing procedure, "to give prompt notice to the employer," id. at 398, 102 S.Ct. at 1135, thereby encouraging conciliation where possible.
In Foster v. Gueory, supra, a case factually similar to the one before us, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit permitted intervenors in a Title VII action to maintain their discrimination claims after class certification had been denied, although the intervenors had not exhausted their administrative remedies. Reasoning that the allegations of discrimination were sufficiently similar to the EEOC charge filed by one plaintiff, the court concluded that the principal function of the filing requirements--notice and an opportunity for conciliation--had been satisfied, and therefore filings by the other plaintiffs would have been a futile exercise. Id. 655 F.2d at 1323.
In a subsequent decision, the District of Columbia Circuit articulated the appropriate standard for waiving the filing requirements. "[W]here two plaintiffs allege that they were similarly situated and received the same discriminatory treatment, the purposes of the exhaustion requirement are adequately served if one plaintiff has filed an EEOC complaint." De Medina v. Reinhardt, 686 F.2d 997, 1013 (D.C.Cir.1982). See Crawford v. United States Steel Corp., 660 F.2d 663, 665-66 (5th Cir.1981); see also Dalton v. Employment Security Comm'n, 671 F.2d 835, 838 (4th Cir.1982).
In the dispute before us, Judge Weinstein found the officers' Title VII claims arose out of virtually identical circumstances, thereby rendering additional filings a "wholly fruitless" endeavor. 611 F.Supp. at 523. We agree. The evidence adduced at trial clearly indicated that the minority officers were subjected to a virtual barrage of racially offensive slurs and demeaning epithets that directly affected their work. All these incidents were of a similar nature and occurred at the Suffolk County Correction Facility within a three-year period. Moreover, the EEOC filings put Suffolk County on notice of "discrimination like or reasonably growing out of such allegations." Caldwell v. National Ass'n of Home Builders, 771 F.2d 1051, 1054 (7th Cir.1985); see Griffin v. Carlin, 755 F.2d 1516, 1522 (11th Cir.1985). An investigation by the EEOC would certainly have revealed this evidence of pervasive racial hostility.
Such an inquiry, however, was never made. No action was initiated during the 18 months that transpired between the filings and the officers' receipt of their "right to sue" letters. Moreover, the Sheriff's Department did not attempt to address the specific allegations charged in the EEOC complaint any time before the commencement of this action. There is scant reason to believe, therefore, that the additional claims of the non-filing officials would have been settled extra-judicially.
We adopt the "single filing" rule, and, on the evidence before us we cannot say the district court's finding that the claims were sufficiently related was erroneous. Anderson v. Bessemer City, U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Accordingly, Chief Judge Weinstein properly waived the EEOC filing requirement in this case.
B. Expanding the Scope of the Trial
Appellants next claim the district court impermissibly manipulated the substantive grounds of the suit by injecting a new issue--the atmosphere of racial harassment--that had not specifically been alleged in the complaint. The County denies it ever consented either expressly or implicitly to this new cause of action, and hence did not receive its day in court.
We are, of course, mindful of the mandate of procedural due process, requiring adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Curtis, 763 F.2d 495, 502-03 (2d Cir.1985). Nevertheless, we are compelled to reject appellants' arguments. Although a racially charged environment was not specifically alleged in the complaint, the record clearly supports appellees' contention that the County had ample notice and sufficient time within which to prepare its defense. Accordingly, appellants' characterization of the district court's action as an "eleventh hour adoption of a legal theory" is wholly unavailing.
During presentation of the plaintiffs' case, there were several explicit indications that an atmosphere of racial harassment was an independent cause of action being tried both to the jury pursuant to Sec. 1983, and to the court pursuant to Title VII. Midway through the plaintiffs' case, Chief Judge Weinstein dictated for the record the substance of a conference at which the parties agreed that "racial harassment" was an independent ground upon which relief was being sought. Shortly thereafter, in denying Suffolk County's motion to dismiss Officer Delgado's complaint, the district court ruled that a reasonable juror might find for Delgado based upon a racially discriminatory environment.
