-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum- • View topic - OHV's On County Roads?
180 East, Silver City, New Mexico, being the regular meeting place of the Board.
A copy of the Ordinance in draft form is on file and available for inspection during normal business hours at the office of the County Clerk at the Grant County Administration Building, 1400 Highway 180 East, Silver City, New Mexico"
But as usual this proposed ordinance does not appear to be on the county's web site. Will Grant County enter the 21st Century any time soon and post relevant information such as ordinances, maps, and election results?
Right you are, Bruce-you have to go to the county clerk's office to read it.
Not posting things on line goes right along with the commission having their meetings when most people can't attend.
I went to the county and got a copy of the proposed ordinance. It's very short, adopting the state law in it's entirety. It has only one difference-only side by side, four wheel UTVs are allowed.
Below I've attached a copy of the proposed ordinance as a downloadable .pdf.
The below file is the legal NOI but is being rewritten, will the commission choose to deal with this as a new NOI?
The County Attorney is still working on drafting the proposed ordinance. I'll post it here when I get it, since the County's website improvement project is languishing.
Thanks, Tim, for what you posted, but that's not the updated version. Commissioner Edwards requested a number of modifications that the Attorney is incorporating.
So Harry, since the whole commission, including yourself passed and signed the copy I posted above making it a legal document, will this new version become a new NOI since it won't be the same as the one you passed?
The Commission passed a Notice of Intent to adopt an ordinance allowing Off-Highway Vehicles on paved county roads in July. When significant changes were requested in that ordinance, we decided to put off considering it until our September meeting. That decision required a resolution changing the date on which we intended to vote on the ordinance, so we passed another resolution with the updated date. We have not adopted the document you posted; it was merely an initial draft.
I am as frustrated as many of you at the poor usability and generally obsolete nature of the county's website. I continue to receive assurances that progress is being made at developing a replacement.
Following is the updated draft of the ordinance we will consider on September 19. (Yes, our September regular meeting will be on Tuesday, not on Thursday as it usually is.) It is not available on our website, but I have forwarded it to the County Clerk, so it should be available from her.
WHEREAS, the Board held an open public hearing on the consideration of the present ordinance at which there was an opportunity for public comment.
B.	The operation of recreational off-highway motor vehicles is prohibited at all times on limited access highways and freeways, pursuant to NMSA (1978) Section 66-3-1011A(1).
(7)	identification by means of a seventeen-character vehicle identification number.
B.	The authorization granted by this Ordinance for the operation of off-highway motor vehicles is limited to ROVs. No other vehicle defined as an off-highway motor vehicle under NMSA 66-3-1001.1E is authorized for operation on any paved street or highway owned and controlled by Grant County.
(6)	the vehicle is equipped with a spark arrester approved by the United States forest service.
IV.	LICENSE, PERMITS, INSURANCE, REGISTRATION.
(4)	Unless excepted under NMSA Section 66-3-1, registration of ROV being operated. For New Mexico residents, ROVs must be registered at the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division. For nonresidents, ROVs must be registered in the owner's state of residence. For nonresidents whose state of residence does not provide for registration of ROVs, nonresidents must obtain a nonresident permit through the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. A home owner's policy will not satisfy this requirement.
B.	If applicable, proof of items (1) through (4) must be in a person's possession while operating an ROV.
(15)	near or within residential areas between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except for the storage and removal of the ROV.
B.	An off-highway motor vehicle shall not be sold or offered for sale if the vehicle produces noise that exceeds ninety-six decibels when measured using test procedures established by the society of automotive engineers pursuant to standard J-1287. This subsection shall not apply to an off-highway motor vehicle that is sold or offered for sale only for organized competition.
C.	Operators must follow this Ordinance and all state laws pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles as set forth in the Motor Vehicle Code, Chapter 66, NMSA 1978.
A.	A person must be at least sixteen years of age to operate an ROV.
B.	Operators under the age of eighteen shall not be permitted to carry passengers, regardless of vehicle design.
C.	A person under the age of eighteen shall not operate an off-highway motor vehicle unless the person is visually supervised at all times by a parent, legal guardian or a person over the age of eighteen who has a valid driver's license.
ROVs operating on streets or highways owned and controlled by Grant County shall operate at either the posted speed limit or at a speed limit that may be established by the New Mexico State Transportation Commission for such vehicles, whichever is slower.
Prosecution of violations under this section may be commenced by the issuance of a citation charging the violation. Citations may be issued by a deputy from the Grant County Sheriff's Office, the code enforcement officer of Grant County, a wildlife conservation officer, state police officer or any other peace officer with jurisdiction in Grant County.
Any individual, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity who violates this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined in an amount not to exceed $300 and may be imprisoned for up to ninety (90) days, or both.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after it has been recorded in the book kept by the county for that purpose in the Grant County Clerk's Office.
Thanks Harry. There's a few things I'm a little bewildered by, maybe others are too, maybe you can help clear them up.
Are the referred to "paved street or highway owned and controlled by Grant County," ones marked by a sign displaying the letters CMR? If that's what this sentence means perhaps this ordinance could say so. Otherwise how are riders to know which roads are permissible to ride on and which aren't. If marked CMR's aren't what the County intends, this section really isn't clear.
Many County roads, maybe even the majority, are covered with gravel and are not actually "paved", or they're covered with base course that's so firmly packed it can be difficult to distinguish from pavement. Does the County intend to exclude those roads and do the BOC's expect ROV riders are going to reasonably make the distinction in pavement and cover types?
Meanwhile, subdivision roads dedicated to and accepted by the County may or may not be maintained and marked CMR, even though owned by the subdivision and/or its resident lot owners. In some cases such roads aren't owned by anyone, at least not anyone who's still alive, and even when the County has accepted their maintenance it's not like that responsibility is upheld with any measure of diligence. Deep knobby tread ROV tires can do a lot of damage, particularly in the hands of a teenager. And even conscientious ROV riders will be left to figure out which roads fall into which category. In many cases property owners don't even know or understand their rights and obligations where shared roadways are concerned. And how are the Sheriffs responding to trespass and property damage complaints supposed to figure this out? It would seem this ordnance is imposing an unstated duty upon subdivision and private roadway owners to identify and protect their non-county owned roads with signage, gates, and fences. Is that what this comes down to?
With regard to driving ROV's on paved roads. The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) was formed to promote the safe and responsible use of recreational off-highway vehicles. It is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifically for the purpose of developing a standard for the equipment, configuration and performance requirements of ROVs. Per the industry endorsed safety rules as published at http://www.rohva.org, safety rule #2 states, "Avoid paved surfaces. ROVs are designed to be operated off-highway."
By authorizing the use of ROV's on paved roads, the County is directly contradicting the ROHVA and industry accepted published standards to the peril of ROV rider safety. Are the BOC's accepting the consequences of this decision on behalf of Grant County residents? The ordnance does not appear to impose any implicit acceptance of liability upon ROV riders, as might be the case for instance if someone got thrown off their horse and ended up injured while on either public or private land. So along with this ordinance is the County insuring itself against liability, negligence, and wrongful death complaints?
Section II.B. "No other vehicle defined as an off-highway motor vehicle under NMSA 66-3-1001.1E is authorized for operation on any paved street or highway owned and controlled by Grant County."
By specifying ROV's, the ordnance appears to exclude UTV's and MOHUV's, yet by citing NMSA 66-3-1001.1E apparently includes go-carts and home built contraptions, of which there are plenty around here. Where registration with the MVD comes into play this gets even more dicey since not all road legal vehicles can even be registered in New Mexico, mopeds as case in point, yet fully road legal according to state law, while excluded under NMSA 66-3-1001.1E (having only two wheels). And in any case, as with mopeds, the ordinance imposes no requirement to display an identifying placard, so how are violators to be identified? When an ROV rips up your front lawn and takes off down a paved County road, even if you get a photo of it, then what?
Along most of Cottage San Road and most other County roads, riders will be well within 200' of an occupied dwelling, pedestrian or livestock animal and therefore limited to traveling at under 10mph. Does the BOC actually believe this speed restriction will be observed? Moreover, what's to prevent serious accidents and injury with the vehicles traveling at 60mph on Cottage San Road as they do every day already? Why does this ordnance not at least require 10mph ROV's to display an SMV emblem, as NM law requires of other Slow Moving Vehicles? To be blunt about it, the 10mph restriction in these cases is impractical, unrealistic and dangerous.
(15) near or within residential areas between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., except for the storage and removal of the ROV.
So ROV's are prohibited from riding past their neighbor's house at two in the afternoon, but two in the morning is okay. Am I just not understanding the logic here?
This ordinance lacks any mention of noise and in no way does the requirement for a muffler prohibit an ROV from being ear piercing screaming loud. For some insight on how this plays out in the real world have a talk with people who live downtown and recall the 'muffled' motorcycles attracted by the Buffalo Bar, or look over some of the old conversation on this Forum about the noise problem.
For what it's worth, I'm highly in favor of small fuel efficient vehicles and absolutely prefer to see them replace these diesel guzzling exhaust spewing roaring behemoths we're subjected to around here. But I also believe, that good objective will not be served in the end if the County adopts an ordinance that works to the opposition of safety, the rights of private property owners, or can't be enforced because it's too vague to apply. On that note, critical to the implementation of this ordinance are the law enforcement agencies being called upon to enforce it. Has the BOC's invited representatives from those agencies to be a part of this drafting and received their endorsement of it?
A lot of good questions from Kevin. One more: Can OHVs operate on state highways like 90 or 180? I believe the ordinance was borrowed from a state law. Does state law deal with OHVs on state highways? I assume (and hope) that OHVs are not allowed on federal highways (the tiny bit of I-10 that crosses Grant County).
Thanks, Kevin, for the excellent questions and the time you took to consider this issue! I'll do my best to answer them, as well as Bruce's.
No, roads marked "CMR" (county-maintained roads) are NOT included in this ordinance. For one thing, I'm pretty sure all CMRs are unpaved; this ordinance applies ONLY to paved county roads. For another, I don't believe the county *owns* CMRs – otherwise, they'd be county roads. I think they're privately owned but maintained by the county.
Note that it is already legal to operate OHVs on unpaved roads, as long as they meet state requirements. This means that we currently DO expect OHV drivers to distinguish between paved and unpaved roads – the former are off-limits, but not the latter. If this ordinance passes, the need to distinguish between pavement and dirt/gravel/mud goes away, to be replaced by the need to distinguish between county roads on the one hand and state routes and highways and city streets on the other. State routes and highways are *not* covered by this ordinance, so 180, 90, 15, 35, 152, 61, 357, etc. will all remain off-limits to OHV operators. (Except that it is legal for OHV operators to *cross* those highways as nearly perpendicular to traffic as possible.) City streets are likewise not covered by this ordinance. Silver City has already considered and rejected an ordinance brought by Councilor Ray to allow OHVs. Santa Clara, on the other hand, has passed a similar ordinance, so they're okay on Santa Clara streets.
I think the previous paragraph addresses your concerns about subdivision roads and privately owned roads. The ordinance doesn't seem to me to change anything about the potential for confusion that already exists for OHV operators on unpaved roads near or on the types of roads you're talking about.
As for safety concerns related to using OHVs on paved roads, I have to say I'm not convinced one way or the other about this. The Association's safety rule that you cite presumably applies to unmodified OHVs. The state law that authorizes cities and counties to adopt ordinances such as this one requires OHVs to be modified to improve their safety on paved roads. They have to have mirrors, headlights, taillights safety belts, signal horns, and spark arresters. Their drivers have to wear eye protection and a helmet (unlike motorcycle riders). These things were enough for the State Legislature and the Governor, and although these are far from paragons of good policymaking, I have to acknowledge that on this point I don't have a better perspective than they do. What's more, to the extent that our concern is about the drivers and passengers in OHVs, surely they are safer than many other legal conveyances, including the mopeds you mention and the bicycle on which I commute daily. I would be furious if someone told me I couldn't use my bike because it was less safe than a car.