Moreover, both sides to the litigation requested differing jury instructions on the standard for finding employer liability by failing to correct a racially hostile atmosphere. At the charging conference, once the trial court had modified the charge with the approval of appellants, defense counsel did not raise an objection. Finally, the district court explicitly relied on an atmosphere of racial hostility to deny the County's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case.
Despite these repeated indications, counsel for the County never objected. Failure of defense counsel to do so further demonstrates the absence of surprise on the County's part. Moreover, appellants never asked for a continuance to prepare an adequate defense. Having actually litigated the issue of racial hostility, the County cannot belatedly claim to have been prejudiced. Accordingly, appellants impliedly consented to trial on this issue, within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b). See, e.g., Grand Light & Supply Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 771 F.2d 672, 680-81 (2d Cir.1985); Browning Debenture Holders' Committee v. DASA Corp., 560 F.2d 1078, 1086 (2d Cir.1977).
C. Employer's Liability for a Racially Hostile Environment
The County also argues that a racially hostile environment did not exist, or if it did, the district court applied an erroneous standard by which to evaluate an employer's liability for its existence in the workplace. We disagree with both contentions.
1. Racial Harassment at the Correction Facility
42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1) provides that an employer may not "discriminate against any individual with respect to ... terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race." It is well-established in other Circuits that a working environment overrun by racial antagonism constitutes a Title VII violation. Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, 722 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir.1983); Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir.1982); Johnson v. Bunny Bread Co., 646 F.2d 1250 (8th Cir.1981). The Fifth Circuit put it succinctly, "a discriminatory and offensive work environment so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability of minority group workers" may constitute a violation of Title VII. Vaughn v. Pool Offshore Co., 683 F.2d 922, 924 (5th Cir.1982) (quoting Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234, 238 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 957, 92 S.Ct. 2058, 32 L.Ed.2d 343 (1972)).
To establish a hostile atmosphere, however, plaintiffs must prove more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity. Gilbert, supra, 722 F.2d at 1394; EEOC v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 488 F.Supp. 381, 384 (D.Minn.1980). Casual comments, or accidental or sporadic conversation, will not trigger equitable relief pursuant to the statute. See Cariddi v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 568 F.2d 87, 88 (8th Cir.1977); Winfrey v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 467 F.Supp. 56, 60-61 (D.Neb.1979). In sum, the alleged harassment "must be sufficiently pervasive ... to ... create an abusive working environment." Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 (11th Cir.1982). Whether racial acrimony in a particular institution is "sufficiently pervasive" to constitute a Title VII violation is to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 904.
We agree with Chief Judge Weinstein that a racially hostile environment existed at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility. The record clearly supports his finding that the proliferation of demeaning literature and epithets was sufficiently continuous and pervasive to establish a "concerted pattern of harassment" in violation of Title VII. Snell, supra, 611 F.Supp. at 526 (quoting Fekete v. United States Steel Corp., 353 F.Supp. 1177, 1186 (W.D.Pa.1973)).10
In light of this compelling evidence, we reject appellants' contention that the scurrilous postings and racial epithets occurred only sporadically and did not rise to the level of a Title VII violation. Moreover, their reliance on Vaughn v. Pool Offshore Co., 683 F.2d 922 (5th Cir.1982), is misplaced. Although the environment in most of our nation's correction institutions may properly be characterized as coarse and rowdy, this case, unlike Vaughn, does not present circumstances involving "instances of humiliating acts shared by all."
2. Liability of County and Sheriff
Turning to the more difficult question on this appeal, we now address the requirements for holding an employer liable pursuant to Title VII, once a sufficiently deleterious atmosphere of racial harassment between co-workers has been established.
Citing the district court's language, "defendants have ignored or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent these abuses," 611 F.Supp. at 522 (emphasis added), appellants claim the trial judge imposed a standard approaching strict liability.11 Fearing such a heavy responsibility will transform Sec. 1983 and Title VII into general federal tort statutes, appellants urge us to adopt a standard pursuant to which an employer must have actively participated in the discrimination, or condoned it to such a degree, that a pattern and practice was created.12
As stated by the First Circuit, "an employer may not stand by and allow an employee to be subjected to a course of racial harassment by co-workers." DeGrace v. Rumsfeld, 614 F.2d 796, 803 (1st Cir.1980). In DeGrace, the First Circuit held the good intentions of an employee's direct supervisor "cannot insulate [other supervisory personnel] from [the] failure to correct the racially offensive conduct." Id.