The ordinance DOES require the operator to carry evidence of adequate liability insurance or financial responsibility equal to that required of normal motor vehicles (see IV. A. (3)). I don't believe the ordinance would expose the county to any additional liability if it passes.
As for allowing "home built contraptions," I would say that, as long as they meet state safety requirements, I see no reason to discriminate against them in favor of corporate-built contraptions. I don't know how a home built contraption obtains a 17-digit vehicle identification number, as required by the ordinance and state law, but if it can, more power to its owner and builder!
In state statute, that requirement appears word-for-word, except that it ends with "or a public roadway." These four words make the ordinance meaningful instead of unworkable, and I've asked the attorney to explain their omission.
As for the time during which OHVs are not to be operated, the attorney explained that was a typo. Their operation is generally prohibited from 8pm to 8am, not during the day.
The ordinance DOES mention noise, in V. A. (11). An OHV is not legal to operate on paved roads if it makes more than 96 decibels of noise. I live in the historic downtown district, and I well remember the bad old days of extremely loud motorcycles at the Buff. One of my hopes (I may be dreaming) is that some portion of the increase in OHV use that accompanies passage of this ordinance will replace the use of large pickup trucks. That's because owners of OHVs are also often owners of large pickups, which get used for errands that could be done on OHVs in some cases. Also, there will be less of a need to transport OHVs in the backs of large pickups if they can be driven to the roads on which they'll be used instead.
Last, as far as I know, law enforcement has NOT been part of drafting this ordinance. I have met with Sheriff Villanueva and Undersheriff Flamm several times since this ordinance was proposed, however, and neither one has expressed any concerns about it to me. I will ask their opinion formally at Tuesday's meeting.
Thanks again, Kevin, for the excellent questions and for taking the time to read and analyze the draft ordinance.
Thanks for your reply Harry, a couple of things: the ordinance says "An OHV is not legal to operate on paved roads if it makes more than 96 decibels of noise." Do the County Sheriffs have decibel meters? Is the 69 decibels read at idle or revved at the muffler or 10 feet or 20 feet?
Harry, there is a reason that NOI's are issued, to give the residents a chance to read and think about the issue and when an NOI is changed in significant ways, as this has been, it should become a new NOI, it is only fair and transparent; do the County Commissioners even care about fair and transparent.
On another note Harry: you said that the county was working on a new, modern, transparent web site but in an interview with the current web master he said that he has not been ask to rebuild the web site but did offer that the county could have ask someone else to do the job, so who has been asked to create a new web site and have you talked with him or her to verify that this is really happening? It is your job to verify these things that your employees tell you.
On noise limitations for OHVs, we have been over and over on this with Silver City police, who mostly don't enforce our noise ordinance. I have a decibel meter on my phone, but it's not official or certified. The police chief says they would need very expensive certified meters to enforce the ordinance, and even then there would be questions of how far away the meter was.
This may be true for determining whether a vehicle is producing 90 (legal) or 100 (illegal) decibels. But in fact most violations are at 150 or more decibels, which a police officer could determine by ear with a little training. The real problem is that many police officers don't want to enforce these kinds of violations. This is not the kind of enforcement they saw themselves doing when they signed up to be a law enforcement officer. In addition, some police are the ones riding the loud motorcycles on their days off. Police officials don't really want to push on this enforcement. This is why some of us were so opposed to allowing OHVs in Silver City. The ordinance would have been all right if it had been enforced, but we knew it wouldn't be.
Noise violations on county roads would be less annoying to fewer neighbors than violations in town, but non-enforcement is still an issue to be considered.
For John: The 96 decibels is to be measured "using test procedures established by the society of automotive engineers pursuant to standard J-1287." Here's what I found on Google about that standard: "This SAE Standard establishes the test procedure, environment, and instrumentation for determining the exhaust sound pressure levels of motorcycles under stationary conditions. Since initial publication, it has been successfully applied to regulation and monitoring of sound pressure levels of off-highway vehicles, and that remains its recommended application." So it looks like an appropriate standard to cite, but of course I have no idea what equipment and training is required.
John, the changes in the draft ordinance are (a) the reason we reissued an NOI and postponed the hearing and the vote to give the public more time; and (b) minor to the point of being insignificant. The changes merely make explicit what the state law that was referenced in the first draft already requires. As an activist who sometimes had to complain vigorously about the lack of transparency in government decisionmaking, I sometimes felt undermined by other activists who complained even when things were done right. I believe the Commission did the right thing by providing an additional month despite the inconsequential nature of the changes in the ordinance, and I think you've chosen the wrong time to suggest that the Commissioners might not "even care about fair and transparent."
The current webmaster has not been asked to rebuild the site: that work was assigned to the County's IT Coordinator, Angela Castillo, with assistance from our receptionist, Kevin Hubbs. Yes, I have checked in with both of them and have verified that they are working on this. It is not my job to oversee their work, if that is your suggestion, John; that is the County Manager's job. I do consider it my responsibility to push the county to improve its communication with the public, and this is possibly the most important aspect of communication these days.
Shelby, I don't see where the prohibitions for operating OHVs focus on agricultural concerns - can you give me an example or two? And I would say that including in the ordinance all the things the ordinance does NOT apply to would indeed be redundant. Roads through BLM or National Forest lands are not owned by the county, so they are not covered by the ordinance. I understand the desire to bolster those entities' ability and willingness to enforce their own restrictions on OHVs, but I don't think naming them in the ordinance would actually do any good in that regard.
And Bruce, it strikes me the enforcement question, although important in its own right, doesn't shed much light on the right way to vote on this ordinance. My inclination is to view the ordinance as a statement of what we Grant Countians believe is acceptable behavior, whether or not enforcement will be perfect. (It obviously isn't perfect already, given evidence that ATVs are driven in the San Vicente arroyo, where fences are cut and repaired and cut and repaired...) To view this from another perspective, Gov. Martinez and others who oppose hemp production frequently argue that allowing hemp farms will make enforcement of anti-marijuana laws more difficult and therefore should not be allowed. This strikes me as a less-than-serious argument, since it should be fairly easy to train drug enforcement personnel to distinguish between the two. I'd rather address the OHV ordinance on its merits, and then work with law enforcement to do its job.
I'd rather address the OHV ordinance on its merits, and then work with law enforcement to do its job.
This seems like an extremely irresponsible attitude, basically washing your hands of the real-world consequences of your actions. If you have evidence that shows there is a solution to the existing enforcement problem then please present it. In an ideal world we wouldn't need any laws because people would naturally do the right thing. We don't live in an ideal world so the enforcement problem greatly affects the merits of this new ordinance. I don't want the ordinance to pass if it is going to increase the noise problem even if the ordinance contains clauses that would, in theory, solve the problem if only they were enforced.
Bruce presented reasonable evidence that allowing OHV's on county roads would exacerbate the noise problems we already have in Silver and environs due to a lack of enforcement of the existing laws. It is ridiculous to dismiss his real-world concerns based on some pie-in-the-sky solution that only exists in an ideal world. Instead of dismissing the enforcement problem out of hand, I suggest you solve the existing noise ordinance enforcement problem *first* before you try to pass a law that will almost certainly put more noise violators on the road, further exacerbating the noise problem.
It is of course impossible to present evidence of an effect based on something that hasn't happened yet, which is why both Bruce and I are speculating about the effects of passing this ordinance on noise levels in the county. My colleague Alicia Edwards shares Bruce's opinion that the noise situation will deteriorate if we pass this. Despite my very high regard for both her and Bruce, I don't agree. I guess we all base our perceptions of the world on our own experiences. In my case, I've had several very scary encounters with large pickups and none with OHVs. I've often been pissed off about the noise and exhaust from large pickups and never from OHVs. The potential to reduce the use of large pickups is very attractive to me.
In brief, I only think my attitude deserves to be called "extremely irresponsible" if you believe I haven't considered the possible effects of the ordinance or if you somehow know the noise and exhaust and safety problems we currently face will be made worse by the passage of this ordinance. I don't agree with BitJam that Bruce presented reasonable evidence that this would happen; he merely presented his speculation about this and urged consideration of the non-enforcement issue. Which I agree with completely.
I can see both sides of the noise issue. I was strongly opposed to the Silver City ordinance because I had abundant evidence that noise limitations would not be enforced. I don't know that sheriff's deputies would not respond to noise complaints. If a resident on a country road complained of a neighbor constantly making noise with an OHV, that might be addressed. But if that same neighbor complained about noise from a big diesel truck, I doubt anything would (or even could) be done. We already have big noise on some state highways (such as 15 near my property) from packs of motorcycles, and there's nothing to do about that.
I don't think county officials should have unrealistic expectations about noise enforcement just because they write it into the law. But with a new law there is an opportunity to establish a culture of restraint.
Harry, where I live there has been an ongoing problem with excessive noise coming from OHVs illegally riding on and along our roads. A number of years ago I even had the mayor with me when this happened. I thought the existing noise problem with OHVs was common knowledge. I'm sorry you've had difficult experiences with trucks but I don't think there will be much of an improvement in that situation if you legalize OHVs while it seems likely that the existing OHV noise problem will get worse, especially if the police are reluctant to and/or unable to enforce the noise provisions. Therefore it still seems to me that the only responsible way forward is to take care of the existing noise enforcement problem before passing a law that will likely make the noise problem worse. Otherwise it seems that you are trying to make your own life a tiny bit better by making my life significantly worse. For you, problems with inconsiderate truck drivers are real. For me, noise (and other) problems with inconsiderate OHV riders are real.
From my perspective until we know the enforcement problem has actually been solved, the best way to keep OHV noise down is to continue banning them from our streets and roads so the police don't need sound equipment and don't need to take sound measurements in order to curb the problem. If OHVs are reasonably quiet and drive at a reasonable speed then I have absolutely no problem with them on our roads. But some of the OHVs riders seem to be intentionally disruptive when they scoff the law and ride on our roads with excessive noise and speed. I have zero confidence that the provisions in your new law will keep this problem in check. I say fix the existing problems before you create new ones.
Yesterday the Commission passed an Ordinance allowing the use of Recreational Off-road Vehicles on paved county roads under certain conditions a bit stricter than state law. The vote was 4-0, with Commissioner Ramos absent. The county attorney is preparing the final draft based on amendments we made at the meeting, so I don't have the exact text for followers of this thread, but I can describe the changes we made.
First, we added the word "paved" in front of "street or highway" whenever that phrase appeared to emphasize that the provisions of the ordinance only apply on paved roadways.
We removed the requirement that adults wear safety helmets when operating an ROV on paved county roads, since this requirement isn't in state statute. Minors must still wear safety helmets, and all operators must still wear eye protection.
We changed the requirement for a "motor vehicle safety permit" to "an off-highway motor vehicle safety education card issued by the NM Department of Game and Fish." This is because there is no organization that offers a "motor vehicle safety permit" to adult operators of ROVs. Minors must still obtain such a permit, in addition to the safety education card. None of us was satisfied with the safety education card as meeting our needs, but it was the closest thing we could find; state legislation will be needed to create a fully appropriate class and permit.