The court elaborated on the difficulties encountered in this most sensitive area:
It may not always be within the employer's power to guarantee an environment free from all bigotry. He cannot change the personal beliefs of his employees; he can let it be known, however, that racial harassment will not be tolerated, and he can take all reasonable measures to enforce this policy.... But once an employer has in good faith taken those measures which are both feasible and reasonable under the circumstances to combat the offensive conduct we do not think he can be charged with discriminating on the basis of race.
Id. at 805.
We find the analysis of the First Circuit persuasive. This standard places a reasonable duty on an employer who is aware of a racially discriminatory atmosphere adversely affecting the emotional well-being and productivity of its employees to take reasonable steps to remedy it. Whether an employer has fulfilled his responsibility in this regard is to be determined upon the facts in each case. Factors that may be considered are the gravity of the harm, see id. at 805, the nature of the work environment, see Vaughn, supra, 683 F.2d at 925, and the resources available to the employer. Accordingly, we hold today that once an employer has knowledge of a racially combative atmosphere in the workplace, he has a duty to take reasonable steps to eliminate it.
Applying this standard to the facts of this case, we cannot say Suffolk County and its Sheriff's Department were sufficiently forceful in quieting the atmosphere of racial harassment existing at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility. Although we by no means charge appellants with intentionally fostering such an environment--and recognizing the harsh and sometimes brutal nature of jail life--we agree with the district court that inadequate measures were taken to avoid the proliferation of racial slurs and literature.
Appellants strenuously argue, however, that they took all reasonable steps to promote and preserve a good working environment. In support, they refer us to a single announcement posted throughout the facility stating that the use of racial slurs are prohibited by the operating manual and would result in disciplinary action. Moreover, they allege that virtually every instance of racial harassment that was brought to the attention of the Sheriff's Department was ultimately referred to and investigated by their Internal Affairs division and appropriate disciplinary action taken. While these measures are commendable, they certainly did not exhaust the field of reasonable and feasible actions appellants might have taken.
Indeed, the Sheriff did not adequately "let it be known" that racial slurs and the posting of derogatory materials would not be tolerated. DeGrace, supra, 614 F.2d at 805. Clearly, the County investigated the complaints of Officers Ramos, Pressley, and Richardson, and took disciplinary action where it was deemed appropriate. But these incidents constitute only a fraction of the instances of racial harassment most of which went uninvestigated.13 Moreover, each person whose complaint was investigated testified he or she was never officially notified of the result.
Additionally, Sheriff Finnerty testified that he was aware of the EEOC filings and professed to maintain an "open door" policy for all employees to bring their grievances directly to him. Yet this policy was never publicized in any way. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the one official declaration regarding the prohibition against racial epithets clearly was not sufficient.
Finally, evidence adduced at trial indicated that although the appointment of an Affirmative Action Officer was mandated by Suffolk County regulations, none who testified was ever informed of that officer's identity. It appears that Chief of Staff Antoncic, who several times had tried to persuade complainants that the incidents of racial harassment never occurred, occupied that position. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that several officers were forced to seek redress from sources outside the institution.
Although the Sheriff and Warden acted, a pall of silence hung over their efforts, muffling their efficacy. Accordingly, the district court, in fashioning appropriate relief, attempted to open channels of communication that had been sorely underused by correction authorities. We note with approval that Judge Weinstein's order relies on available resources and does not unduly burden Suffolk County.
D. Judicial Notice
As a final matter, we are asked by appellants to premise reversal on Chief Judge Weinstein's somewhat uncommon use of judicial notice. The district judge dealt at length with a vast array of literature exploring the social consequences of ethnic humor.
With the exception, however, of judicial notice of conduct rising to the level of racial hatred existing in Suffolk County, no other materials were noticed as "adjudicative fact." Fed.R.Evid. 201. Adjudicative facts are "the ultimate facts in the case, plus those evidential facts sufficiently central to the controversy that they should be left to the jury unless clearly indisputable." 21 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence Sec. 5103 at 478 (1977). Rather, with the above-mentioned exception, the district court noticed only "legislative facts." See id. Secs. 5102 -03; see also Advisory Committee Note to Fed.R.Evid. 201. Judicial notice was therefore not required.