We deleted the prohibition of driving on or within an earthen tank. No paved county roads go on or in earthen tanks, so we felt the prohibition was silly.
We changed the prohibition of driving "near or within residential areas between 8pm and 8am" to "within 200 yards of a residence other than that of the ROV owner." We felt the former phrase was unenforceably vague.
The draft ordinance required a minor who wished to operated an ROV on paved county roads to be "visually supervised at all times by a parent, legal guardian, or a person over the age of 18 who has a valid driver's license." We changed the minimum age of the supervising adult from 18 to 21. Based on this change, and on the assumption that it's not really possible to go anywhere without carrying the visually supervising person as a passenger, we deleted the prohibition on minors carrying passengers.
Thanks again to everyone who helped me think about this question!
By the way, the Undersheriff answered my question about the ordinance's potential impact on his department's enforcement duties by saying he thought on net that it would make things easier for law enforcement, not harder. I was skeptical and asked him to explain. He said that now, legal OHV operators will just pull over rather than speeding away when signaled to do so by an officer. This will reduce the need to chase some of the drivers they would now find themselves chasing. I find this quite hard to believe, but thought y'all should know how he responded to my question.
I have a couple of lingering questions for BitJam: (1) What percentage of the excess noise coming from OHVs would you say is caused by ROVs (side-by-sides), as opposed to ATVs or other illegal OHVs?
(2) Do you live within Silver City? You mentioned that the mayor was with you and that police enforcement was problematic. If you do live within the city, this ordinance doesn't apply to your immediate surroundings. Is your concern that it will make your life significantly worse based on living near the county? Or because you believe the change in county law will embolden OHVers to break the law more often in town? (Or both, I suppose.) Overall, I believe my support for some sort of OHV ordinance helped the Commission craft a better law than it would otherwise have passed. But I'm very interested in preventing the law from making people's lives worse, so I'd like a better understanding of your situation.
(9)	in excess of ten miles per hour within two hundred feet of a business, animal shelter, horseback rider, bicyclist, pedestrian, livestock or occupied dwelling..."
It sounds like #7 may have been deleted, but I presume the other items are still in there. I'm not arguing against their inclusion -- people shouldn't used mechanized vehicles to harass livestock or otherwise mess with farms/ranches. But they shouldn't use such vehicles to tear up trails and related areas that have been declared off limits for them either. You suggest the fact that the county doesn't own Forest Service or Town trails means such a prohibition is unnecessary. But county roads do LEAD to Forest or town trails, and are in fact used to gain access to them by OHVs and ATVs. Just as the ordinance bans harassment of livestock or "agricultural practices" -- both of which would presumably happen on private or leased Federal land -- it should ban misuse of the vehicles on FS, BLM or Town property that contain trails or related recreational areas. If one is redundant and unnecessary, so is the other, but I would argue that a new ordinance of this kind creates an opportunity to provide or reinforce socially beneficial rules involving the subject type of vehicle, so both types of prohibition should have been included. I wish you hadn't so quickly dismissed my suggestion.
Harry, thank you for your transparency, engagement, and clear commununication. I am glad I voted for you and feel well-represented.
Does anyone know if the "Public Forum" on this issue was ever advertised? I just learned of it the day of the Forum. A friend of mine checked the newspaper that same day and didn't see a notice for it.
Very quietly, the second shoe is about to drop on this issue. On the agenda for Thursday's County Commission meeting (9 am, County Admin Bldg at 1400 Hwy 180 E) is approval/disapproval of "OHV Letter to the NM DOT." As so often happens, seeing this letter on our agenda was a surprise to me; we have had no discussion of this topic at commission meetings.
I plan to vote to disapprove the letter, but I don't know how Commissioner Billings feels about this, so I can't say which way the vote will go. I believe it is much too soon after approving the change in our own ordinance to reach any conclusion about the safety- and quality-of-life impacts of allowing ROV use on county roads. And without that conclusion, I believe we are risking people's lives and wellbeing in a rush to dramatically expand where ROVs can be used. Nobody will be severely hurt by waiting a couple of years to see how our ordinance is working out, and much confusion will result if we make this request and then, two years later, decide it is too dangerous and request the DOT change back to how it was before.
This letter would request that the state Department of Transportation allow Recreational Off-Road Vehicles (four-wheelers with side-by-side seating, seat belts, mirrors, lights, turn signals, horns, and license plates) on nine specified stretches of state highways. In three cases, the letter would request that speed limits be decreased to 45 mph to allow legal ROV usage (under state law, off-highway vehicles can only be allowed on roads and highways where the speed limit is 45 mph or less).
NM 180 (which I believe is actually U.S. 180 - I'm not sure what the DOT's jurisdiction is there) through Buckhorn (I believe the speed limit is 45 mph for about a mile - that is the stretch that would be legal for ROVs).
The county would install "ROV Begin" and "ROV End" signs at each end of each stretch, according to the letter.
If someone can help me figure out how to attach a .pdf document, I'd be happy to post the map that accompanies the letter.
File comment: Thanks, John, for fixing the attachment issue. Here's the proposed letter and a map showing the highway segments involved.
Last edited by Harry Browne on Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks for the info Harry, to post the pdf go to your post and click the reply button and enter a brief explanation the below the text field you'll see a "Choose File" button, click it and navigate to the file on your hard drive and choose it. Then click the "Add the file" button then place your curser below your brief explanation the click on the new button called "Place inline" then click submit.
John, when I go to post a reply, I see "Disable BBCode," "Do not automatically parse URLs," "Attach a signature," and "Notify me when a reply is posted." According to the FAQ, "Attachment permissions are granted on a per forum, per group, or per user basis. The board administrator may not have allowed attachments to be added for the specific forum you are posting in, or perhaps only certain groups can post attachments. Contact the board administrator if you are unsure about why you are unable to add attachments." Might that be the case in this forum?
'Harry, I think I've found the problem and fixed it so try again and if you still can't then email me the attachment and I'll post it.
So the rest of us have to drive slower now to acommodate these "offroad" vehicles? Crazy. This is an expensive proposition too to change all of the road signs. Look at the insurance statistics - these vehicles are not safe on paved roads!!!!
OHV riders usually have to carry their OHVs on trailers to the sites where they want to ride. They can continue to do this. There is no need to change the speed limit or post signs. You'd have to be crazy to want to ride an OHV on a state highway anyway. If OHVs need to get from one nearby county road to another, they can ride for a very short distance on the shoulder. But slowing everyone down to accommodate a few is a bad idea. And this kind of letter should not be sent out on the authority of one commissioner.
Which commissioner drafted this letter?
Bruce, the letter would not be sent out on the authority of one commissioner. It will only be sent if a majority of the commission approves it. And it was the County Planning Director, Mischa Larisch, who drafted the letter, I believe, probably with help from the county attorney. The commission chairman, Brett Kasten, is the signer of the litter, and he and Gabe Ramos have made clear in commission meetings this is their goal. Today at our work session, Alicia Edwards and I expressed our opposition. Commissioner Billings said he had some questions.
This is a can of worms that never should have been opened. I can think of no reason for this issue to have even been brought up.
It seems to me the basic purpose of this proposal is to overcome the lack of suitable ROV routes in areas of Grant County served by State roads. As the letter to the NMDoT puts it, "Most of the areas do not have enough of a shoulder if one at all to allow for safe operation of the ROV from one trail system to another."
So instead of compromising the use of these roads effecting all motorists, why not fix the problem with the inadequate shoulders, starting with a cost analysis of exactly what and where the shoulders need to be improved. Then get busy finding the necessary money and hire local firms to do the necessary work. That way we'd end up improving to our local employment statistics and improve our roadway network, a far better outcome than throttling the roads we have now so a minority of residents can drive around in their ROV's as the Commission seems intent on. Along the way, since it's likely that project would take a few years to implement we'd have an opportunity to see how the newly allowed ROV use on County roads is working out.
In truth I find some of the identified roads hair raising to drive in a car for the same reason, no shoulders, particularly along some sections of Highway 15. If that problem were fixed our roads would be safer for everyone and solve the ROV use problem. Sure we'd be asking our Commissioners to do more work, we'd be asking them to take a progressive leadership stance toward addressing an identified problem the right way rather than the cheap patch together quick easy way. However, if this letter were instead titled, "An initiative to improve the safety of State roads in Grant County", it would likely garner more support from the voting public. At least I'd be more inclined to agree with it.
Let's get real with some examples. On Highway 15 there are several roads that OHV riders might like to use. Let's take three of them: Signal Peak, Meadow Creek, and Sheep Corral. I certainly don't want OHV riders driving all the way from Silver City to Signal Peak on Highway 15. They should take their OHV there on a trailer or truck. And in fact, I often see trucks (sometimes with trailers) parked at this type of road along state highways. I assume they are parked there because they brought OHVs, and that's fine.
Should an OHV rider be able to ride on Highway 15 from Signal Peak road to Meadow Creek road? I don't know the distance exactly, but it's probably less than two miles along a very windy road where nobody sane would drive faster than the top speed of an OHV. The distance to Sheep Corral is farther and less winding. On the other hand, if you brought your OHV to Signal Peak on a trailer, you could take it to the next road on the trailer.
Or should we expand the shoulder on Highway 15 so that you could drive between these roads? Anybody who has driven there knows that expanding the shoulder around the hairpin turns and steep slopes would be a major task and a major expense. I don't think it's necessary, a good idea, or worth the expense just to support OHVs. Everyone knows Highway 15 is a special road with special risks. Don't drive it whatever your vehicle if you can't handle that.
There may be some examples of state highways where expanding the shoulder or changing the speed limit (and adding signs) might be justified, but the changes proposed in the letter are far too broad. You should only make changes where residents in the area request it and make a good case for their proposals.
"You should only make changes where residents in the area request it and make a good case for their proposals."
Well that's what I thought when this first came up about allowing ROV's on County Roads. Instead the Commission railroaded it through while we were still talking about it, heck most people didn't even know it was under discussion, a lot of people still don't know it's been passed.
And for sure I agree about the expense, hairpin turns, and the nature of 15, but I'd rather see the Commission tackle those challenges and take the time to study and review the alternatives than ram this next bit of legislation through the way they did the last one.
I agree, Kevin. I thought the reason for even discussing this is that some ranchers who use OHVs requested it. But it seems the idea has taken on a life of its own. If you get one foot in the door, nobody can close the door.
I attended the Grant County Commission meeting this morning. The motion to send a letter to the NM Dept. of Transportation requesting authorization for OHVs to drive on certain state highways passed, 3-2, with Commissioners Browne and Edwards voting against it. In the public comment period, I spoke against passing this motion, saying that we should err on the side of caution and wait until we've assessed the public safety impacts of OHVs on county-maintained roads. One other local resident also spoke against this motion.
I am going to see if I can find out how NM DOT makes such a decision. I will report back on what I learn, if anything.
Thanks for the update, Donna, and thanks to Alicia Edwards and Harry Browne for standing up against this rather amazing bit of legislation to favor the few over the many. Let's hope DOT pushes back, but I don't have a lot of faith in that.
For those who are fussy about the inconvenience generated by our hosting of the Tour of the Gila, please note that if DOT approves, most of the routes of the TOG will now be subject to lower speed limits and the presence of slow and unsafe ROVs all year, not just for five days in April. Slowing the trip to the Cliff Dwellings will negatively effect tourists trying to reach our most important tourist draw, and slowing NM 15, 35, 61, and 211 will affect the daily drives of a large number of Grant County citizens.
And this inconvenience will pale in significance compared to the likely increase in accidents and highway deaths caused by the use of these highways by "OFF HIGHWAY vehicles," which are explicitly not built for such use.


Exactly what Ought to be inside a House Secure Space?
Exactly what Ought to be inside a First-aid Package?
Exactly what Ought to The Success Package Consist of?
Exactly what Ought to A great First-aid Program Consist of?
Exactly what Ought to an initial Help Package Include?


I have tried making my first post on the blog for the past 2 days without success. I keep this message "something went wrong". Can someone help. I have cleared cache and im using safari. i have never had any problem with my browser.
I have tried making my first post on the blog for the past 2 days without success. I keep this message "something went wrong". Can someone help.
Could you let me know what tags you are assigning to the blog post? If possible, could you forward the content you are adding to your blog as well as the tags so that I can take a look?
Alternatively, click on "Details" on the error message and paste the error message back to me.
We do have a known bug with some tags (for example, the word 'site' is one). And for some reason it generates an error.


text:
Q: try sending file and string through same sockt (in java) i need to send file from server to client through some sockt (lets say port 8478) and also massage(in middel of file transfer ) (somthing like "hi", or "you reach to your limt"or "you reach to your 50% limt").
now to send only file it's easy im using
BufferedInputStrear and BufferedOutputStream in the client and server side.
now how can i send also massage in middel of file transfer in same port (8478).
thank you all..
this how i transfer the file
server side:
         BufferedInputStream d=new BufferedInputStream(new FileInputStream(s));

        BufferedOutputStream outStream = new         BufferedOutputStream(cs.getOutputStream());
        ObjectOutputStream msgoutStream = new ObjectOutputStream(cs.getOutputStream());
        byte buffer[] = new byte[1024];

        int read;
        while((read = d.read(buffer))!=-1)
        {

            //msgoutStream.writeUTF("hjlhkhjk");

            outStream.write(buffer, 0, read);

            outStream.flush();
        }

client side:
         byte buffer[] = new byte[1024];
        int read;
        int f=0;

        while((read = d.read(buffer))!=-1)
        {
            if(ifContinun)
            {
                System.out.println("strat write to file...");
            }

        //String s1=msgInPutStream.readLine();
        //String s2=msgInPutStream.readUTF();

        outStream.write(buffer, 0, read);
            outStream.flush();
            if(ifContinun)
            {
                System.out.println("after write to file...");
                ifContinun=false;
            }
        }

A: You need to send the file in parts.  You can invent a protocol like
 short stream-id
 short length of message
 bytes of the message

This will allow you to interleave multiple streams of data in the same socket and have the other end break up the different streams.
However, its likely to be much simpler to open two connections which avoids the need for a protocol like this. e.g. FTP does this. ;)

A: In order to do this, you need to define a protocol on top of TCP. For example, the protocol can be:

*

*There are a series of messages

*Each message has a type

*Each message is preceded by 4 bytes that carry the size of the next message

*Each message starts with a type byte

*The types are: 1 -- StartFile, 2 -- NextFileChunk, 3 -- TextMessage

*The the second byte onwards contains the body of the message

*For StartFile, the rest of the bytes constitute the filename and whatever other properties you want to send. (You can choose to use regular Java serialization.)