Moreover, appellants have not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the district court's actions. See F.R.Civ.P. Without considering the judicially noticed facts, we would nevertheless affirm the judgments below. Accordingly, appellants' allegations at best constitute harmless error.
The underlying theme of the individual claims asserted on appeal is Suffolk County's contention that Chief Judge Weinstein, deeply troubled by the level of racial hostility evident at its Correctional Facility, permitted his reaction to the evidence to lead him into error. After careful consideration of appellants' claims, however, we conclude the district court applied the correct legal standard to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are affirmed.
A fifth officer, Steven E. Berry, left the employ of Suffolk County and never joined in the lawsuit
By the time the jury was charged on the section 1983 claims, sixteen plaintiffs remained. Officer Trent withdrew prior to trial and Officers Williams and Neal withdrew during the course of the trial
After a formal investigation was conducted by the Internal Affairs division, the Sheriff asked for the resignation of the correction officers he deemed responsible for the incident. When those officers refused to resign, the Sheriff formally filed charges against them and a full civil service hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, at which Officer Ramos testified, the two white officers were exonerated
Chief Judge Weinstein charged the jury that they were to consider whether each defendant was separately liable to each individual plaintiff. Concerning the Sec. 1983 claims they were to consider, he instructed the jury:
The plaintiffs assert two bases for relief. First, that they were assigned to duties or denied assignment on the basis of race or national origin and, second, that the general racial and ethnic animosity of fellow workers created inferior working conditions.
J.App. at 1523a.
After instructing the jury on the bases of each of these claims, the district court continued:
In determining liability, you must consider each plaintiff and each defendant separately. In order for the Sheriff to be liable in this case, you must first be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the plaintiffs was a victim of discrimination as I have instructed you. You must next be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the Sheriff was either directly responsible for the alleged discrimination or that he acquiesced in discrimination, expressly by actions or failing to take appropriate action. That is to say, in order for the Sheriff to be liable, it is not necessary that he personally authorized the discrimination or that he personally discriminated. It is sufficient if he is aware of complaints of discrimination or of conditions of discrimination and failed to take steps within his power and authority to investigate and to [d]eal adequately with the unlawful practices that are all[e]ged.
Id. at 1529a.
On the Sheriff's liability for discrimination in assignment and promotion claims, the district court stated:
Accordingly, you may find the Sheriff liable if you are satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the Sheriff knew or was told about the claims of discrimination, that discrimination existed and that he made inadequate efforts to remedy the situation under the conditions then existing.
Id. at 1529a-30a.
Finally, regarding the liability of Suffolk County, the court continued:
A local government may not be found liable under Section 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. It is only when the execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts or failures to act may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts injury that the government as an entity is responsible under Section 1983.
Thus, before you may hold the defendant County of Suffolk liable to any individual plaintiff, you must find the injury inflicted on that individual was the result of the enforcement of or the adherence to an official pol[i]cy or custom--policy or custom--of the County or of the Sheriff's Office....
Even if defendant [sheriff] is liable, you can only find the County liable if the plaintiff has shown that his injury resulted from execution of a policy or custom of the County or the Sheriff's Department.
The jury found for each of the three plaintiffs who had been publicly humiliated, and perhaps ironically, those whose complaints were ultimately investigated by Internal Affairs. The jury awarded Officer Ramos $7,500, Sergeant Pressley $2,500 and Officer Walter Richardson $1,500
The injunction further ordered the Warden to describe the methods by which future complaints are to be processed, and to describe the duties of the "Affirmative Action Officer" and the Department of Internal Affairs concerning allegations of discrimination within the correction facility. The injunction also directed the Warden to "take further action as he believes necessary" to further combat discrimination in the jails. Finally, Chief Judge Weinstein instructed counsel for both parties to caution their clients to "forego any gloating or recriminations over [the] litigation," in order to promote a more harmonious working environment. Snell, supra, 611 F.Supp. at 532
42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(e) provides:
A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and notice of the charge (including the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice) shall be served upon the person against when such charge is made within ten days thereafter....