*For NextFileChunk, you just have the next n bytes of the file being transferred

*For TestMessage, the rest of the bytes would carry the text message

A: One way is to use some escape code to indicate when changing from file transfer to text transefer, and vice versa. Because a binary file may contain your escape codes, you must hand those some how.
But message protocol is preferable.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Unpaid Elite Interns: A Model for Class Action Employment Litigation
In Davenport v. Elite Model Management Corp., No. 1:13-cv-01061-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014) (Davenport v Elite-1) (Davenport v Elite-2), the court granted preliminary approval to a $450,000 settlement between Elite Model Management ("Elite") and a group of unpaid interns who claimed the company intentionally misclassified employees as interns to avoid paying them wages and overtime.
Dajia Davenport, who worked for Elite as an intern during Fashion Week in 2010, filed the complaint in February 2013 claiming that Elite hired her and other interns like her to perform work that primarily benefitted Elite, such as chaperoning models at print and media shoots and preparing modeling books of the agency's clients. If granted final approval, Elite would pay more than 100 former interns between $700 and $1,750 each. However, in the original complaint Davenport sought more than $50 million in damages.
The U.S. Department of Labor has weighed in on the controversy surrounding unpaid internships. The Department advises that "internships in the 'for-profit' private sector will most often be viewed as employment," however, there is an exception when the intern "serves only his or her own interest" or the intern is receiving training for their "own educational benefit." When determining whether an unpaid internship program or training program meets the exception six factors are considered:
1) Whether the internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
2) Whether the internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
3) Whether the intern displaces regular employees and works under close supervision of existing staff;
4) Whether the employer that provides the training derives immediate advantage from the activities of the intern;
5) Whether the intern is entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6) Whether the employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.
If the above exception applies, then the employer may be excused from paying wages and overtime under the Act. For additional guidance consult the Department of Labor's fact sheet here (Fact Sheet #71).
Guest Contributor: Sean Becker
Scott Anderson
Categories: Interns, New York, Overtime, U.S. Department of Labor, Wages
Updated Sex Discrimination Regulations for Government Contractors
The Unclear Future of Contract Lawyers
DOL's What Is Overtime Whiteboard Explainer Worth Another Look
Unpaid Interns Seeking Generous and Unexpected Golden Parachutes
Previous PostCertifying a Class in a Cemetery Conundrum
Next PostEmployers, Be Safe and WARN!
Unpaid Internships in New York

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The performers were commanding bookends for the concert hosted by Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden, who both started the event in 2009 to honor military families.
"Tonight's party is all about you," said emcee Nick Cannon, who wasted no time in giving it up to Usher, who powered through a set featuring "Yeah!," "Without You" and "O.M.G." His dancers glided effortlessly across the stage, the audience roaring with approval.
The concert also included cast members of Glee; Walt Whitman and The Soul Children of Chicago (featuring Black Violin); a trippy performance by dance troupe iLuminate; and a race featuring the mascots of the Washington Nationals baseball team. A team of devoted Washington Wizards fans tossed t-shirts to the crowd.
Cannon kept the show moving, the America's Got Talent host's continuing his energetic banter during the two-hour show at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. Organizers had set up two stages, which allowed performances to open and close seamlessly. About an hour before the show, a DJ warmed up the room with Beyoncé, The Wanted, Justin Bieber and Pitbull.
Mrs. Obama and daughters Sasha and Malia attended the concert, titled "Kid's Inaugural: Our Children. Our Future." Mrs. Obama thrilled the crowd with her new bangs, which she debuted on her 49th birthday earlier this week. A flashy belt accented her Alexander McQueen white shirt from the Resort 2011 collection, which topped a pair of simple black slacks. Jill Biden and her grandchildren also attended.
Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden reminded the audience of the sacrifices that military families have made for the nation. They urged children to welcome parents as guests to the show and briefly talked about the courage it takes to be a child with military parents.
Taking advantage of the energy in the air, Mrs. Obama introduced Perry, who took it up several notches. Perry unleashed a dynamic set that included "Teenage Dream," "Part of Me," and "Wide Awake." Her finale, "Fireworks," brought thunderous applause and cheers from the 5,000 spectators in attendance.
After the concert ended, the crowd filed out of the convention center and into the streets to the subways, taxis, charter buses and parking lots. Some people pointed to the quarter moon floating in the clear and mild winter night, then remarked that it had been a good night for a show.
Photo Gallery: 2013 Kids' Inaugural, Washington, D.C.


June 14, 2013 - If you are an experienced traveler or planning a trip, there are unquestionably many decisions any prospective traveler must make. However, experience and some basic knowledge can make it much better to map out your travel plans and itinerary. The content below will contain reliable information and some pointers that ought to be helpful for people that show a desire for travel.
Avoid waiting until you arrive to obtain local currency. Talk with your bank before you leave, and notify them you are traveling overseas. They'll help you find the best way to purchase and also let you know the fx rates for using your credit card or ATM overseas. Just go to the nearest ATM and take out some money. They've better forex rates and are generally cheap than exchanges.
If possible, book a particular seat by collecting your plane ticket to ensure that you are comfortable during flight. Often it is possible to choose your exact seat, but occasionally that choice is not available. After you have paid for your tickets, always revisit your booking site until this choice becomes available. By choosing your seat, you are able to minimize any discomfort you may feel about flying.
Within your luggage or flashing led lights battery, fasten a tag or label with your name and contact information. This way, your luggage can still be identified, even when just one piece gets lost. Placing labels around the interior of your bag can help to ensure that you are certain to get your belongings back, regardless of how long they're out of sight.
Educate your family by traveling. In case you are safe, even third world countries is definitely an opportunity to show children how every day life is in different places. The simplest way to foster tolerance for other cultures within your children is to spend time in other countries with them.
A good way to do vacation planning is as simple as utilizing the power of the Internet. Booking travel hasn't been easier. There are many travel sites focused on assisting you with finalizing your itinerary in the simple, user-friendly format. While near your computer, you are able to book your flights along with your hotels and arrange for rental cars. It is possible to see reviews and photographs of hotels without having to go anywhere. These websites offer fabulous deals for online trip planning, like last minute traveling discounts.
When traveling, ask for a room found on one of the highest floors possible. It could seem like no problem, but thieves have an easier time entering rooms on the floor floor. Whenever feasible, request a space devoid of sliding doors. Sliding doors are notoriously simple to jimmy open.
To avoid issues when flying with gifts, never wrap your presents. It's a waste of time to wrap the presents as the TSA may have to open them anyway during inspections. Rather, take wrapping paper together with you, or wait to purchase some when you arrive.
Ask for a room situated on a higher floor. It may sound deceptively simple, however, if you are on the floor floor, potential thieves could have an easier time accessing your room. Be sure to also ask for quarters which do not have sliding doors. Rooms like this can be broken into easier.
You don't want to wait until you are well on a cruise liner to know that you receive seasick. This can put a serious kink on your own cruise plan. Without the necessary medication you could end up ill for the entire trip instead of enjoying it. When you can, get a prescription for any sea sickness medication and go with you.
Brushing your dogs before travel is advisable. This minimizes the fur that'll be flying around the automobile and gives you one less aspect to fret over around the trip. Be certain to pack everything that your dog will need for the trip, like a leash, water dish, and cleanup bags.
Don't let your cruise be the first place you realize you get seasick. This can be devastating to your cruise adventure. In case you are stuck feeling seasick, you won't enjoy the cruise. Simply to be secure and safe, buy some over-the-counter seasickness medication in advance, and go with you.
Ahead of visiting any country, research and view the political and social issues going on in that country. You can examine the website from the Bureau of Consular Affairs for current updates on any situations developing abroad that could cause problems for travelers. The updates on this site will alarm you associated with a dangerous activity.
Contacts should be in a case when you going on a trip. They may be filled with lotions or creams, if you want to bring these items without taking up a lot of space.
Make sure you are knowledgeable about the current events for any destination that you have in mind. Go to the Consular Affairs Bureau's website to get the latest updates regarding any issues abroad that could affect travelers. You will be able to stay away from dangerous situations.
If you are traveling out of the country, make sure that hold the currency traded before your journey. Trying to get currency changed on your trip can be tough, especially if you arrive after business hours. You ought to go to your bank and ask about foreign exchange, or visit a change agency before your trip.


My name is Khushi. I live with my parents. I help at home by carrying water. I am in Grade 1. I am currently enrolled in primary school and my favourite subject is my local language. I like to play ball games. I am in good health.


text:
Charles Leclerc (racing driver)
Charles Victoire Emmanuel Leclerc (17 March 1772, Pontoise – 2 November 1802) was a French Army general who served under Napoleon Bonaparte during the French Revolution He was husband to Pauline Bonaparte, sister to Napoleon. He was sent to Saint-Domingue (present-day Republic of Haiti) where an expeditionary force under his command attempted to reassert control over a slave rebellion, eventually capturing and deporting Toussaint L'Ouverture.
Leclerc started his military career in 1791 during the French Revolution as one of the army volunteers of Seine-et-Oise and passed through the ranks of sous-lieutenant in the 12th Cavalry, then aide-de-camp to general Lapoype. He was made a captain and divisional chief of staff during the siege of Toulon, at which he first allied himself to Napoleon Bonaparte. Following the revolutionary success there, he campaigned along the Rhine. He began serving under Napoleon Bonaparte in the Alpine and Italian campaigns, fighting at Castiglione della Pescaia and Rivoli and rising to général de brigade in 1797. He was then charged with announcing to the French Directory the signature of the peace preliminaries at Leoben. Pauline Bonaparte was at this time receiving a large number of suitors, thus pressing her brother Napoleon Bonaparte to have her married off. On Leclerc's return, he accepted Bonaparte's offer of Pauline's hand in marriage and they married in 1797, having one child, Dermide, and occupying the Château de Montgobert.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia -	https://wn.com/Charles_Leclerc
Charles Leclerc (born 16 October 1997) is a Monegasque racing driver.
Leclerc was a childhood friend of Jules Bianchi and began karting at the track managed by Bianchi's father in Brignoles. Like Bianchi, Leclerc joined the ARM management company headed by Nicolas Todt.
Born in Monaco, Leclerc began his karting career in 2005, winning the French PACA Championship in 2005, 2006 and 2008. In 2009 he became French Cadet champion before moving up to the KF3 class in 2010, where he won the Junior Monaco Kart Cup. He continued in the KF3 class for 2011, winning the CIK-FIA KF3 World Cup, the CIK-FIA Karting Academy Trophy and the ERDF Junior Kart Masters. During the year, Leclerc also became a member of Nicolas Todt's All Road Management company.
Leclerc graduated to the KF2 category in 2012 with the factory-backed ART Grand Prix team, winning the WSK Euro Series title, as well as finishing runner-up in the CIK-FIA European KF2 Championship and the CIK-FIA Under 18 World Karting Championship.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia -	https://wn.com/Charles_Leclerc_(racing_driver)
Leclerc, Charles Filmography
Les fils du soleil
1929, role: actor
Madame Sans-Gêne
1925, role: actor , character name: Duroc
Il ne faut pas jouer avec le feu
1924, role: actor , character name: Dervaux
1924, role: actor , character name: D'Argenson
Het straatzangeresje
1921, role: actor , character name: Baron Norbert d'Evrard
charlesdickenslive.net
charlesdickensradio.org
charlesdickensradio.com
charlesdickensradio.net
charlesaznavourlive.com
charlesdickenslife.org
charlesdickenslives.com
charlesdickenscareer.com
charlesaznavourlives.com
reverendcharlesdodgson.com
charlesdickensliving.com
charlesaznavourlive.net
charlesaznavourlive.org
kingcharlesii.com
charlesdickenslife.net
Latest News for: charles leclerc
Charles Leclerc has no doubts: Ayrton Senna "my only idol"
GP Blog 18 Jan 2020
Charles Leclerc sheds light on his off-track relationship with Sebastian Vettel. Ferrari "focusing everything" on Charles Leclerc over signing Lewis Hamilton ... Charles Leclerc Formula 1 Scuderia Ferrari Ayrton Senna....
Renault 2021 focus can't be used as an excuse if 2020 F1 season is poor
Teams voted against changing the tyres for the 2020 season. Mario Isola believes this was due to teams wanting to limit car development as much as possible ahead of the 2020 F1 season in order to focus on the 2021 changes ... Max Verstappen talks "very honest" relationship with engineer ... Charles Leclerc has no doubts ... Read more ... ....
Why F1's French GP at Paul Ricard is excellent value for money
Motorsport Tickets explores why the French Grand Prix is excellent value for money ... money ... More ... More ... While the likes of Lewis Hamilton, Charles Leclerc and Max Verstappen will no doubt be duking it out for top honours, the F1 world champions of the future will also be showing their wares in the Formula 2 and Formula 3 championship support races ... ....
Ferrari sign Charles Leclerc's brother Arthur for young driver programme
BBC News 17 Jan 2020
Charles Leclerc's younger brother Arthur has been signed up to ......
Ferrari sign Leclerc's brother Arthur to driver academy
Charles Leclerc made his way through the ranks of the FDA when he was signed in 2016, winning back to back championships in GP3 and Formula 2 before debuting for Sauber in Formula 1 in 2018, and then Ferrari in 2019 ... Ferrari "focusing everything" on Charles Leclerc over signing Lewis Hamilton ... Charles Leclerc Scuderia Ferrari....
Leclerc's younger brother Arthur joins Ferrari academy
Supersport 17 Jan 2020
Charles Leclerc's younger brother Arthur has joined Ferrari's Driver Academy, the Italian Formula One team's junior programme, they announced on Friday.","content"."Charles Leclerc's younger brother ......
Lewis Hamilton at an "advanced stage" of signing two-year Mercedes extension
But that doesn't look like the case now after the Scuderia announced in December that Charles Leclerc would be there until the end of 2024 ... Alongside Leclerc committing his future to Ferrari, Max ... Ferrari "focusing everything" on Charles Leclerc over signing Lewis Hamilton....
Motor racing-Leclerc's younger brother Arthur joins Ferrari academy
Canada Dot Com 17 Jan 2020
Charles Leclerc's younger brother Arthur has joined Ferrari's Driver Academy, the Italian Formula One team's junior program, they announced on Friday ... Charles Leclerc won two grands ......
Ferrari signs Leclerc's brother Arthur as F1 junior
Charles Leclerc scored two wins and seven pole positions on his way to fourth in the F1 championship in his first season with Ferrari in 2019 and that led to a new long-term contract ... Arthur Leclerc was a late starter in motorsport, contesting his first full season in cars where he finished fifth in French F4....
Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes team reveal February 14 launch date for 2020 car
AOL 17 Jan 2020
Ferrari meanwhile, have announced Charles Leclerc's brother has signed to their young driver academy ... Charles Leclerc was handed a five-year contract extension by Ferrari last month following a strong debut season for the Scuderia in which he won twice, and finished above team-mate Sebastian Vettel in the championship....
Arthur Leclerc joins Ferrari Driver Academy
GP Fans 17 Jan 2020
Arthur Leclerc, the younger brother of Charles Leclerc, joins the Ferrari driver academy .......
Leclerc's brother joins Ferrari Driver Academy | 2020 F1 season
F1Fanatic 17 Jan 2020
Charles Leclerc's younger brother Arthur has been confirmed as one of two new members of Ferrari's Driver Academy ... ....
Ferrari signs Leclerc's brother to its F1 junior programme
Autosport 17 Jan 2020
Ferrari has signed Charles Leclerc's brother Arthur to its Formula 1 junior programme, and the 18-year-old will join Prema Powerteam in the Formula Regional European Championship ... ....


text:
Tiny Nutrients, Big Effects
source: BBC UK
For the body to function properly, it needs not only enough calories, but protein, vitamins, and minerals as well. Sufficient nutrient intake is particularly important for children's growth and development.
Protein is an essential building block in the body. A chronic absence in the diet leads to fatigue and loss of muscle mass and also affects the immune system, as the body is unable to produce enough antibodies. Protein deficiency also damages children's physical and mental development.
Insufficient vitamin A in the diet can cause blindness and weaken the immune system. In developing countries, those with vitamin A deficiency have increased risk of dying from common conditions such as diarrhoea, measles, and malaria.
Iron deficiency causes anaemia – a lack of red blood cells – that makes people feel tired and lethargic. Pregnant women with severe or untreated anaemia have a higher risk of complications before and after birth.
Iodine is needed to keep the thyroid gland working. The thyroid gland regulates all the hormones in the body, so low iodine can disrupt normal hormone function. In children, low levels of iodine can lead to poor brain development. Research has shown that even mild iodine deficiency negatively affects IQ. Severe deficiencies can cause mental retardation and congenital abnormalities.
Improving Nutrients Scientifically
Chronic malnourishment is a complex, global issue that has severe consequences for the health of those affected. Scientists are looking at a range of approaches to help super-charge food with better nutrients.
Adding micronutrients to staple foods such as sugar and cereal during processing has been a key way to improve the nutrition of large populations. However, it can be difficult for very poor communities to gain access to these foods.
Scientists are now developing bio-fortified foods such as Golden Rice, which has been genetically engineered to contain vitamin A. Golden Rice can improve the vitamin A intake of populations who rely on rice as a staple food.
Insects are an incredibly good source of animal protein, fat, vitamin, fibre, and mineral content. It is estimated that insects already form part of the traditional diets of at least 2 billion people, especially in places like Thailand, which has 20,000 insect farms. New ways to cultivate and process insects for human consumption could see insects replace birds and mammals as sources of dietary protein.
Synthetic Meat
As the world's population grows, so does the demand for meat, which requires enormous resources to cultivate. As an alternative to meat consumption, scientists have grown meat in a laboratory using stem cells extracted from a cow. Though early results have produced small yields that lack in flavour, the potential to synthetically cultivate meat protein from a tiny biopsy could be a scalable solution to ever-stretched resources.
By ncfserenfu99 in HOT ISSUE, News, Regulatory Information on 2014 年 07 月 29 日


text:
Senior Editorial Team
Co-Editors-in-Chief
Jill T. Boruff, AHIP, McGill University, Canada
Michelle Kraft, AHIP, FMLA, Cleveland Clinic Foundation Library, United States
Kathleen Amos, AHIP, Public Health Foundation, United States
Alexander J. Carroll, AHIP, Vanderbilt University, United States
Caitlin J. Bakker, AHIP, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Thane Chambers, University of Alberta, Canada
Copy & Production Editor
Katelyn Arnold, Medical Library Association, United States
Melanie J. Norton, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, United States
Tamara Nelson, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, United States
Stephen J. Greenberg, Retired
Beverly Murphy, AHIP, FMLA, Duke University Medical Center, United States
Tashiana Scott-Cochran, North Carolina Central University
MLA Proceedings
Ellen M. Aaronson, AHIP, Mayo Clinic, United States
JJ Pionke, University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign, United States
Resource Reviews
Ellen Aaronson, Mayo Clinic Libraries, United States
Lisa Marks, Mayo Clinic Libraries, United States
Emily Hurst, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States
Matthew Noe, Harvard University, United States
Kelsa Bartley, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, United States
Skye Bickett, Northside Hospital, Atlanta, GA, United States
Hsinliang Chen, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, United States
Robin Desmeules, McGill University, Canada, Canada
Erin RB Eldermire, Cornell University, United States
Jensen Fisher, Rocky Vista University, United States
Jacqueline Freeman, University of Michigan, United States
Dean Giustini, University of British Columbia, Canada
Andrea Hayes, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, United States
Marisol Hernandez, College of American Pathologists, United States
LaTeesa James, University of Michigan, United States
Melissa K Kahili-Heede, University of Hawaii at Manoa, United States
Liz Kellermeyer, National Jewish Health, United States
Jherusha Lambert, Howard University, United States
Aida Miro-Herrans, University of Florida, United States
Essam Mansour, South Valley University, United States
Patricia Gonce Morton, PhD, RN, University of Utah College of Nursing, United States
Tamara Marie Nelson, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, United States
Robin MN Parker, Dalhousie University, Canada
Carol L. Perryman, Texas Woman's University, United States
Brandon T. Pieczko, Indiana University School of Medicine, United States
Amy Reyes, University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States
Cynthia Marie Schmidt, University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States
Stephanie J. Schulte, Ohio State University, United States
Plato L. Smith II, University of Florida, United States
Alisa Surkis, New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, United States
Stephanie M. Swanberg, AHIP, Michigan School of Psychology, United States
Alicia Zuniga, California State University, Sacramento, United States
MLA Board Liaison
Brenda M. Linares, AHIP, University of Kansas Medical Center, United States
Medical Library Association Headquarters Staff
Jamie Birkner, Director, Content Strategy and Marketing, Medical Library Association
Kevin Baliozian, Executive Director, Medical Library Association, United States
Jim Westwood, Subscriptions, Medical Library Association, United States
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh, United States


A pharmacokinetic comparison and conformational stability study of S-oxiracetam (S-ORT) and R-oxiracetam (R-ORT) in beagle dogs was used to investigate the possible mechanism of different effects of two oxiracetam enantiomers through a random crossover design. After drug administration to beagle dogs, blood samples were collected at different time points for pharmacokinetic analysis using the UPLC-ESI-MS/MS method. Parts of plasma samples were used for conformation transformation studies using a normal phase high performance liquid chromatographic (NP HPLC) method. The study showed that oxiracetam enantiomers maintained their original conformation when administered orally to beagle dogs. Concentrations of S-ORT were significantly higher than R-ORT 1.5 and 2 h after administration; the AUC0-∞ of S-ORT after oral administration tended to be higher than that of R-ORT, which showed that the different effects between S-ORT and R-ORT may be partly associated with their distinctive absorption at least.


text:
package my.test;
public class Test2<S,T> extends TestOhter2 implements MyInterfaceA,MyInterfaceB {
	public int myInt;

	S myS;
	T myT;

	Test2() {
		myInt=10;
	}

	private class TestInner {
		TestInner(){}
	}

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The page provides the exchange rate of 50 Hungarian Forint (HUF) to Bitcoin (BTC), sale and conversion rate. Moreover, we added the list of the most popular conversions for visualization and the history table with exchange rate diagram for 50 Hungarian Forint (HUF) to Bitcoin (BTC) from Friday, 26/04/2019 till Friday, 19/04/2019. Latest update of 50 Hungarian Forint (HUF) exchange rate.
Convert currency 50 HUF to BTC. How much is 50 Hungarian Forint to Bitcoin? — 0.000030 Bitcoin.
50 Hungarian Forint to Bitcoin, convert 50 HUF in BTC.


Innovative logistics planning is responsible for optimising the key entrepreneurial success factors of productivity, quality and delivery readiness. A dynamic and efficient logistics makes flexibility a prerequisite of system planning in order to take into account not only the current requirements but also future developments. That is what we aspire to.
Our first concept draft defines the operations planning, the layout, the required technology and the level of facility automation. We develop different planning options for you that we evaluate and adopt together with you, taking account of business-related success factors.
In the detailed planning stage, we take care of tendering, soliciting and examining bids as well as awarding the contract.


On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila) as a biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) to decrease the chance of infection as suggested by febrile neutropenia in patients with non-myeloid cancer who are receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy that has a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia.
The approval was based on comparisons of extensive structural and functional product characterization, animal data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, clinical immunogenicity, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data demonstrating that pegfilgrastim-jmdb is biosimilar to pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim-jmdb has been approved as a biosimilar, not as an interchangeable product.
The most common side effects of pegfilgrastim-jmdb are bone pain and pain in extremities. Patients with a history of serious allergic reactions to human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products should not take pegfilgrastim-jmdb. Serious side effects from treatment with pegfilgrastim-jmdb include rupture of the spleen, acute respiratory distress syndrome, serious allergic reactions including anaphylaxis, glomerulonephritis, leukocytosis, capillary leak syndrome, and the potential for tumor growth. Fatal sickle cell crises have occurred.


text:
The Leech Woman (1960)
By 1960, Universal had given up on Gothic Horror. Hammer had come along by that point, reinventing the classic monsters in bold, bloody color. Fittingly, "The Leech Woman" was quickly thrown together to fill the back end of a double feature front-lined by "Brides of Dracula," one of Hammer's best efforts. Man, that double feature really dropped off in the second half…
June Talbot, presumably no relation to Larry, is an alcoholic old woman, trapped in a loveless marriage to Dr. Paul Talbot. Enter Malla, an elderly woman claiming to be 140 years old. Malla claims that her African tribe has a method of extending life and regenerating youth. The two head off to African in search of the compound. Turns out, the potion does restore youth, with two important catches: First off, the pineal gland from a young man is required to make it work. Secondly, the effects wear off after twenty-four hours. June, the Leech Woman of the title, proceeds to stab her way through the supporting male cast, all in the name of vanity.
The tone, characters, and content of "The Leech Woman" marks it as the product of a new decade. Every character is a terrible human being. June is obsessed with beauty. Her angst is disproportional, considering Coleen Gray's old age make-up amounts to some bags under her eyes. She's become an alcoholic because her husband is a bastard. Dr. Talbot is manipulative, dangling the promise of love in front of pathetic June to keep her around. After discovering the youth potion, he redeclares his love, extending their marriage… But only so she'll be his guinea pig! What an asshole! You'd think being chained to such a despicable person would make June sympathetic. Sadly, she comes off as bitter and resentful as him, even before she starts killing people! Not even the supporting cast is likable. Malla has no problem sacrificing people. Neil Foster, the lawyer June seduces, doesn't think twice about cheating on his wife. Neil's wife, played by the otherwise lovely and ironically named Gloria Talbott, has no problem pulling a gun on a stranger. Even the African guide is callow and opportunistic. As far as audience surrogates go, there's no safe port in "The Leech Woman."
At only 77 minutes, "The Leech Woman" takes too long getting to its point. The trek through Africa takes up plenty of time. The jungle adventure padding is ultimately soft but we still get footage of elephants, hippos, and dancing natives. Malla explains in extended detail the effects of the drug. After proving the serum works, June is given the opportunity to use it, finally turning on Paul, using him as the sacrificial man. Around the 44 minute mark, Coleen Gray can wash off her unconvincing make-up. About ten minutes after that, the next morning, she wakes up even older then before, Gray now done up in slightly more convincing, though still overly rubbery, wrinkles. Her dilemma, forced to kill to maintain her youthfulness, is established. A little while after that, the movie finally sets up its formula of June killing, becoming young, aging again, and killing again. By the time the murders have truly started, "The Leech Woman" is nearly over.
The ending is anticlimactic. After giving a random scumbag the pineal poke, June seduces Neil. His wife confronts her, forcing June to kill a woman. After Neil proposes marriage to a someone he's known two days, the cops bust in. June's not a very good monster. She left her address with her previous victim and stuffed the dead wife's body in the near-by coat closet. After realizing a woman's blood doesn't have the same effects as a man's, June throws herself from the balcony, preferring to be dead then old. Gee whiz, movie, way to assign a woman's value to her physical appearance. The biggest plot hole is that Malla explained a way to prevent the aging effects from wearing off. She says the powder by itself stops aging. Why didn't June restore her youth and then use the powder to stay that way?
The Leech Woman isn't a very good monster. Which is a bummer, since she's only one of three female monsters in the Universal canon, along with the Bride and Paula. Her motivations are deeply shallow but, then again, so was Elizabeth Bathory's. The make-up isn't great, leaving her shapely hips unaffected, but Coleen Gray still gives a good performance. "The Leech Woman" would be a good candidate for a remake, repurposing its sexist themes as a commentary on sexism. As Universal's final black-and-white monster movie, it's a real bummer. [5/10]
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)
I previously reviewed "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers" two years ago. That's recent enough that my thoughts haven't changed very much. I honestly considered not even rewatching four and five, simply posting links to both. Still, you can't really have a "Halloween" marathon without including them. Jumping straight into six, which I haven't seen since it first hit VHS, probably isn't a good idea. Accordingly, I'll keep this brief.
I'm not a big fan of the direction this film took the series. Or more specifically, what it did with Michael Myers. Originally a ghost-like entity, Myers has become just another late-eighties murder machine. He slaughters people with a variety of weapons, including, rather incongruently, a shotgun. He teleports all around, even right behind people. He hangs off of pick-up trucks and leaps off roofs. He slaughters random people who have no further importance to the plot. Most obnoxiously, Myers tears victims apart with his bare hands, shoving his thumb through a forehead or fingers into a skull. You can't imagine Carpenter's subtle, stalking Shape doing that. Finally, the ending changes the Shape's nature entirely, making him some sort of possessing spirit. The biggest indignity of all is that shitty dime store mask and dorky shoulder pads.
The ending of "Halloween II" is cheaply retcon. Despite getting shot in the eyes and burnt to a crisp, Myers simply fell into a coma. Okay, sure, he's not entirely human. But how do you explain Dr. Loomis, a normal man, surviving being exploded? With only small scars on his face and hands? Apparently, the doc is just a tough bastard, since the sixty-year old survives getting tossed through an upper floor window in this one.
No longer a random force, Myers is now determined to kill his remaining family for reasons that aren't elaborated on. How do I feel about Jaime Lloyd? I dislike Laurie dying off-screen. The movie really lingers on Jaime's misery too much, having nightmares about her uncle for some reason and being cruelly taunted by her schoolmates. Little Danielle Harris isn't great but she's not annoying, a feat onto itself. Though Ellie Cornell is no Jaime Lee Curtis, her Rachel is likable enough. Her romantic relationships are unnecessarily focused on, but Cornell has got a tough, can-do attitude I like. The rest of the characters are thin, indistinct slasher fodder. Rachel's boyfriend is unlikable and his bimbo side of ass doesn't even show her boobs. Despite being obviously tired and probably intoxicated, Donald Pleasence holds the whole film together. His grave intonings never loose their spark, even after ten years.
Dwight Little's direction is fairly flat. I like the opening, titles sparsely laid out against Halloween decorations, and occasionally he throws in some foggy, late night atmosphere. Overall though, his nights are far too bright, too clear. He also throws in some tacky slow-motion shots. The movie is never scary but the roof stalking scene comes close to generating suspense. "Halloween 4" is middling for me but I suppose it is important for reviving the franchise. I guess. [5/10]
Tales from the Crypt: "Fitting Punishment"
Story-wise, "Fitting Punishment" isn't anything special. It fits the "Crypt" outline. A recently orphaned nephew comes to live with his uncle, a mortician. Turns out, his uncle is a massive asshole. He embalms bodies with water and buries them in discount coffins sold for full price. He is also abusive towards his nephew, treating him like crap, smacking him around, devaluing the young boy as a person. The abuse escalates until the teen is cripple and, finally, murdered. Since this is "Tales from the Crypt," the boy's spirit returns to wreak havoc. If it had thrown in some infidelity, this would be the most typical episode ever.
This is still true. However, "Fitting Punishment" has got some fun stuff in it. It's one of the few episodes focused on black characters, distinguishing it from the rest of the lot. Moses Gunn is fantastically mean-spirited as evil Uncle Ezra. The character is a total prick and Gunn plays it to the hilt. He successfully plays the character's increasing cruelty as dark comedy. He's a villain you love to hate. Jon Clair has less to work with as Bobby, the abused nephew, but still does a decent job getting you to root for him. The episode handles the mortuary business in a nicely causal manner. Jack Sholder's direction is on the same level as the material. He intentionally recalls classic animation with his exaggerated transitions and wipes. Because Ezra is such a despicable villain, his comeuppance is deeply satisfying. And, hey, zombie Air Jordons and a feetless ghost? What's not to like? This episode isn't anything special but it's the exact type of darkly comedic horror comfort food "Crypt" fans are looking for. [7/10]
So Weird: "Lost"
"Lost" is a "So Weird" episode that is saved by the series' typical earnestness. Fi's opening narration helpfully explains what a coma is, for those who might not know. Cut to: A girl who has been in a coma for years. While hooking the hospital system up to the internet, the wires somehow get cross, and the girl's spirit gets hooked to the world wide web. Ridiculous, right? For some reason, the girl contacts Fiona, her messages being conveyed as a spammy collection of random words. (It's a good thing Fi just didn't delete that, right?) Smelling a mystery, Fiona quickly realizes the girl's situation, gets in contact with her family, and sets about waking the girl up.
While the plot machinations are contrived, to say the least, "Lost" has some intriguing ideas. While inside her coma, Kamilah is trapped within a recreation of her home town as it existed in the early nineties. She stands outside a movie theater showing the same film for ten years. The climax of the episode is three-pointed. In the waking world, Fi tries to correlate Kamilah's memory of the streets with their modern lay-out. Out in the city, Jack and Clu follow the same steps, reporting back to their sister. Inside her coma, Kamilah walks the eerie, empty streets, trying to find the courage to take her home. The emotion her mother and aunt feel for the little girl is honest and help imbue the silly premise with genuine pathos. Kyla Pratt is very good as the lost girl while Candus Churchill and Dionne Warwick stop by for notable parts as the mother and aunt. "So Weird" continues to impress me with the way it pushes pass typical kid show clichés towards more ambitious ideas. [7/10]
Labels: classic horror, eighties horror, halloween, halloween 13, horror, slasher films, so weird, tales from the crypt, the halloween series, universal monsters