42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-16(c) further states:
[A]fter one hundred and eighty days from the filing of the initial charge with the department, agency or unit ... until such time as final action may be taken by a department, agency or unit, an employee ... may file a civil action as provided in section 2000e-5 of this title, in which civil action the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.
Judge Griffin Bell stated the rationale:
It would be wasteful, if not in vain, for numerous employees, all with same grievance, to have to process many identical complaints with EEOC. If it is impossible to reach a settlement with one discriminatee, what reason would there be to assume that the next one would be successful.
Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d 496, 498 (5th Cir.1968).
Although that discussion was directed toward a class action where common questions of law and fact exist, the principle applies equally well to non-class actions where the allegations of discrimination arise out of the same circumstances and within the same time frame. See, e.g., Ezell v. Mobil Housing Board, 709 F.2d 1376, 1381 (11th Cir.1983).
But see, Hodge v. McLean Trucking Co., 607 F.2d 1118 (5th Cir.1979); Inda v. United Airlines, Inc., 565 F.2d 554 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1007, 98 S.Ct. 1877, 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978); Schulte v. State of New York, 533 F.Supp. 31 (E.D.N.Y.1981)
Many of the officers testified to the demeaning effect the repeated abuse by their co-workers had on their emotional stability in the workplace. For example, Officer Ramos testified that the acts of discrimination made him feel "degraded" and caused him "mental distress." He stated that his job performance was "impaired," and characterized the working environment at the jail as "a very difficult situation; physically and mentally so."
These observations were echoed by many of his fellow officers. Officer Snell testified that the repeated ethnic slurs in the lunchroom "upset" him. Officer Jackson testified to feeling "hurt and humiliated" when she viewed the derogatory postings. Words such as "demeaning" and "degrading" were consistently offered in response to questions concerning the working environment in the Suffolk County jail. Finally, when asked about the effect the alleged discrimination in assignment had on his emotional health, Officer Byrd responded, "Like you're fighting a losing battle. There have been times when you don't want to work anymore. You are totally destroyed, morally or whatever.... It makes you feel less than a man or a whole human being...."
We disagree with appellants that the district court applied a standard grounded in strict liability. Rather, Chief Judge Weinstein found that
[t]he evidence shows that more forceful action could have been but was not taken to ameliorate or eliminate these deleterious working conditions. No effective action was taken to extinguish rampant racial slurs. There was no follow-up on the few halting steps that were taken notifying correction officers of a Suffolk County policy to eliminate discriminatory working conditions.
F.Supp. at 528
These words do not apply a strict liability rule. As we read them, they merely indicate that the Sheriff, once notified, failed to take reasonable steps to combat the abuse.
At oral argument, counsel for Suffolk County claimed it was ironic that out of sixteen plaintiffs, the jury awarded damages to only the three officers whose complaints were ultimately investigated and where disciplinary measures were taken in two cases. Based on the clarity of the district court's charge, see supra note 7, and the Sheriff Department's failure to publicize that disciplinary action was taken together with the continued abuse, we cannot say the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury's verdict
The majority of the correction officers testified they had reported the slurs and postings to their superior officers. Because of the "paramilitary" structure of the jail facility, however, correction officers were directed to report their grievances to their immediate superiors who, in turn, were to report them to the "chain of command." The record is replete, however, with grievances that went unaddressed. Officer Snell, for example, testified that he reported the incident in which white guards would not open the tier doors to allow him to use the officers' bathroom. No action was taken. Further, when he showed his duty sergeant derogatory literature he had removed from facility walls, the sergeant merely told him to throw it away. In another incident, when Officer Ramos confronted Warden Romano and Deputy Warden Flammia with a "spic and span" cut-out and a Ku Klux Klan application he had received, Flammia promised to speak to each crew as they arrived for work and caution them about such conduct. This was never done, nor was any memo posted. Finally, after Sergeant Byrd met personally with Sheriff Finnerty to discuss racial tension in the jail, the sheriff never posted a notice as promised
Moreover, several witnesses testified they chose not to report the offensive conduct to which they had been subject for fear of retribution by their co-workers. Officer Henderson, for example, testified that he did not want to be viewed by white officers as a "trouble maker," and was concerned they might not come to his assistance when necessary. Indeed, Officer Richardson testified that when he asked a white officer to discontinue posting derogatory literature, the officer responded that he was a personal friend of both the Warden and his deputy and would see to it that Richardson would be "taken care of" if he persisted. We note that other officers testified they did not report their concerns, believing such efforts would prove futile.