text:
Rom Oil Brașov este o companie membră a Grupului Rompetrol, din anul 2002, care se ocupă cu distribuția en-gros de produse petroliere produse de Petromidia.
Rom Oil administrează șase depozite, la Zărnești, Arad, Mogoșoaia, Șimleul Silvaniei, Vatra Dornei și Craiova.

Număr de angajați în 2005: 370

Cifra de afaceri în 2005: 420,9 milioane euro

Profit net în 2005: 1,4 milioane euro

Note

Legături externe
 www.romoil.ro  - Site web oficial

Companii de distribuție din România
Companii din Brașov
Rompetrol

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Preview of Outlander mid-season finale, marathon
September 26, 2014 Barb Oates Preview, TV News & Program Updates 1
Barb Oates
Don't worry no major spoilers ahead, more a brief preview of the Outlander mid-season finale airing this Saturday, Sept. 27 at 9pmET/PT. After tomorrow's mid-season finale, Outlander will be on hiatus until Saturday, April 4, 2015 when the second half of Season 1 returns with eight new episodes. The series has already been renewed for a second season.
Last week's long-awaited "The Wedding" episode found Claire (Caitriona Balfe) and Jamie (Sam Heughan) consummating their arranged marriage, in an awkward, amusing, endearing, exploratory and, eventually, passionate experience. The episode, however, first started with the 1940s stylish Claire and her handsome Frank (Tobias Menzies) walking hand-in-hand past the courthouse when Frank popped the question asking her to marry him. Now whether they did — at that moment marry — is yet to be seen, but she of course said yes, and it served as a heartfelt reminder just how much the two are in love.
In Episode 8: "Both Sides Now," which is the mid-season finale, we're given an agonizing picture of what Frank's been enduring since Claire disappeared. Frank's beyond frustrated, bitter and angered over the conclusions the Scots are forming after six weeks of searching — most believe that Claire has run off with the highlander Frank saw out of his window the night before her disappearance. It's a desperate and dissonant Frank. Of course, life for Jamie and Claire after the honeymoon is explored (Jamie all to eager to learn more from the experienced Claire). Claire also is faced with an emotional quandary as a life-altering opportunity presents itself.
According to Starz, Episode 7: "The Wedding," was seen by approximately 3.8 million viewers, a number Starz hasn't captured since Episode 5 of Spartacus: Vengeance in February 2012. "The Wedding" performance also represented a 19% increase from the week prior, and a 38% increase since the series premiere episode in August.
On Saturday, Sept. 27 Starz will air an Outlander marathon leading up to the mid-season finale beginning with Episode 1. Here's the schedule:
Outlander Marathon – Saturday, Sept. 27
Episode 1 "Sassenach" at 1:45pm ET/PT
Episode 2: "Castle Leoch" at 2:55pm ET/PT
Episode 3: "The Way Out" at 4pm ET/PT
Episode 4: "The Gathering" at 5pm ET/PT
Episode 5: "Rent" at 6pm ET/PT
Episode 6: "The Garrison Commander" at 7pm ET/PT
Episode 7: "The Wedding" at 8pm ET/PT
Episode 8: "Both Sides Now" at 9pm ET/PT (Mid-season finale)
Images: Credit Starz
Steve Sigg says:
Are reruns of Outlander scheduled? What dates?
Dating Naked: the Lost Episode Recap
CBS announces new "Mom" and "The Millers" season premiere dates
Sam Heughan and Caitriona Balfe talk punishment, specifically Outlander Episode 9 "The Reckoning"
April 4, 2015 Barb Oates Interview, Recap, TV News & Program Updates 1
Outlander's back! When the first half of the season ended last September, Claire was under the capture and assault of Captain "Black Jack" Randall with a knife to her nipple when Jamie bursts through the chamber's window and demands: "I'll thank ye to take your hands off of my wife." SPOILER ALERT: If you haven't watched Outlander Episode 9 "The Reckoning" (original air date Saturday, April 4) stop reading now because all of the conversation between Sam Heughan and Caitriona Balfe is focused around this episode, plus detailed information on the plot line will follow. Outlander Episode 9 "The Reckoning" […]
Starz's "Boss" throws Troy Garity into a web of political intrigue
October 14, 2011 Channel Guide Staff Drama 1
by Karl J. Paloucek Follow @ChannelGuideK Nothing really intrigues like politics, does it? Especially if you live in Chicago, where real-life political intrigue is layered especially thick and comes straight from the "You can't make this stuff up" files. Maybe you can't, but Gus Van Sant and Farhad Safinia are giving it a go anyway with their ambitious and highly anticipated series Boss premiering on Starz next Friday, Oct. 21 at 10pm ET/PT. Boss centers on incumbent Chicago mayor Tom Kane (Kelsey Grammer), a potent and charismatic leader whose administration has been a success with the people, but whose achievements […]
Comic-Con 2013: "Black Sails" screening
July 20, 2013 Channel Guide Staff Drama 2
As promoters dressed in full pirate garb — ranging from Jack Sparrow wannabes to some who looked like Captain Morgan mascots who had mistakenly wandered in from a neighboring bar — peppered the crowd with the constant, loud refrain of "BLACK SAILS!!!" the crowd at San Diego's Reading Cinemas anxiously awaited a unique world premiere event. Not only was the crowd of about 400 going to see the first episode of Starz's highly anticipated pirate series Black Sails — with several cast members and producers on hand — but there was an extra surprise as well. Set up in front […]


Subscribing to my Newsletter is a great way to keep in contact.
This mail list newsletter is absolutely private and your information will never be shared or sold.
I send out a newsletter only once or twice a year so you in-box will not be overloaded and filled with useless information.
Add a short message if you like.
Please limit your message to 255 characters. remaining.


text:
Q: Prevent rendering mediapipe on android the title says it all. I want to try mediapipe specifically facemesh on android. The problem is I just want to calculate face landmarks on the background and decide more things later (like showing text of landmarks coordinates, or any other ratio). I don't want to show the opengl rendering. I tried to comment this part but still doesn't work
//          glSurfaceView.setRenderData(faceMeshResult);
//          glSurfaceView.requestRender();

I'm thinking of using normal view or GlSurfaceView instead of SolutionGlSurfaceView but it doesn't work. I found a similar qna How to prevent face detection bounding box from being drawn in mediapipe android
but the answer recommend me to edit compiled class and I don't think android allow me to do that. Android only allow me to extend a compiled class and use it specifically. Problem is the class I need to extend is so deep so I need to also extend all class using that class, moreover it's a C script/class and I'm not sure Android allow me to extend it easily.
Any of you find easy ways to do what I'm trying to do?