Vibration sensors are key for predictive maintenance but must be properly specified, fitted and interpreted to deliver maximum benefit.
As maintenance methods continue to move away from reactive models — where components are only fixed when they begin to fail — toward more efficient predictive maintenance regimes, techniques such as vibration monitoring are becoming increasingly important.
Vibration monitoring picks up rogue vibrations in moving machine parts, which helps to identify potential problems as soon as they begin to occur. It has become widely used throughout industry and is typically applied to equipment with rotating or reciprocal motion including shafts in motors, pumps and fans or gearboxes and large continuous process machinery.
While production, plant and maintenance engineers are well-versed in the theory and use of condition and vibration monitoring, the techniques are not always applied effectively, which leads to inconsistent measurements, incorrect data and misleading results.
The aim of fitting a vibration sensor is to identify problems as early as possible and correct them before they spin out of control. To do this, sensors must be correctly specified, installed and maintained to provide optimal outcomes. Many vibration monitoring programs, however, never even reach a point where they fail — because they are not implemented in the first place.
This is because some maintenance engineers still favor the reactive maintenance model — because it requires minimal ongoing input and is cheaper to maintain. However, they neglect the fact that when things go wrong, they can go very wrong. Predictive maintenance gives the opportunity to correct minor problems before they escalate to avoid unscheduled breakdowns; the reactive model is more likely to end in catastrophic failure, sudden shutdown and extended downtime. In this case, it is not just individual components that fail, but often secondary systems such as shafts or motors. The repair bill and the lost production time are likely to be very expensive.
It is recommended to adopt a predictive maintenance routine that uses a range of techniques. The most commonly adopted technique is vibration monitoring. This is often used in conjunction with other methods, such as temperature analysis or oil analysis, but its ability to pick up a range of errors, including imbalance, misalignment, wear and looseness, makes it a key technology. Each problem will have a unique vibration signature, which the monitoring process can spot.
When mounted in key positions on mechanical equipment, vibration sensors offer the options of periodic data collection or continuous monitoring and analysis. While this requires investment, it is a worthwhile option when balanced against the potential cost of downtime.
Vibration monitoring is not a magic wand: To extract maximum benefit from it, it must be properly applied, which is often best done with advice from an expert sensor developer or vibration analyst.
Three key factors that can help to ensure optimal vibration sensor performance are: correct selection, proper installation and the use of refinements to boost the vibration signal.
To ensure optimal results, sensors should be carefully and properly selected according to the particular application.
Modern vibration monitoring sensors work over a wide temperature range, measuring both high and low frequencies with low hysteresis and high accuracy. Stainless steel housings, which prevent the ingress of moisture, dust, oils and other contaminants, ensure that the sensors work reliably under potentially punishing conditions.
Two main types of industrial accelerometers are AC accelerometers and 4-20mA accelerometers. AC accelerometers are typically used with data collectors for the vibration monitoring of more critical or complex machines, such as gearboxes and turbines. In general, 4-20mA sensors are used with programmable logic controllers (PLCs) to measure lower value assets such as pumps and motors.
Vibration range and sensitivity: The range of vibration varies depending on the operation. Sensors should be specified to measure the maximum vibration range of the specific application. In a standard application (50 g range), the sensitivity of a typical vibration sensor is 100 mV/g; in low vibration applications (10 g) it is 500 mV/g.
Vibration frequency: It is just as important to know the frequency span as it is the vibration range. Frequency spans are dictated by the fault frequencies of the fastest-turning component in the machinery being monitored; for instance, a high-speed fan will have a wide frequency span.
Temperature: Other than incorrect mounting, the greatest threat to sensor performance is the environment in which sensors operate. High temperatures can affect the operation of the internal electronics, though charge-mode accelerometers are specially designed to work in such conditions.
Other potential factors to consider include: specifying corrosion- and chemical-resistant sensors; using intrinsically safe accelerometers in hazardous environments where flammable gases or combustible dusts could be ignited by a spark; and specifying accelerometers with integral polyurethane cables if they will be exposed to liquids.
Choosing the wrong sensor, such as by overlooking important environmental conditions, or getting the vibration range wrong, is likely to cause poor results or even device failure.
Once the correct sensors have been chosen, they must be properly mounted — a key factor in recording reliable data.
Sensors should be mounted close to the component on a flat, clean surface to guarantee consistent results. Accurate sensor mounting is essential. Mounting a sensor via a drilled and tapped hole direct to the machine housing usually leads to superior results. An effective way to ensure correct mounting, especially if the housing is not flat, is to use a spot-facing kit that includes a tapping drill, taps, tap wrench and spot-facing tool.
To correctly determine defects, such as imbalance, misalignment, wear, mechanical looseness or rubbing, the sensor must be in a position to measure horizontal, vertical and axial movements effectively. When reading horizontal displacement in a pump motor, for instance, sensors should be mounted on two of the motor or pump bearings. For vertical measurements, the sensors should be located on the motor, pump or pump-drive end bearings. Axial measurement uses the same measurement criteria to detect misalignment between the components, such as the motor and fan.
When monitoring a motor, there should also be a solid, continuous metallic path or mechanical transition path linking each measurement point with the structure that supports the load of the motor. In many cases, this will be the bearing outer races.
Once accelerometers have been installed and calibrated, readings must be taken at regular intervals over a period of time to enable accurate trend analysis. This could, for instance, allow a steadily deteriorating condition to be identified.
Results can also be enhanced with a refinement that pinpoints the exact vibration of interest among every other machine vibration. The method, called acceleration enveloping, is a signal processing technique that filters out low-level, repetitive vibrations that leaves a clean signal that indicates the condition of the part being monitored. It is used in many industrial applications to separate the tell-tale sound of, for example, a malfunctioning bearing from the overwhelming noise from the rest of a machine.
Acceleration enveloping is most commonly used in roller bearing systems but can also be applied to electric motors and gearboxes. It is a key tool that enhances the success of condition-based maintenance (CBM) programs. Identifying a defect once it has already begun causing problems is of no use; by this time, the machine will have consumed more lubricant, expended more energy or even failed catastrophically.
The technique overcomes the limitations of conventional velocity spectrum measurements and detects component failures at the earliest possible stage. The rate of wear can then be monitored and maintenance work planned accordingly.
It is important to understand the information provided by acceleration enveloping may need some skill and experience to interpret. The amplitude of a worsening condition can actually decrease over time, for example, as an imperfection becomes slightly smoother.
This final piece of advice may seem obvious, but it is vital for maintenance staff to pay attention to the readings generated by vibration monitoring equipment. Incredible as it may seem, inconvenient readings will sometimes be ignored or rejected. It is not unheard of for engineers to overlook the evidence of clear warning signs, and then later wonder why catastrophic component failure occurs. Any system is only as good as the people who operate it.
Vibration monitoring is a powerful technique that underpins effective predictive maintenance regimes. However, as with any industrial process, hardware must be correctly specified and installed, and the system treated with care and attention in order to reap maximum benefit from it.
Martin Armson heads up the U.S. operations for Hansford Sensors based in South Carolina. Armson has a mechanical engineering degree and first became involved in the vibration monitoring industry in the 1980s. Then, Armson worked with several leading companies before joining Hansford Sensors in 2017.


text:
Novohrîhorivka (în ) este un sat în comuna Haiivka din raionul Kirovohrad, regiunea Kirovohrad, Ucraina.

Demografie

Conform recensământului din 2001, toată populația localității Novohrîhorivka era vorbitoare de ucraineană (100%).

Note

Novohrîhorivka, Kirovohrad, Kirovohrad
Novohrîhorivka, Kirovohrad, Kirovohrad
Novohrîhorivka, Kirovohrad, Kirovohrad

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia