text:
Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs, Jon Huntsman, Jeff Bader, Mike Froman, and Ben Rhodes
For Immediate Release November 17, 2009
PRESS BRIEFING BY
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS;
AND AMBASSADOR TO CHINA JON HUNTSMAN;
SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
FOR ASIAN AFFAIRS JEFF BADER;
DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MIKE FROMAN;
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BEN RHODES
Filing Center
Marriott City Wall
4:30 P.M. CST
MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon, guys. I am going to very brief, so brief that all I'm going to do is turn this over to -- first to Ambassador Huntsman, to give us a few minutes on the trip; Jeff Bader, who will talk a little bit more about -- in addition to what the Ambassador talks about -- what happened at some of the meetings today; as well as Mike Froman, who you've heard from during the trip. He'll go through some of the climate and clean energy agreements that you all have information off of the event today.
So, Ambassador Huntsman.
AMBASSADOR HUNTSMAN: Hello, everybody. Don't mistake me for being an expert, because I've been here for three months. And I've come to the conclusion that "China expert" is kind of an oxymoron. And those who consider themselves to be China experts are kind of morons. So you take what you can, you learn what you can, and you begin to pull all the pieces together, and still it kind of remains sometimes a somewhat confused environment.
The relationship formally reached its 30th year this year. And I'd have to say that having followed it off and on for a good many of those 30 years, the President stepped off the plane in Shanghai in an environment that I'd have to characterize as being really at an all-time high in terms of the bilateral atmosphere
a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory, thereby able to kind of sail above some of the windsheers and the storms that have typically been part of the bilateral relationship.
I will say that a lot of work has gone into preparing an agenda that would reflect that the U.S.-China relationship has gone global. The key today in managing this relationship, as you'll hear more about, is we take the range of bilateral issues that we've worked on for the 30 years of our formal diplomatic relationship and then you add to that an additional layer of complexity called the international issues, because there are really only two countries in the world that together can solve certain issues, whether they are clean energy, climate change, regional security, or those dealing with the global economy.
So the meetings and the focus from a substance standpoint really have been aimed at coordinating like never before on the key global issues that together are headline issues for the United States. And not surprisingly, with China, which has ascended to the world stage, they find themselves on the world stage today, their issues are very similar to our own in terms of the global economy, in terms of clean energy, climate change, and regional security. So I would say today like never before we are in a position where we should be able to coordinate on many of these key issues in an unprecedented way. The challenge, though, is to make sure that we are able to connect with the Chinese bureaucracy in ways that actually allow us to get traction.
So I will just conclude by saying that through it all, I have seen our President today, who went in both the small meeting and the expanded bilateral, was extremely forceful and comprehensive in hitting on every one of the major issues that we try to manage in our bilateral relationship. There wasn't a single issue that was left out. And I've got to tell you that as one observer and someone who takes this relationship seriously, as the on-site manager, I was very, very proud of our President.
There was a good level of connection with all of the counterparts. There was an excellent job in creating the headline issues that together now we must proceed on. And they really do run, as we have discussed before, from clean energy and climate change through regional security, Iran, North Korea, right through the global economy, with Afghanistan and Pakistan thrown in.
And I would say I sense for the first time ever that we're actually getting a little bit of traction on cooperation between the United States and China as it relates to reviewing a lot of issues that really do matter in terms of regional stability as it relates to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
With that -- and I'm sure we'll take it in whatever direction you like later on -- we'll turn it over to Jeff Bader, who is the senior director of the National Security Council for Asian Affairs.
MR. BADER: Thank you very much, Jon. Good to see you all here. This was, as you all know, President Obama's first trip to China. And so far, in our view, it's been highly successful in setting out and accomplishing the objectives that we had set for ourselves. It's an important first step in building a partnership between our two countries to work together on global issues. And as Ambassador Huntsman said, we went through in some depth virtually every global issue of consequence that China and the U.S. need to work on. The President emphasized that on these global issues we can't solve them ourselves, we need partners, including China.
I would mention just a few -- sort of set the scene here: nonproliferation, in particular Iran. On Iran, the President described the current situation in discussions between the P5-plus-1 and the Iranians, the unsatisfactory character of the Iranian response to date on the Tehran research reactor proposal, and reminded his counterpart that we have two tracks, that the door is open to try and find a resolution but if the Iranians do not agree to the proposal by the IAEA and the P5-plus-1, that we will turn to track two. And we expect the Chinese to be with us.
Discussed Afghanistan and Pakistan -- I can say more on that later if you wish. North Korea. On North Korea, the President expressed appreciation for Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to Pyongyang in which he came back with a statement from Kim Jung-il saying that North Korea was prepared to move towards six-party talks under certain conditions. The President made clear to President Hu that we expect the Chinese to convene a six-party meeting as soon as possible.
And military-to-military relations, and finally human rights. I just want to say a word about human rights. I've been involved in the China relationship for over 30 years, and I've been on previous presidential visits, visits by secretaries of state to China. This was as direct a discussion on human rights as I've seen by any high-level visitor with the Chinese. And this was multifaceted. You all saw the Shanghai event yesterday in which the President spoke at some length in his introductory remarks about American values, about rule of law, freedom of expression, access to information, the rights of minorities -- called them universal rights; and then in the question-and-answer session talked again at some length about the importance of an uncensored Internet and how people benefit, countries benefit, and leaders benefit from the openness of the Internet. I have never heard that kind of a discussion publicly in China before.
The President had the opportunity to answer, reach out to not only the local audience, but to a substantial audience in the rest of China that was following this on television and Internet.
In addition, in the private discussions, the President was equally candid in describing human rights as a core, a fundamental, bedrock principle of U.S. foreign policy; made it clear that we will speak directly to the Chinese about it publicly and privately.
They discussed Tibet. The President -- you saw in the joint press conference, the President referred -- the joint press conference, the President referred explicitly to the importance of protection of freedom of religion and the rights of ethnic minorities, and then immediately discussed the importance of a resumption of a dialogue between the Dalai Lama and representatives -- the Dalai Lama's representatives and the Chinese government. That was a deliberate and a clear statement of the priority the President places on this, and it was discussed privately, as well -- the President making clear his respect for the Dalai Lama as a cultural and religious leader, and his intention to meet with the Dalai Lama at an appropriate time.
I think that's all I'll say by way of introduction.
MR. FROMAN: Thanks, Jeff. I'll speak briefly about climate change and energy. First, just to put it in context, for those of you who were in Singapore you remember that Prime Minister Rasmussen came to Singapore on Sunday and had breakfast with the APEC leaders and laid out his plan for the Copenhagen process. President Obama spoke in support of Prime Minister Rasmussen's plan, and there was a widespread consensus among the leaders there that the aim should not be a partial accord or just a political declaration, but an accord that covers all the main areas of the negotiations and had immediate operational effect, even as negotiations towards a legal agreement continue.
Today, President Obama and President Hu took another important step forward on climate change in agreeing on a number of areas: First, that each country would take significant mitigation actions. Second, that they shared a common view that even as the negotiations towards a final legal agreement continue, the Copenhagen conference should aim to reach an accord that includes all the issues being dealt with in the negotiations, and those included mitigation commitments by both developed and developing countries, focus on countries adapting to the effects of climate change, and scaled-up financing and technological support. Third, there was, very importantly, an agreement that the two countries would stand behind their commitments and that there should be full transparency as to the implementation of those commitments.
In addition, they agreed that the issue of climate change can't wait and therefore it was important to take specific steps to work together on a number of clean energy initiatives. I assume you've seen the various fact sheets, but this is a key new part of the relationship. There was an MOU signed earlier this year on energy and climate change, and these seven agreements reflect concrete steps to work together, reflecting both our common interests and real action to try and solve the climate change issues.
They touched upon the creation of a U.S.-China clean energy research center, a U.S.-China electric vehicles initiative, an energy efficiency action plan, a renewable energy partnership, a series of initiatives around cleaner coal -- 21st century coal -- an initiative on shale gas, and then finally, an initiative on energy cooperation involving the private sector. So there was both significant -- or an important step forward on climate change that was taken as was reflected in the joint statement, as well as a number of specific steps on energy cooperation in support of dealing with climate change.
MR. GIBBS: We've got about a little more than 10 minutes for questions. I've got to get these guys back before we -- so they're not late for the state dinner, which they actually have to go to.
Q I want to ask Jeffrey and ask Michael about how the discussion on currency -- inaudible -- The President was very (inaudible) saying that he felt that was important for global rebalancing. But President Hu didn't mention it. And I noticed also that President Obama referred to China's past statements on currency. Does that mean that China didn't give any ground on that in the meeting?
MR. FROMAN: As you said, the President said in his statement at the press conference that -- and underscored the importance of both countries pursuing strategies consistent with strong, balanced, sustainable growth that involves certain actions on the U.S. side and certain actions on the Chinese side. He mentioned specifically China's commitment -- China's stated intention to liberalize or to move to a more market-oriented exchange rate over time, that it was an essential component of balanced growth.
The joint statement has an extensive section in it about balanced growth, including references to more balanced trade relationships. And the President raised the issue both in the restricted bilat and in the enlarged bilat. So it was very much on the agenda.
Q And what was the Chinese response?
MR. FROMAN: I'm not going to characterize the nature of the discussion, just to say that the President raised it in the meetings and he, of course, mentioned at both the press conference and in the joint statement.
Q Mike, could I ask about climate change? Has the U.S. given up on the idea that (inaudible) demand that China make binding commitments to finding reductions in carbon emissions?
MR. FROMAN: Well, no, in fact I think the -- the Rasmussen proposal, which was broadly supported by the APEC leaders in Singapore and then reinforced by the agreements today, was that we should seek an agreement in Copenhagen that was politically binding and that would involve commitments by both developed and developing countries, even as we work towards a final legal agreement.
Q You all mentioned this is the President's first trip to China. Can you tell us what kind of impression the country is making on him? He's toured the Forbidden City, met Chinese youth, met some Chinese leaders, seen the Shanghai skyline, Beijing. What is his reaction to some of this? How is it affecting him?
MR. BADER: Well, we've been here for, what -- we've been in China for about a day and a half and it's a rather large country to come away with decisive, comprehensive reactions in that period. But he -- it's very clear he was greatly impressed by the development he saw in Shanghai, by the degree to which the officials he spoke to were thinking about and trying to cope with some of the major urban problems involved in the massive migrations to the cities that officials described to him -- the demands on infrastructure, on traffic, on health, on housing, on employment.
He's been very warmly received by every official and by the private citizens he met, and I think at the Shanghai youth event you could feel the warmth and the enthusiasm of the people in the room, and that certainly made an impression upon the President.
MR. RHODES: I would just add to that that I think he's certainly made comments about how impressive the rate of growth and development is -- it's obviously manifested in the skyline in Shanghai and in this city as well -- and just the extraordinarily dramatic achievement, frankly, of also lifting many people out of poverty. And then just to echo something that Jeff said that the President has commented on, is that particularly as it pertains to issues around clean energy and infrastructure, that these are similar challenges that the United States and China face both nationally and within our cities.
So through some of the kinds of clean energy partnerships, for instance, that we announced today, we can both support each other's efforts in this area, learn from one another, issues like the -- or projects like the joint research center basically open the door for -- and also some of the -- and the high-speed rail
-- open the door for us to work together with the Chinese to tackle challenges that are very much common to our countries and our cities, as well.
So within that very rapid and impressive development, I think the President has been impressed that we can have an extensive partnership in these specific areas. And the only other thing I'd add also is science and technology -- again, an area where there's a lot of opportunity to partner and there's a lot of focus on that here, as well.
Q I guess this is for either Mr. Bader or Ambassador Huntsman, but specifically when the President is talking with President Hu about human rights, what is he asking for? What does he want to see? What is he encouraging the Chinese to do? And then for Ambassador Huntsman, how does the fact that the U.S. owes $800 billion to China affect any of these negotiations at all in terms of what President Hu brings up or the ability of the President of the United States to ask for anything?
MR. BADER: Well, on human rights, you've seen the way the President has dealt with the issue around the world. I mean, he starts with the premise that the U.S. example is persuasive if we have our own house in order. And this isn't a briefing about Guantanamo, but he has worked very hard to correct and improve the image that the U.S. has developed in recent years on human rights. When you have someone who believes in protecting human rights at home and who is as popular and admired a figure as Barack Obama is globally, the appeal of our views on human rights is entirely different than when you have problems that are unaddressed at home and a salesman who is not persuasive. So I think that that is kind of the starting point in thinking about the way in which President Obama is effective on human rights.
Now, the way -- what he expects, he talks about the American experience. He talks about American values. He talks about how they have helped us to achieve what we have achieved. And he talks about human rights and democracy as a constantly unfinished project, as something that we need to -- it's not something in the past where we're done with it. And there is a sense of pride and accomplishment mixed with a sense that we have shortcomings that we need to be honest with ourselves about.
And that is the kind of presentation, in my view, that is much more effective -- is the most effective way to impress upon Chinese private and public audiences the value of human rights. He talks about, as you heard him talking about the Internet and what a free Internet means for -- not only for the lives of ordinary Chinese people but for proper governance. So he's talking about us as an example and he's talking about things that the Chinese should be looking at themselves.
This is leaving aside Tibet, which I talked about before.
AMBASSADOR HUNSTMAN: Let me just pick up for a second on what Jeff said, because I thought, personally, our President was extremely effective in describing what makes us unique as a country. You have on one side the Confucian tradition; on the other, the Jeffersonian tradition. And it's explaining those differences that oftentimes isn't easy. And to get a President of the United States, as we saw yesterday in Shanghai, who talks about our traditions and is able to explain it to all those who were listening, that's important. And when you get a President in a room like we did earlier today, who does the same thing -- explains what makes us unique and why we feel strongly about individual liberty and freedom -- that's important. And I thought those comments were well taken.
Let me just say that on the earlier question, and Jake, Mike will talk about the $800 billion question -- suffice it to say we have a complex relationship on the economic side that brings us closer than ever before -- their interest in our economy and our interest in theirs.
But the question that was asked before about the President's first trip, and let me just say, as someone who just got back from riding with him in the car as we rode from the U.S. embassy back to the hotel, and the kinds of questions that he was asking and the interest that he has in the history and the culture of China, and to hear the kinds of questions that he asked the mayor of Shanghai as we had lunch together, and then last night -- they're all the questions that would be on -- you would think be on a President's mind: What do you do about jobs? What do you do about migration of workers? What do you do about infrastructure? What do you do about transportation?
And I noticed that the questions he asked were right on. And I could tell through the conversations over lunch and dinner, they were very important tutorials to hear from some of the most important decision-makers on site about what makes this country run.
And I would just say this in conclusion, as I tell many Americans who visit, if you were here 10 years ago and you're coming back for the first time, you don't know China. If you visited five years ago and you're here for the first time -- or the second time, you don't know China. If you were here two years ago and back again, you still don't know China. It is changing so quickly and it is so dynamic that you've got to stay connected constantly to get a sense of what this means in terms of the future of China.
MR. FROMAN: Just to finalize on the $800 billion question, clearly the U.S. and China have close, deep, broad, and interconnected economic relationships, and that was certainly through the recent economic and financial crisis, working together to come out of it through the G20 and otherwise. The $800 billion never came up in conversation, and the President dealt with every issue on his agenda in a very direct way and pulled no punches. And so I don't think the $800 billion had any impact on the agenda whatsoever.
Q For Mike Froman, on climate, it sounds as if they agreed to each take action without specifying what those mitigation actions would be. And so my question is, how does that move the ball for Copenhagen toward anything other than an outcome there at a very high level of generality? And for Robert, does it seem to you that you all will leave here in a posture that the President will consider those negotiations to meet his test of close enough for him to make a difference by going to Copenhagen, or not?
MR. FROMAN: I think this has been quite an important trip with regard to climate change, both between the discussions in Singapore with Prime Minister Rasmussen and the other APEC leaders, and then the discussions and agreements here today. And I think there are still, obviously, details to be filled in and negotiations to be had between now and Copenhagen, and those negotiations are ongoing as we speak.
But the agreement today reflects that there's a common view by the U.S. and China in support of what Prime Minister Rasmussen is trying to do -- that the Copenhagen process ought to aim for an accord that's comprehensive, meaning covering all the various elements of the negotiations, not just a partial agreement; that it not just be a political declaration of something that has operational effect, even as we continue negotiations towards a final legal agreement; and that it include mitigation actions for both developed and developing countries, adaptation provisions, financing and technology, as well as agreement that there should be full transparency as to the implementation of those commitments.
So those are four or five major elements of an agreement consistent with what Prime Minister Rasmussen has laid out. And clearly there are many other countries involved, and I think both the President and President Hu discussed today how they will work with each other and with other countries to try and reach an agreement. It's not enough for the U.S. and China to agree to have an agreement in Copenhagen, but clearly it's important that U.S. and China be pulling in the same direction if we're going to succeed in Copenhagen.
Q But just to follow up, some working on the issue, like Senator Kerry, had said there was a possibility the U.S. and China could come out with a specific agreement that would really be an engine to move the process forward in Copenhagen. It sounds like we don't have that.
MR. FROMAN: I think the agreement today reflected in the joint statement does give momentum to the Copenhagen process. There are further specifics to be fleshed out between now and then by the negotiators.
MR. GIBBS: And just in terms of the scheduling, John, nothing at this point has changed, and we have not made new determinations about later in the month.
Let me -- Chuck, I'll take one more and then we've got to get these guys back.
Q To Jeff, on Iran, it seemed as if President Hu had a lot to say about North Korea, had very little to say about Iran. And then in your briefing you said President Obama almost had to brief him about the status of the situation in Iran. If China is a player here, I mean, is this -- does this mean that they're -- are you worried that they're not necessarily going to help on the sanction front, if that's the avenue you've got to go by the end of this -- the clock is ticking on Iran -- obviously by the end of the year? Was there any talk the way there was apparently talk with the Russians about what sanctions might look like? Was there any talk privately with President Hu and the Chinese delegation on this front?
MR. BADER: I would say I would agree with you, Chuck, that President Hu spoke more on the subject of North Korea than on Iran. From the Chinese perspective, North Korea is a more immediate problem and a more immediate security concern, so it's not surprising that they would place more emphasis on that.
Again, without wanting to speak for the Chinese on this, I wouldn't -- I don't believe that President Hu is in the dark about what's going on on Iran. I think he's -- I think he is well briefed on it. The Chinese have been involved in the P5-plus-1 process. They have played a constructive role, particularly in the last few months as we've been dealing with this Tehran research reactor issue. They've been involved in all of the meetings with the Iranians. We've had conference calls among the six in which the Chinese have played a constructive role.
You were right in sort of the premise of your question that the Chinese have been less enthusiastic, historically, about sanctions, and the Chinese -- they have a substantial relationship with the Iranians, particularly in the energy sector. The Chinese clearly are hoping that there will be some sort of a resolution on this Tehran research reactor that will not require going to the U.N. Security Council.
But the President did talk to President Hu about the possibility -- indeed, at this point, when -- well, let's say -- I won't characterize -- let's just say the possibility that we will not reach resolution of this issue and we may have to go to track two and greater pressure. I would not say that we got an answer today from the Chinese, nor did we expect one on the subject. I'm confident that whatever direction we choose to go -- we need to go towards the end of the year, that the Chinese will remain part of the unified P5-plus-1 front.
Q Did the U.S. -- did the President at all bring up -- obviously the Chinese are concerned about their energy relationship with Iran. Did the President bring up alternative methods for them or ways that they could help the Chinese sort of make up for that if they discontinue --
MR. BADER: Not in this discussion, no.
MR. RHODES: I'd just add to that, Chuck, that through the P5-plus-1 the Chinese have been there every step of the way in -- as a part of the P5-plus-1 unity that the President's engagement has helped secure. They've signed on to the dual-track process. The TRR, again, was a U.S.-Russia -- the P5-plus-1 agreed to it in principle in Geneva. It was the U.S., Russia, France, and the IAEA as the parties to that agreement that were most intensively engaged in negotiating the details of that in Vienna.
So we were in close touch with them, but part of this was that, again, the Chinese were not in -- direct party to the TRR, but they have been in lockstep in the P5-plus-1 process through this. So in terms of your question in terms of the briefing, that's part of the reason that the President had a bit to say about the TRR process.
MR. GIBBS: Chuck, just to add one more thing, I think the IAEA just completed a report that I think is another important building block for the international community, when you have the IAEA delineating very clearly the responsibilities that Iran continues not to live up to. The structures in the U.N. Security Council that they have ignored, particularly with Qom, continues to build international consensus and brings -- with the P5-plus-1 in the lead -- builds that international consensus and puts more pressure on the Iranians. That was the goal of engagement in the beginning and that's the progress that's being made.
Q Robert, can we get one question about the response of the Chinese -- the behavior of the Chinese since the President has arrived? And we've had (inaudible) did not broadcast the event yesterday; there have been some arrests of dissidents; there was a tussle with a CNN reporter over an Obama tee-shirt; the central banking regulator berated the United States and said the currency issues are actually the United States' fault because they have interest rates that are too low. And what does that say about how the message that the President is bringing is getting through to the authorities in China?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he met with the authorities in China today. I think there was about five feet separating them throughout the morning, where the President was, as you heard from all these gentlemen here, very direct about every issue that we have in our bilateral relationship.
Q -- responding?
MR. GIBBS: Jonathan, I did not expect, and I can speak authoritatively for the President on this, that we thought the waters would part and everything would change over the course of our almost two and a half day trip to China. This is, I think as the Ambassador said, a relationship -- and, quite frankly, both the Presidents said this today -- a relationship that is based on mutual interest, that is strengthening, that we've made progress on. We understand there's a lot of work to do and that we'll continue to work hard at making more progress.


Public lecture series at Parul University aims to promote legal scholarship discourse and debate in forums that will enrich not only legal fraternity but also the society. Speakers for our Public lecture series will be distinguish Jurists, lawmakers, Judges, Scholars and Speakers from every stripe. They will be experts in their field and cover wide spectrum of topics related to law.
These lectures will be open to public, students, alumni, university staff and those students who are considering a career in law and members of legal profession. In Short, it will be open to every member of the community who is interested in the issues currently affecting public life. This will provide an opportunity to students and members of the public to acquaint themselves with subjects which may be outside their general knowledge and to learn from the leaders of the field. It will also prepare students to meet the challenges faced by our nation and the world.
Admission to the Public lecture series will be free of cost. The Public lecture will be followed with question Answer session to encourage frank and open discussion. All he lecture will be video recorded and will be made available to students for further reference.
We will begin the Public lecture series, very soon, with the topic, 'The role of legal education in today's society".
On 9th December,2016, on the occasion of Anti-Corruption Day, the students had attended a session on Anti Corruption, organised by the District Legal Services Authority and Anti Corruption Bureau. The session was addressed by Mr. Pankaj Aundhiya, Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Mr. M. A. Mirza, Secretary of District Legal Services Authority and Dr. Kiran Gardner, Dean, Parul Institute of Law. The Session facilitated via live telecast for viewing of the on-going programme of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.
On 1st October 2016, students not only got opportunity to hear Advocate Nalin Kohli, Advocate Supreme Court of India and Additional Advocate General for State of Rajasthan and Spokesman of ruling party of the country (BJP), who delivered a lecture on, ´ The evolving Polity and Economy of India." It was privilege for the students to interact with such eminent personality.


The growth in the number of people struggling to have food on the table has increased demand on various charities. This has collided with a national dramatic reduction in donations, down 8% since 2007.
We have more needy and less to offer them. You can see a very sobering map of the problem at by Googling "map the meal gap".
In response, a movement of coordinating the production of local food grown by churches, volunteers, schools and others in the spirit of "love thy neighbor" has begun. Resourceful communities now can create a system to deliver predictable harvests in large quantities for use by charities. Rather than having a church planting some beans, some corn, some tomatoes, all of which ripen at a different time in small quantities, the church is asked to deliver 20 bushels of corn at a specific week in July by pre-arrangement. This dictates the kind of corn to be planted, and the planting time. Caring for the garden becomes easier. The food pantry knows when to expect the crop and can plan accordingly.
As the supply of locally grown healthy food has expanded, food pantries have a new insight - as a nation, almost one third of our adults no longer know how to cook fresh food!
Cooking does not mean warming up left over pizza, or defrosting a Weight Watchers meal. Cooking is the ability to take a bunch of newly picked vegetables or uncooked meat, and turn them into something the family would want to sit down and eat. The adults of yesteryear were simply better trained to cook than we are today.
So we have an increasing number of people who need food on the table, less money to run the food pantry programs, an expanding local volunteer effort to grow fresh food to donate to the needy, and a declining number of people who know how to cook...a real mismatch that needs local action to solve.
The historic role of the food pantry or soup kitchen system needs to change from simply handing out food to include training people to prepare it for use.
A good example of an innovative program in food preparation and preservation is run byTriad Community Kitchen in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The Community Kitchen started a job training program to teach future food handlers how to prepare "ready to heat" meals. In partnership with Forsyth Technical Community College, training is provided in food handling regulations, as well as cooking skills. The trainees, working under the close supervision of certified chefs and college faculty, practice their emerging skills by preparing food for distribution to the hungry.
North Carolina's Second Harvest's Food Bank Program now integrates both the trained workers and the food processed during training at Triad Community Kitchen program into their overall effort. This program contributed to the successful distribution in 2012 of 21.3 million pounds of donated, purchased and prepared foods through a network of more than 400 partner food assistance programs in North Carolina - over 18 million meals served to the poor.
In addition to the Second Harvest effort, elsewhere people are being trained to cook venison. North Carolina has a creative program called Hunters for the Hungry which allows local hunters to donate deer and other wild game to be converted to stew or burgers. Last year over 20 tons of ground venison was donated to the needy.
Our country is full of success stories about how local leadership figured out a way to help their community, often while lowering taxes, increasing the numbers of people helped, and increasing community and individual self reliance. The more I learn, the more I am convinced that we don't lack ideas or role models. We seem to lack local leadership willing to take these good ideas and put them in place.
Chew on that for a moment. How do you fit into that picture?


text:
Q: Properly forward return value in Perl I'm pretty new to Perl and have a hard time wrapping my head around its very implicit type-system. What I like to achieve is a simple wrapper function that has the same signature as the function it wraps so it can be used in its place.
So let's say I have an existing function orig that I want to wrap. I takes a number of input arguments and has different return types based on those arguments. As long as I write the wrapper in the following way the return types are the same as the original function and it all works nicely:
sub wrapper {
    my ($first) = @_;
    print "before. first argument: $first\n";
    return orig(@_);
}

However, if I want to execute some code in the wrapper after the execution of orig I don't know how I preserve the types. From my understanding, the same way the input to a perl function is always an array of scalars so is the output. So the solution then should be this:
sub wrapper {
    my ($first) = @_;
    print "before. first argument: $first\n";
    my @result = orig(@_);
    print "after";
    return @result;
}

But that does not seem to work as expected. What am I missing? How to write such wrapper function that it works properly for arbitrary return types?

A:
From my understanding, the same way the input to a perl function is
  always an array of scalars so is the output.

No, not quite.
Perl functions can be called in list context, scalar context, or void context.
some_function(@args);                  # void
my $result  = some_function(@args);    # scalar
my @results = some_function(@args);    # list

Many of Perl's built-in functions act differently according to which context they are called. For example grep returns a list of results in list context, and a count of results in scalar context.
If you are writing your own function and wish to behave differently in different contexts, the function can use the wantarray keyword to detect what context it's been called in. wantarray returns true for list context, false for scalar context, and undef for void context.
Even if you are not consciously wanting to write a function which behaves differently according to context, you may end up doing so accidentally by returning a context-sensitive expression such as grep, or map, or an array (arrays in scalar context return their length).
The correct way to wrap a function without breaking context is this. And yes, I realise it ain't pretty.
sub wrapper {
   my ($first) = @_;
   print "before. first argument: $first\n";
   my @result =
      wantarray         ? orig(@_) :
      defined wantarray ? scalar orig(@_) :
      do { orig(@_); () };
   print "after";
   wantarray ? @result : $result[0];
}

Now, if your wrapper doesn't need to alter @_, and doesn't need to alter the return values, then Class::Method::Modifiers can make this a bit easier:
use Class::Method::Modifiers;

sub wrapper { orig(@_) }  # do nothing in the wrapper itself

before wrapper => sub {
   my ($first) = @_;
   print "before. first argument: $first\n";
};

after wrapper => sub {
   print "after";
};

A: I suspect there's a better way to do what you want in Perl, but since you specify only the mechanism I can tell you only how to make it work.
The return value of a Perl subroutine depends on the context of the call. Within the subroutine you can use the built-in operator wantarray to detect the context -- it will return a true value if the call was in list context, and false otherwise.
So to pass on the value that another subroutine would return in the same context, you would have to write wrapper like this
sub wrapper {
    my ($first) = @_;

    print "before. first argument: $first\n";

    if (wantarray) {
      my @result = orig(@_);
      print "after";
      return @result;
    }
    else {
      my $result = orig(@_);
      print "after";
      return $result;
    }
}

But bear in mind that a given subroutine is probably meant to be called in either scalar or list context. Writing something that behaves differently according to context is rare, so you would normally want only one of these two conditional branches depending on the behaviour of orig.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Mermaids: A Legendary Aquatic Creatures
Today mermaids are one of the popular figures in the world. People think a mermaid is a young beautiful girl combing her long hair sitting on a rock, and being nice to the other creatures in the water, but honestly there nothing close to that. These creatures are similar to the Loch Ness monster and the Yeti. Some believe they kind many fake mermaids, usually made of the upper torso of a monkey and the tail of a salmon, which have been shown in fairs and circuses. In the age or trading and exploring, seeing a mermaid was almost like traveling to new worlds.
Christopher Columbus saw three off Haiti, Sir Richard Whitburne sighted one when discovering Newfoundland in 1610, and Henry Hudson's crew saw a mermaid off Nova Zembla in 1625. Where do the myths of mermaids come from? Somewhere in the later Middle Ages, the fish-woman mermaid supplanted the bird-woman siren as the creature believed to bring sailors out of the correct path, although in many languages words based on 'siren' continued to be used for the fish-woman.
The shift to fish-women as the danger facing mariners may be related to an increasing ability to travel to the open sea, where mermaids live, out of sight of the coastal rocks where sirens had been thought to perch. Both sirens and mermaids have musical talents; bird-sirens sing and play the pipes and the lyre, where the mermaids use their voices to lead on the sailors to their death. Mermaids can raise and calm storms; they can trap men with questions and riddles.
In nineteenth-century Greek folklore, sailors in the Black Sea may meet the fish-woman Gorgona, who asks, "Does Alexander live? " If they do not give the correct answer," He lives and rules the world", Gorgona will raise a storm and kill all aboard. Mermaids combine the beauty of a young girl with a fishy lower body. The problem is how the men would have sexual intercourse with them. Some medieval representations get around this problem by showing the mermaid with a forked tail, but the whole point about the mermaid is that she is sexually impossible except through death.
As popular songs of the nineteenth century remind us, a man who marries a mermaid can never leave her, as there is no divorce court 'at the bottom of the deep blue sea'. An unusual solution to the problem of the sexual availability of mermaids is found in Magritte's Collective Invention (1935), which shows a beached mermaid with the upper half of a fish and the lower half of a woman. A related problem is how mermaids themselves reproduce; ale mer-people, or tritons, are shown in art, particularly in the Renaissance, but again they must have missed the point. Matthew Arnold's poem The Forsaken Merman (1849) is a rare example of the treatment of mermen in literature; it reverses the common pattern of a mortal man loving a mermaid but being deserted by her, to imagine a mortal woman being called back from the mer-world by the distant sound of church bells.
What had also influenced us to believe there were mermaids was the movie "Little Mermaid". Here the mer-world is having a system of anything that is being inverted of our own, in which not birds, but fish, fly in through open windows. Rather than causing shipwrecks, the little mermaid saves the life of a shipwrecked prince, and then makes a deal with the sea-witch, giving her tongue for a pair of human legs. Every step she takes causes her a pain.
Unable to win the love of the prince without her voice, but than at the end she turns back into a mermaid because the spell was broken. Then one day she is sitting on the a rock looking at the prince and her dad puts a spell on her where she can keep her legs and her voice and marry the prince. This shows that mermaids do look like that but in reality they look and act nothing like that. I feel that society can change their point of view.
Retrosexual vs Metrosexual
Goa Was the Jewel of the Portuguese Colonial Empire.
Bible vs The Quran

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


We already know your favourite artists, albums, songs and videos of 2018; the winners of our very first Metal Goddesses Awards can be found here. Now, it is time for us to share our personal "the best of 2018". The very core of our Metal Goddesses team created lists with their favourite albums, songs and music videos released last year. Get to know our musical tastes better, check our top 5 charts below.


text:
Report focuses on greenhouse gas emissions reductions, recycling viability, technology innovations and people
HOUSTON – Dec. 19, 2018 – Waste Management (NYSE: WM) today released its 2018 Sustainability Report. Titled "Change for the Better," the report highlights progress toward reducing Waste Management's (WM) greenhouse gas footprint, recycling viability, technology utilization and helping employees, customers and communities to be safe, resilient and sustainable.
"The world is changing more rapidly than ever. To sustain and succeed in the face of this change requires agility, adaptability and, above all, a resilient spirit," said Jim Fish, president and chief executive officer of Waste Management. "We see these qualities tested and proven countless times each day by our employees who manage the environmental needs of our customers. This year's Sustainability Report is a testament to our continued commitment to our planet and our people."
In addition to the published report, Waste Management also updated the interactive report microsite which invites visitors to go on a digital journey to see the many ways WM collects, processes and safely manages waste.
2018 Report highlights include:
Waste Management continued its focus on working to keep recycling both environmentally and economically feasible for customers. Waste Management has invested more than $1 billion in processing infrastructure alone, including almost $22 million in 2017, up more than $13 million year-over-year. This leadership resulted in 15.3 million tons of recycled goods in 2017, a 91.25 percent increase in recycling tons since 2007. To adapt to recycling challenges, WM worked to increase operational efficiencies and lower operating costs at recycling facilities, and actively works with customers, communities, and environmental organizations across North America to educate about contamination. One example of new recycling education efforts includes the launch of a "no plastic bags" in the bin campaign. More information can be found at recycleoftenrecycleright.com.
Growing a cleaner fleet. Waste Management has committed to reducing emissions associated with its fleet by 45 percent by 2038, against a 2010 baseline. From 2010 through 2017, WM has reduced fleet emissions 28 percent.
Harnessing energy at the landfill. Waste Management operates the largest fleet of heavy-duty natural gas trucks in North America, and nearly one third of these run on 100 percent renewable natural gas generated from landfill gas.
Technology Innovations. Investing in state-of-the-art routing technology to improve fleet efficiencies, Waste Management's fleet reduced miles driven by 2 percent. This equates to approximately 8.9 million fewer miles a year since 2017. Optimizing routes not only reduces our environmental impact, but also increases the quality of service.
To view the 2018 update, visit Waste Management's online Sustainability Report, sustainability.wm.com. To view past WM Sustainability Reports, visit wm.com/sustainability.
To learn more about Waste Management's direction and long-term commitment to sustainability, watch Jim Fish and other speakers on a live stream of WM's ninth annual Sustainability Forum on January 31, 2019. One of the keynote speakers is Valerie Craig, deputy to the chief scientist & vice president, operating programs for National Geographic. Visit the Waste Management Sustainability Forum for more information.
ABOUT WASTE MANAGEMENT
Waste Management, based in Houston, Texas, is the leading provider of comprehensive waste management services in North America. Through its subsidiaries, the company provides collection, transfer, recycling and resource recovery, and disposal services. It is also a leading developer, operator and owner of landfill gas-to-energy facilities in the United States. The company's customers include residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal customers throughout North America. To learn more information about Waste Management visit www.wm.com or www.thinkgreen.com.
This press release contains forward-looking statements, including statements concerning the company's future plans, goals and performance. View these statements with caution; they are based on the facts and circumstances known to the company as of the date of the statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to be materially different. Such risks include, but are not limited to, inability to implement our plans and strategies; environmental and other regulations; permit matters; competition; commodity price fluctuations; new technology; weakness in economic conditions; and litigation or governmental proceedings. Please see the company's most recent Form 10-K filed with the SEC for additional information regarding these and other risks and uncertainties applicable to our business. The company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement.
Ed Egl, 713.265.1656
eegl@wm.com
Tiffiany Moehring, 720.346.5372
tmoehrin@wm.com
www.wm.com
Waste Management Hosting Ninth Annual Sustainability…
| WM.com Investor Relations Privacy Policy Legal Notice


text:
\section*{}
\section{Introduction}
 Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) and soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) are a small group of
peculiar neutron stars (NSs) that are currently believed to have
superhigh magnetic fields B$\sim 10^{14}- 10^{15}$ G, and are hence
identified as magnetar candidates \citep{dun92, kou98, kou99, pac92,
tho95, tho96}.  Based on the convective dynamo mechanism, some
works have focused on the origin of the internal magnetic fields
of magnetars \citep{tho95,tho96}.  Magnetars are considered to be NSs
and might reasonably be expected to have very small radii R $\sim
10^{6}$ cm, although measured masses of these stars are about 1.4$
M_{\odot}$, where $M_{\odot}$ denotes the solar mass $\sim$ 2 $\times
10^{33}$ g.  In a common magnetar, the typical internal temperature is
$\sim 10^{8}$ K as estimated using the standard cooling mechanism \citep
{bac65,yak01,pag06}and its intrinsic superhigh magnetic fields may be
produced by the induced magnetic moments of the ${}^3P_2$ Cooper pairs
in an anisotropic neutron superfluid at a moderate lower interior
temperatures ($\sim$ 2.38 $\times 10^{8}$ K)\citep{pen06,pen09}.
Observations show that some SGRs and AXPs have a thermal type X-ray
flux, with the magnitude of average X-ray luminosity $L_{X}$ $\sim$
1.0$\times 10^{34}$- 5$\times 10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$.  A NS can be
treated as a system of magnetic dipoles ($B = B_{p}$, where $B_{p}$
is the polar magnetic field strength) because of the existence of a
${}^3P_2$ neutron superfluid in its interior.  In the presence of a
background magnetic field, the dipoles tend to become aligned in the
same direction, which would give rise to a phase transition from
paramagnetism to ferromagnetism in the interior of a NS if the
temperature drops below a critical temperature. Superhigh magnetic
fields of magnetars may originate from this phase transition and the
maximum field strength is about (3.0 -4.0) $\times 10^{15}$ G\citep{pen07}.

  When $B \gg B_{\rm cr}$, direct Urca reactions occur rapidly for
an arbitrary proton concentration due to the fact that strong magnetic
fields can alter matter compositions and increase phase space for
protons, with a resulting increase in $Y_{\rm e}$, where $Y_{\rm e}$ is the
mean electron number per baryon and $B_{\rm cr}$ is the quantum critical
magnetic field \citep{lai91}.  After entering the neutrino cooling
epoch, the direct Urca reaction is the simplest neutrino emission
process \citep{gam41,pet92}.  In the interior of a magnetar, where
matter is assumed to be totally transparent to neutrinos and
antineutrinos, the simple decay of neutrons and successive electron
capture take place simultaneously, as required by charge neutrality.
In order to provide a detailed view of the actual evolutionary scenario
of a magnetar, we should take into consideration the effective electron
capture rate $\Gamma _{\rm eff}$ (effective number of electrons captured
by one proton per second) due to the existence of Landau levels of
charged particles.

   The incorrect notion that $E_{\rm F}(\rm e)$ decreases with increasing
$B$ in an intense field ($B \gg B_{\rm cr}$) has been universally adopted
for a long time.  This misunderstanding has arisen because the solution
of the non-relativistic electron cyclotron motion equation $\hbar\omega_{B}$
is wrongly (or unsuitably) applied to calculate the energy state density
in a relativistic degenerate electron gas.  In addition, in some textbooks
on statistical physics, the torus located between the $n$-th Landau level
and the $(n+1)$-th Landau level is ascribed to the $n$-th Landau level
when calculating the statistical weight in momentum space.  If so, energy
(or momentum) will change continuously in the direction perpendicular to
the magnetic field, which is contradictory to the quantization of energy
( see Gao et al. 2010 for further details).  To the contrary, our point of
view is that in the case of an intense magnetic field, the stronger the
magnetic field, the higher the Fermi energy of electrons released from the
magnetic field energy.  The possible interpretations of this viewpoint
are also given in (Gao et al. 2010).

   This paper is organized as follows: in $\S$ 2 the values of
$\Gamma$ and $\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle$ are calculated; with regard to
the relationships between the magnetic fields and Landau levels,
we put forward our points of view and hypotheses in $\S$ 3.1;
in $\S$ 3.2 we calculate the magnitude of $q $ and give an
appropriate initial temperature $T_{0}$; in $\S$ 3.3 a numerical
simulation of the whole process of electron capture inside a
magnetar is presented; discussions and conclusions are given in
Section $4$; and the formula for the electron Fermi energy is deduced briefly in Appendix.

\section{The calculations of $\Gamma$ and $\langle E_{n} \rangle$ }

As the core density increases, the high electron Fermi energy drives
electron capture by nuclei and free protons, which reduces $Y_{\rm e}$ and
decreases the contribution of the degenerate electrons to the total
pressure supporting the core against gravitation collapse.  In this
paper, we focus on non-relativistic, degenerate nuclear matter and
ultra-relativistic, degenerate electrons under $\beta$-equilibrium
implying the following relationship among chemical potentials (called
the Fermi energies $E_{\rm F}$)of the particles: $\mu_{\rm p}+ \mu_{\rm e}= \mu_{\rm n}$, where
the neutrino chemical potential is ignored.  We assume that at zero-
temperature the NS is $\beta$-stable, but at non-zero temperature
($kT \ll E_{\rm F}(\rm i),\rm  i= n, p, e$, $k= $1.38$\times10^{-16}$ erg~ K$^{-1}$
is the Boltzmann constant), reactions $e^{-}+ p \rightarrow n+ \nu_e$
and $n\rightarrow e^{-}+ p + \nu^{-} _{e}$ proceed near the Fermi
energies $E_{\rm F}(\rm i)$ of the participating particles.  In the case of 0.5
$\rho_{0}\leq \rho\leq $ 2$\rho_{0}$, electrons are relativistic, neutrons
and protons are non-relativistic, and the following expressions are hold
approximately: $p^{2}_{\rm F}(\rm n)/2m_{\rm n}$ =60$(\rho/ \rho_{0})^{\frac{2}{3}}$ MeV,
$p^{2}_{\rm F}(p)/2m_{\rm p}$=1.9$(\rho/\rho_{0})^{\frac{4}{3}}$ MeV, $(m_{\rm n}-m_{\rm p})c^{2}$
= 1.29 MeV, where $\rho_{0}=$2.8 $\times 10^{14}$ g~ cm$^{-3}$ is the standard
nuclear density (see Chapter 11 of \citep{sha83}.

  For the purpose of
convenient calculation, we set $\rho=\rho_{0}$ in our model, yielding $Q =
E_{rm F}(\rm n)- E_{\rm F}(\rm p)=(m_{\rm n}-m_{\rm p})c^{2}+(p^{2}_{\rm F}(\rm n)/2m_{\rm n}- p^{2}_{\rm F}(\rm p)/2m_{\rm p})$=
59.4 MeV.  However, $E_{\rm \nu}> 0$ and the minimum of $Q$ is not less than
the minimum Fermi kinetic energy of the outgoing neutrons $p^{2}_{\rm F}(\rm n)/2m_{\rm n}$
=60 MeV, otherwise the process of $e^{-}+ p \rightarrow n + \nu_e$ will not occur.
Solving Eq.(9) in Appendix gives the expression $E_{\rm F}(\rm e)$= 40$(B/B_{\rm cr})
^{\frac{1}{4}}$ MeV when $B \gg B_{\rm cr}$ \citep{pen07,pen09}, where we assign
$\rho= \rho_{0}$ and $Y_{\rm e}\sim$ (0.08- 0.11) (see Appendix).  In this paper,
the range of $B$ is assumed to be (0.22346- 3.0)$\times 10^{15}$ G corresponding
to $E_{\rm F}(\rm e)\sim$ (60 -114.85) MeV, where 0.22346 $\times 10^{15}$ G is the
minimum strength of a superhigh magnetic field denoted as $B_{\rm f}$.  When $B$
drops below $B_{\rm f}$, the direct Urca process is quenched everywhere in the
magnetar interior.  The electron capture rates can be calculated by the
following equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\frac{G_{\rm F}^{2}C_{rm V}^{2}
(1+ 3a^{2})}{(2\pi^{2}\hbar^{3}c^{3})^{2}}I\nonumber\\
&&I=\int_{60}^{E_{\rm F}(\rm e)}(E_{\rm e}^{2}-m^{2}_{\rm e}
c^{4})^{\frac{1}{2}}E_{\rm e}\nonumber\\
&&(E_{\rm e}- 60)^{2}\frac{1}{e^{\frac{E{\rm e}-E_{\rm F}(\rm e)}
{kT}}+ 1}\frac{1}{e^{\frac{Q-E_{\rm e}}{kT}}+ 1}dE_{\rm e},
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_{\rm e}c^{2}$=0.511 MeV, $T= 1.0 \times 10^{8}$ K, and other terms appearing in Eq.
($1$) have already been defined in Chapter 18 of \citep{sha83}.  For convenience,
we use the symbol $\Lambda$ to represent $\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\frac{G_{\rm F}^{2}
C^{2}_{\rm V}(1+ 3a^{2})}{(2\pi^{2}\hbar^{3}c^{3})^{2}}\approx$ 0.018 (MeV)$^{-5}$
s$^{-1}$.  If we want to determine $L_{\rm X}$ and the average kinetic energy of
the outgoing neutrons $\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle$, the average kinetic energy of
the outgoing neutrinos $\langle E_{\rm \nu}\rangle$ must firstly be calculated.  The
expression for $\langle E_{\rm \nu}\rangle$ is of the form:
\begin{equation}
\langle E_{\rm \nu} \rangle= \int_{Q}^{E_{\rm F}(\rm e)}S(E_{\rm e}- Q)^{3}
E_{\rm e}(E_{\rm e}^{2}-m_{\rm e}^{2}c^{4})^{\frac{1}{2}}dE_{\rm e}/I,
\end{equation}
where $I=\int_{Q}^{E_{\rm F}(\rm e)}S(E_{\rm e}-Q)^{2}E_{\rm e}(E_{\rm e}^{2}-m_{\rm e}^{2}c^{4})^{\frac
{1}{2}}dE_{\rm e}$.  By employing energy conservation via $E_{\rm \nu}= E_{\rm e}- Q$, $\langle
E_{\rm n} \rangle$ can be calculated by the equation $\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle = E_{\rm F}(\rm e)-
\langle E_{\rm \nu}\rangle-$1.29 MeV.  The calculation results are shown below in
tabular form.

\begin{table}
\small
\caption{The calculated  values of $\Gamma, \langle E_{\rm \nu} \rangle$
  and $\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle$\label{tb1-1}.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}crrrr@{}}
\tableline
 B       & $E_{\rm F}(\rm e)$  &   $\Gamma$ &  $\langle E_{\rm \nu}\rangle
 $&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle$\tablenotemark{a}}\\
 (G)       &(MeV)      &(s$^{-1}$)     & (MeV)       &(MeV)\\
\tableline
3.0$\times10^{15}$&114.850  &1.022$\times10^{7}$& 43.20& 70.36 \\
2.8$\times10^{15}$&112.886 &8.892$\times10^{6}$ & 41.66& 69.94 \\
2.5 $\times10^{15}$&109.733 &7.043$\times10^{6}$ & 39.10 & 69.34 \\
2.0$\times10^{15}$&103.779 &4.367$\times10^{6}$& 34.31& 68.18 \\
1.5$\times10^{15}$&96.577 &2.255$\times10^{6}$& 28.54 & 66.75 \\
1.0 $\times10^{15}$&87.267&7.892$\times10^{5}$& 21.12 & 64.86\\
6.0 $\times10^{14}$&76.805  &1.501$\times10^{5}$& 12.88 & 62.64\\
3.7 $\times10^{14}$&68.805&13696  & 6.13&60.66\\
 3.5$\times10^{14}$&67.123& 9244.8 & 5.40& 60.43\\
 2.5$\times10^{14}$  &61.707&111.93 & 0.40 & $\sim$60\\
 2.25$\times10^{14}$&60.103&0.02375& 0.075& $\sim$60\\
\tableline
  \end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{a}{$\langle E_{\rm n} \rangle$ is calculated by
using the relation of\\
$\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle$=$E_{\rm F}(\rm e)$-$\langle E_{\rm \nu}\rangle$-1.29 MeV}
\end{table}

It can be seen from Table 1 that $\Gamma$ decreases with the decreasing
$E_{\rm F}(\rm e)$, and is reduced to zero when $E_{\rm F}(\rm e)= Q$.  The rate of the
electron capture reaction varies clearly with magnetic field strength:
when $B \gg B_{\rm f}$, $E_{\rm F}(\rm e)\gg Q$= 60 MeV, the reaction will happen
very quickly and the ${}^3P_2$ Cooper pairs will be destroyed immediately
by the outgoing neutrons in this process, which causes anisotropy in the
neutron superfluid and causes the induced magnetic field to disappear; when
the magnetic field weakens, the reaction rate becomes smaller; the reaction
will end if the field decreases below $B_{\rm cr}$.  By colliding with the
neutrons produced in the process $n+(n\uparrow n\downarrow)\longrightarrow
n+ n+ n$, the kinetic energy of the outgoing neutrons will be transformed
into thermal energy and then transformed into radiation energy via soft
X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission \citep{pen07,pen09}.

   However, the values of $\Gamma$ in Table 1 are too large to represent
the full extent of electron capture in the interior of a magnetar.  We
believe that the calculated values of  $\Gamma$ from Eq.(1) are not the
actual values of $\Gamma$ and need to be modified.  The same should be
true of the neutron decay rate ($1/927$ s, calculated by Eq.(11.4.1) of
\citep{sha83}.  To explain this phenomenon, careful analysis found that
when Eq.(1)is used to calculate $\Gamma$, we simply assume that electrons
and protons are free when magnetic field effects are too weak to be
taken into consideration.  In other words, only when $B=0$ can Eq.(1) be
used, so the values of $\Gamma$ in Table 1 are simply the values of the
electron capture rate onto free protons.  When Eq.(11.4.1) of \citep{sha83}
is used to calculate neutron decay rate, we make a simple assumption: pure
neutron decay in a vacuum and strong interaction effects combined with the
magnetic field effects are ignored. Suppose the values of $\Gamma$ in Table 1
were not modified.  If reaction $e^{-}+ p \rightarrow n+ \nu_e$ proceeded at
the minimum rate of $\Gamma$ in Table 1, the value of $L_{\rm X}$ calculated by
Eq.(13) in $\S$ 3 would be far larger than the observed value ($\sim$1.0
$\times 10^{34}$- 5$\times 10^{36}$ erg~s$^{-1}$, see $\S$ 1.  Further,
electrons and protons would be depleted within a few minutes, which is not
consistent with the actual circumstances in a neutron star interior.  Instead,
$Y_{\rm e}$ decreases insignificantly in the whole process of electron capture,
and the mean value of $Y_{\rm e}$ of a neutron star is $\sim$ 0.05 and is
comparatively stable, which implies that the electron capture reaction
proceeds very slowly due to the existence of Landau levels.  In accordance
with the Pauli exclusion principle, electrons are situated in disparate
Landau levels from the lowest energy state (the ground energy state) up to
the highest energy state (the Fermi energy state), individually with the
overwhelming majority occupying $n= 0, 1$ Landau levels.  Only the electrons
occupying large Landau levels with high energy ($E > Q$) are allowed to
participate in the direct Urca process \citep{yak01}.  In other words,
whether an electron could be captured depends not only on the electron's
energy $E_{\rm e}$ but also on the number of the Landau level it occupies.  In
Eq.(1), $E_{\rm e}$ must be treated as a continuous function, otherwise $\Gamma$
cannot be calculated by using discrete Landau levels.  If $E_{\rm e}$ is treated
as continuous, as in the free-field case, we must modify $\Gamma$ by
introducing $q$ considering that the symmetry is broken in the momentum space
caused by the superhigh magnetic fields.  In the interior of an NS, different
forms of magnetic field (weakly quantizing field, strongly quantizing field
and non-quantizing field) could exist simultaneously.  The properties and
distributions of these fields, are described in more detail in (Gao et al.
2010).  Here, we focus on the magnetar interior, where the weakly quantizing
strong magnetic fields permit direct Urca processes.  The details will be given
in $\S$ 3.

\section{Numerical simulating the direct Urca process
in magnetar interior}

This section is composed of three subsections.  For each
subsection we present different methods and considerations.

\subsection{Our points of view and hypotheses}
For extremely strong magnetic fields, the cyclotron energy of an electron
becomes comparable to its rest-mass energy, and the transverse motion electron
becomes relativistic.  We can define a critical magnetic field (often called the
relativistic magnetic field) $B_{\rm cr}$ by the relation $\hbar\omega = m_{\rm e}c^{2}$
which gives $B_{\rm cr} = m^{2}_{\rm e}c^{3}/e\hbar$= 4.414$\times 10^{13}$ G.  In the
case of $B\geq B_{\rm cr}$, solving the relativistic Dirac Equation for electrons
gives the electron energy levels \citep{can77}:
\begin{equation}
E=[m^{2}_{\rm e}c^{4}(1 + \nu \frac{2B}{B_{\rm cr}})+p^{2}_{z}c^{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $B$ is directed along the $z$-axis, quantum number $\nu$ is given by $\nu =
 n+ \frac{1}{2}+ \sigma$, $n = 0, 1, 2, \cdots $ is the Landau level number, and
spin $\sigma = \pm \frac{1}{2}, p_{z}$ is the $z$-component of the electron momentum.
Combining $B_{\rm cr} = m^{2}_{\rm e}c^{3}/e\hbar$ with $\mu_{\rm e}= e\hbar /2m_{\rm e}c$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
 E_{\rm e}^{2}(p_{z}, B, n, \sigma)= m_{\rm e}^{2}c^{4}+ p_{z}
 ^{2}c^{2}+(2n + 1 + \sigma)2m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B,
\end{equation}
with $\mu_{\rm e} \sim$ 0.927 $\times 10^{-20}$ erg~ G$^{-1}$ being the magnetic moment of
an electron.  From Eq.(4), for electrons in a given Landau level, $E_{\rm e}$ increases
with $p_{z}c$;  if the value of $p_{z}c$ is invariable, $E_{\rm e}$ increases with
increasing Landau level number $n$.  In terms of the relation between the magnetic
fields and Landau levels, our points of view and hypotheses are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item   Firstly, for electrons (or protons) in an intense magnetic field, the
maximum Landau level number, $n_{\rm m}$, decreases with increasing magnetic field strength
$B$.  However, it is very difficult to calculate exactly $n_{\rm m}$ occupied by a
homogeneous gas of cold electrons (or protons) in a given field, and so we can
only estimate it. Considering this limitation, we define a quantity $q_{\rm e}$, the ratio of the electron number in higher Landau levels to that in all Landau levels, written as
\begin{equation}
q_{\rm e}= \frac{1}{N_{tot}}(N(n)+N(n+1)+\cdots),
\end{equation}
where $n$ denotes the number of the lowest Landau level (not the ground Landau
level), below which electrons cannot be captured.
\item    Secondly, in the core of a NS, charge neutrality gives $n_{\rm e}= n_{\rm p}$.
Therefore, whenever the magnetic field significantly affects the electrons, it
also affects the protons, thus the values of $n_{\rm m}$ for electrons and protons
are essentially the same in a given magnetic field \citep{lai91}.  Similarly, we
define the quantity $q_{\rm p}$ as the ratio of the proton number in higher Landau
levels to that in all Landau levels, whose expression is the same as that of
$q_{\rm e}$.  We firstly introduce the Landau level effect coefficient $q =q_{\rm e}q_{\rm p}$,
and the effective electron capture rate $\Gamma_{\rm eff}$ is then defined as:
\begin{equation}
 \Gamma_{\rm eff} = q \Gamma = q_{\rm e}q_{\rm p}.
\end{equation}
\item   Finally, in the vicinity of the Fermi surface, the electrons with the
same energy $E$ could come from different Landau levels because the electrons
are degenerate.  However, the electrons occupying lower Landau levels cannot be
captured even if their energies are higher than the threshold reaction energy;
for higher Landau levels, there still exist some electrons with lower energies
$E$ ($E < Q$) that are not captured.

\end{enumerate}

In order to determine the order of magnitude of the Landau level effect
coefficient $q $ and to estimate the maximum Landau level number $n_{m}$ as
accurately as possible, we should firstly rewrite Eq.(4), as demonstrated in
$\S$ 3.2. we must modify $\Gamma$ by introducing $q$ considering that the symmetry
is broken in the momentum space caused by the superhigh magnetic fields.

\subsection{The evaluations of $q$ and $T_{0}$}

When $B\gg B_{\rm cr}$, $p_{z}c\gg p_{\perp}c$ and $p_{z}c \gg m_{\rm e}c^{2}$
= 0.511 MeV, Eq.(4) can be well approximated as
\begin{equation}
E(\rm n)\approx p_{z}c\cdot(1+ \frac{1}{2}(\frac{m_{\rm e}
c^{2}}{p_{z}c})^{2}+(2n+ 1 +\sigma)\frac{m_{\rm e}c^{2}}
{p_{z}c}\frac{\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{z}c}).
\end{equation}
Degenerate electron gas is distributed exponentially (a Maxwell
distribution)\citep{pen07}, so we define
\begin{eqnarray}
&&q_{n}(\rm e)=\frac{N(n)}{N(0)}=\exp\{-\frac{E(n)-E(0)}{kT}\}\nonumber\\
 &&=\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{z}c\cdot kT}\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $N(n)$ denotes the number of electrons in the $n$-th Landau level.
When $B\sim 10^{15}$ G, $T\sim 10^{8}$ K, $2m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B \sim 10^{-5}$,
$p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT \sim 10^{-6}$, $2m_{\rm e} c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B/(p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT)
\sim$ 10.  From these evaluations, it is clear that $N(n)\gg N(n+1)\gg N(n+2
\cdots)$, so $q_{n+2}(\rm e)\ll q_ {n+1}(\rm e)\ll q_{n}(\rm e)\ll$ 1.  According to the
Pauli exclusion principle, $N_{\rm tot}= n_{\rm e}$, here $N_{\rm tot}$ and$n_{\rm e}$ are
electron state density, electron number density, respectively.  Suppose $N(0)
\sim$ 0.9$n_{\rm e}$ in the ground state Landau level, then $N(0)/N_{\rm tot}\sim$
0.9.  Since $n_{\rm e}\sim 10^{36}$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{sha83} and $N(n) \geq$ 1,
$n_{m}$ is estimated to be $\sim$ several or $\sim$ 10.  It is important to
note that, in a non-relativistic weak field, the electron cyclotron energy
is $\hbar\omega_{B}= \hbar eB/(m_{\rm e}c)$ =11.5 $B_{12}$ KeV, the maximum
Landau level number $n_{\rm m}\sim E_{\rm F}(\rm e)/\hbar\omega_{B}\sim 10^{2}$ or higher,
where $B_{12}$ is magnetic field in units of $10^{12}$ G; also, in the case
of a weakly quantizing relativistic strong magnetic field ($B\sim 10^{14}
\sim 10^{15}$ G), the solution of non-relativistic electron cyclotron motion
equation $\hbar\omega_{B}$ is no longer suitable, but if this equation is used,
the rest mass of an electron $m_{\rm e}$ must be replaced by its effective mass
$m^{*}_{\rm e}$, which is far larger than the former after taking into account the
effect of relativity. In this latter case $n_{m}$ could be estimated to be
$\sim$10 or higher, rather than 0 or 1, which shows our evaluations are
reasonable.  From the above discussion, we obtain the following approximate
relationship:
\begin{equation}
 q(\rm e)\approx \frac{1}{N_{\rm tot}} N(0)q_{n}(\rm e)=0.9 q_{n}(\rm e).
\end{equation}
Thus the electron number in the lowest Landau level can be accurately
approximated by
\begin{equation}
  N_{n}\approx 0.9 n_{\rm e}\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}
 c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}.
\end{equation}
If we want to determine $q_{n}$, the value of $p_{\rm F}(z)c$ should be calculated
first.  Inserting $p_{z}c= p_{\rm F}(z)c$ and $E(\rm e)=E_{\rm F}(\rm e)$ into Eq.(4) gives
\begin{equation}
 [40(\frac{B}{B_{\rm cr}})^{\frac{1}{4}})]^{2} \approx m_{\rm e}^{2}
 c^{4}+ p^{2}_{\rm F}(z)c^{2}+(2n+ 1 + \sigma)2m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B,
\end{equation}
with $p_{\rm F}(z)$ the highest momentum along the magnetic field.  Next, a way
of calculating the value of any $p_{\rm F}(z)c$ in Eq.(6) is introduced as follows.
For example, in the case of $B$ =3.0$\times 10^{15}$ G and $n$= 5, firstly, we
calculate the values of $p_{\rm F}(z)c$ corresponding to $\sigma$= 1 and $\sigma$
= -1, respectively, by using Eq.(6), then calculate the mean value of $p_{\rm F}
(z)c\sim$ 113.96 MeV.  From the analysis above, the effective electron capture
$\Gamma_{\rm eff}$ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
 \Gamma_{\rm eff}= q\Gamma= q(\rm e)q(\rm p)\Gamma=[0.9\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}
 \mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}]^2\Gamma .
\end{equation}

   The steady X-ray emission ($10^{34}\sim 10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$) could
be from the magnetar interior \citep{pen09}.  We assume that all protons take
part in the process of electron capture, and that all the kinetic energy of the
outgoing  neutrons is converted and radiated in the form of thermal energy, then
$L_{\rm X}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
L=\Gamma_{\rm eff} n_{\rm p} V({}^3P_2) \langle E_{\rm n} \rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle\geq$ 60 MeV, otherwise the reaction ceases; $V({}
^3P_2)$ denotes the volume of ${}^3P_2$ anisotropic neutron superfluid, $V({}
^3P_2)=\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{5}^{3}$ cm$^{3}$, $R_{5}= 10^{5}$ cm, $\pi$ =3.14159,
and $n_{\rm p}= n_{\rm e}$= 9.6$\times 10^{35}$ cm$^{-3}$ setting $\rho= \rho_{0}$.  We
also gain an approximate expression of $T$ from Eqs.(12-13)
\begin{equation}
 T= \frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot k\ln[0.9(\frac
{\Gamma}{L_{\rm X}} n_{\rm e}\frac{4}{3}\pi R_{5}^{3}\langle E_{\rm n}
 \rangle)^{1/2}]}
\end{equation}

    In the initial stage of electron capture process, the initial X-ray
luminosity $L_{\rm X0}$ could be higher than the generally observed values
1$\times (10^{34}\sim$ 5$\times 10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$), so it is reasonable
to assume here that $L_{\rm X0}$ = 9$\times 10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$ and $B_{0}$=
3.0$\times 10^{15}$ G.  In order to estimate the order of magnitude of $q$
inside a neutron star, an appropriate initial temperature $T_{0}$ needs to
be determined.  Solving Eq.(10) gives the values of the possible initial
temperatures corresponding to $ n= 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, \cdots$, respectively.  The
calculation results are listed in Table 2.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{The possible values of the initial temperature}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll}
\hline
$\rm  n$ & $p_{F}(z)c$&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$T$\tablenotemark{a}}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$q$\tablenotemark{b}}&\multicolumn{1}{c}
{$\Gamma_{\rm eff}$\tablenotemark{c}} \\
&(MeV) &(K) & ($\times 10^{-18}$)& ($\times 10^{-11}$s$^{-1})$\\
 $\rm  1$ & $114.62$& 8.85795$\times10^{7}$ &1.9543& 1.9881\\
$\rm  2$ & $114.46$&1.77407$\times10^{8}$  & 1.9543 & 1.9881\\
$\rm  3$ & $114.31$& 2.66459$\times10^{8}$  & 1.9543 & 1.9881\\
$\rm  4$ & $114.15$&3.55777$\times10^{8}$  & 1.9543  & 1.9881\\
$\rm  5$ & $113.99$&4.45345$\times10^{8}$ & 1.9543 & 1.9881\\
$\rm  6$ & $113.84$&5.35118$\times10^{8}$   & 1.9543 & 1.9881\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{a}{$T= \frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}
(z)c\cdot k\ln[0.9(\frac{\Gamma}{L_{\rm X}}
 n_{\rm e} \frac{4}{3}\pi R_{5}^{3}\langle E_{\rm n} \rangle)^{1/2}]}$}
\tablenotetext{b}{$q =\frac{L_{\rm X}}{n_{p}\Gamma V({}^3P_2)
\langle E_{\rm n} \rangle}$}
\tablenotetext{c}{$\Gamma_{\rm eff}=\frac{L_{\rm X}}{n_{\rm p}
 V({}^3P_2) \langle E_{\rm n} \rangle}$,
$\langle E_{\rm n} \rangle \sim$ 70.36 MeV, assuming that \\
the initial X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm X0}$= 9$\times 10^{36}$
erg~s$^{-1}$ \\
and the initial magnetic field strength
$B_{0}$=3.0$\times 10^{15}$ G}
\end{table*}

    According to neutron star cooling theory, the typical magnetar
internal temperature is about 3$\times 10^{8}$ K \citep{yak01}.  When
$B \sim$ 1.0$\times 10^{15}$ G, $T\sim 10^{8}$ K, but $T < T_{C}({}
^3P_2)$, the critical temperature of ${}^3P_2$ a neutron superfluid,
$T < T_{C}({}^3P_2)= \Delta_{\rm max}({}^3P_2)/2k \approx$ 2.78$\times
10^{8}$ K, where $\Delta_{\rm max}({}^3P_2)\sim$ 0.05 MeV is the energy
gap maximum of ${}^3P_2$ \citep{pen06,pen09}.  From Table 2, an
appropriate initial temperature($\sim$ 2.6646$\times 10^{8}$ K) is
selected by considering that the calculated values for $n$ = 1, 2 are
too low , whereas the calculated values for $n$ =4, 5, 6  are too high
(higher than $T_{C}({}^3P_2)$).  We must stress that this initial
temperature is selected arbitrarily for a particular case and may be
different for other magnetars.   From Table 2, once $L_{\rm X0}$ has been
calculated, $q$ is determined ($\sim$ 1.9543$\times 10^{-18}$) but has
little effect on $n$ and $T$.  It is worth noting that the calculated
values of temperature are the possible values (or the expected values)
of the initial temperature, not the variable range of temperature.  In
the vicinity of the Fermi surface, the electrons with the same energy
could come from different Landau levels because the electrons are
degenerate.   However, not all the electrons near the Fermi surface
can be captured, since electrons with energy ($E_{\rm n}> Q$ =60 MeV)
cannot be captured if their Landau level number is too small ($n <3$);
similarly, some electrons occupying Landau levels ($n\geq$ 3)are not
captured because of their lower energy ($E < Q$).  We next define the
effective captured electron number of the $n$-th Landau level $N_{\rm eff}(n)$,
\begin{equation}
 N_{\rm eff}(n)= N(n)- N_{E= Q}(n),
\end{equation}
where $N_{E= Q}(n)$ denotes the number of electrons with energy $E$
($E_{n} < Q$) in the $n$-th Landau level.  Accordingly, the expression
for $q_{n}$ should be modified:
\begin{equation}
q_{n}=\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}
-\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{E= Q}(z)c\cdot kT}\}.
\end{equation}
If $B$ = 3.0$\times 10^{15}$ G, $T$ = 2.6646$\times 10^{8}$ K,
 $n $= 3, $E$ = 60 MeV,  from Eq.(7), we get $p_{E=Q}(z)c$
= 59.102 MeV, $\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{E=Q}(z)c
\cdot kT}\}$= 9.141$\times 10^{-18}$.  Further, when $E_{\rm F}(\rm e)$ =
114.85 MeV, then $p_{\rm F}(z)c$=114.31 MeV, $\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}
c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}$=1.549 $\times 10^{-9}$.  In a
given Landau level, similar to a mushroom cloud, the electron
number increases exponentially with increasing $p(z)c$, so $q_{n}(\rm e)
\approx \exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}$, which
illustrates our approximate ways above are reasonable.

\subsection{Numerical simulation of a complete electron capture process}
In this section, a simple way of simulating magnetar cooling and magnetic
field decay is introduced briefly.  For an  example, in order to determine the
temperature corresponding to $B$=2.8 $\times 10^{15}$ G, by combining $q_{4}$ =
$[0.9\exp\{-4 \frac{2m_{\rm e}c^{2}\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}]^2$ with
$p_{\rm F}(z)c$= 112.37 MeV, $T$ is decreased by step $\Delta T$ =0.0001 $\times
10^{8}$ K from an initial temperature $T_{0}$.  The expected value of $T$ is reached when
the value of $q$ is just below 1.9543$\times 10^{-18}$.  Once $T$ is determined,
the relevant values of $L_{\rm X}$, $q$ and $\Gamma_{\rm eff}$ can be calculated
easily.  The details of numerical simulations are shown in Table 3.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{The details of numerical
simulating magnetar cooling}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llll}
\hline
$T$          & $q$   &  $\Gamma_{\rm eff}$  & $L_{\rm X}$ \\
($\times 10^{8}$ K)&($\times 10^{-18}$)& (s$^{-1}$)&(erg s$^{-1}$\\
\hline
 2.5303 & 1.9582& 1.7412$\times10^{-11}$  & 7.835$\times10^{36}$ \\
 2.5302& 1.9551 & 1.7385$\times10^{-11}$ & 7.821$\times10^{36}$  \\
2.5301\tablenotemark{a}&1.9519\tablenotemark{a}&1.7356$\times10^{-11}
$\tablenotemark{a}  & 7.810$\times10^{36}$\tablenotemark{a} \\
 2.5300& 1.9488 & 1.7330$\times10^{-11}$  & 7.798$\times10^{36}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{a}{ The possible values of related
quantities in physics}
\end{table*}
where $\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle$= 69.94 MeV, $n$ = 3, $\Gamma$=8.892
$\times 10^{6}$ s$^{-1}$.  By using the same method, the values of
$q$, $\Gamma_{\rm eff}$, $T$ and $L_{rm X}$ in different stages of the
electron capture process are calculated and listed.  The details of numerical simulation of the whole process of electron
capture inside magnetar are shown in Table 4.

\begin{table*}[t]
\small
\caption{Numerically simulating the whole process of electron
capture inside magnetar. \label{tb4-2}}
\begin{tabular}{@{}crrrrr@{}}
\tableline
$B$  &  $p_{\rm F}(z)c$ & $T$&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$q$\tablenotemark{a}}
 & $\Gamma_{eff}$ &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$L$\tablenotemark{b}}\\
(G)  & (MeV)& (K)& s$^{-1}$ &  s$^{-1}$ & erg~ s$^{-1}$\\
\tableline
3.0$\times10^{15}$ & 114.31 & 2.6646$\times10^{8}$ & 1.9543
$\times10^{-18}$& 1.4881$\times10^{-11}$&9.0$\times10^{36}$\\
2.8$\times10^{15}$ & 112.37 & 2.5301$\times10^{8}$ & 1.9519
$\times10^{-18}$&1.7356$\times10^{-12}$&7.810$\times10^{36}$\\
2.5$\times10^{15}$ & 109.26 & 2.3233$\times10^{8}$ & 1.9513
$\times10^{-18}$ &1.3743$\times10^{-11}$&6.131$\times10^{36}$\\
2.0$\times10^{15}$& 103.38 & 1.9643$\times10^{8}$ &1.9491
$\times10^{-18}$& 8.5117$\times10^{-12}$& 3.734$\times10^{36}$\\
1.5$\times10^{15}$ & 96.15  & 1.5840$\times10^{8}$ & 1.9489
$\times10^{-18}$& 4.3948$\times10^{-12}$&1.887$\times10^{36}$\\
1.0$\times10^{15}$ & 87.03  & 1.1666$\times10^{8}$ & 1.9448
$\times10^{-18}$&1.5348$\times10^{-12}$& 6.405$\times10^{35}$\\
6.0 $\times10^{14}$ & 76.64  & 7.9485$\times10^{7}$ & 1.9446
$\times10^{-18}$ & 2.9188$\times10^{-13}$& 1.176$\times10^{35}$\\
3.7$\times10^{14}$ & 67.95 & 5.5284$\times10^{7}$ & 1.9441
$\times10^{-18}$&2.6626$\times10^{-14}$&1.039$\times10^{34}$\\
 3.5$\times10^{14}$ & 66.01 & 5.3028$\times10^{7}$ & 1.9423
$\times10^{-18}$ & 1.7956$\times10^{-14}$&6.982$\times10^{33}$\\
2.5$\times10^{14}$ & 61.62 & 4.1190$\times10^{7}$ & 1.9417
$\times10^{-18}$ &2.1733$\times10^{-16}$&8.390$\times10^{31}$\\
 2.25$\times10^{14}$ &60.02 & 3.8059$\times10^{7}$ & 1.9412
$\times10^{-18}$ &4.6104$\times10^{-20}$&1.780$\times10^{28}$\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{a}{$q$= $[0.9\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}
\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}]^2 $}
\tablenotetext{b}{$L_{\rm X}= \Gamma_{\rm eff} n_{\rm p} V({}^3P_2)
\langle E_{\rm n} \rangle$}
\end{table*}

From the simulations above, we infer that, once the value of
$L_{\rm X0}$ is given, $q$ decreases insignificantly and can be
treated as a constant which could be explained as follows: on the
one hand, in a magnetar interior, the electrons are extremely
relativistic and degenerate ($E_{\rm e}\gg m_{\rm e}c^{2}, E_{\rm F}(\rm e)\gg
kT$), such that when $T$ falls, electron transition between Landau
levels is not permitted because the electrons can be treated as
having a zero-temperature approximation; on the other hand, the
processes of electron capture and $\beta$-decay occur at the same
time (as required by electrical neutrality), so when $B$ decays,
the depleted protons and electrons are recruited for many times
leading to only a small decrease in the value of $Y_{\rm e}$ .  In
order to validate our speculations further, we can assume
$L_{\rm X0}$=1.0$\times10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$, and simulate the whole
process of  electron capture numerically in the same way.  The
details are shown in Table 5.

\begin{table*}[t]
\small
\caption{Numerical simulating the whole process of electron
capture inside magnetar.\label{tb5-2}}
\begin{tabular}{@{}crrrrr@{}}
\tableline
$B$& $p_{\rm F}(z)c$&$T$ &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$q$\tablenotemark{a}}
& $\Gamma_{\rm eff}$ &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$L$\tablenotemark{b}} \\
(G) & (MeV)& (K)  & s$^{-1}$ & s$^{-1}$  & erg~ s$^{-1}$\\
\tableline
3.0$\times10^{15}$ & 114.31 & 2.5277$\times10^{8}$ & 2.1614
$\times10^{-19}$& 2.2090$\times10^{-12}$& 1.0$\times10^{36}$\\
2.8$\times10^{15}$& 112.37 & 2.3999$\times10^{8}$& 2.1610
$\times10^{-19}$&1.9516$\times10^{-13}$& 8.647$\times10^{35}$\\
2.5$\times10^{15}$& 109.26 & 2.2037$\times10^{8}$&2.1585
$\times10^{-19}$&1.5202$\times10^{-13}$&6.782$\times10^{35}$\\
2.0$\times10^{15}$& 103.38 &1.8632$\times10^{8}$ & 2.1568
$\times10^{-19}$&9.4188$\times10^{-13}$&4.132$\times10^{35}$\\
1.5$\times10^{15}$& 96.15 & 1.50247$\times10^{8}$ & 2.1563
$\times10^{-19}$&4.8625$\times10^{-13}$&2.088$\times10^{35}$\\
1.0$\times10^{15}$& 87.03 & 1.1066$\times10^{8}$& 2.1555
$\times10^{-19}$ & 1.7011$\times10^{-13}$& 7.098$\times10^{34}$\\
6.0 $\times10^{14}$& 76.64 & 7.5397$\times10^{7}$ & 2.1552
$\times10^{-19}$& 2.3250$\times10^{-14}$& 1.304$\times10^{34}$\\
 3.7$\times10^{14}$ & 67.95 & 5.2440$\times10^{7}$ & 2.1535
$\times10^{-19}$&2.9494$\times10^{-15}$ & 1.151$\times10^{33}$\\
 3.5$\times10^{14}$ & 66.01 & 5.0301$\times10^{7}$ & 2.1531
$\times10^{-19}$& 1.9905$\times10^{-15}$& 7.739$\times10^{32}$\\
 2.5$\times10^{14}$ & 61.62 & 3.9072$\times10^{7}$ & 2.1529
$\times10^{-19}$&2.4097$\times10^{-17}$&9.303$\times10^{30}$\\
2.25$\times10^{14}$& 60.02 & 3.6102$\times10^{7}$ & 2.1523
$\times10^{-19}$& 5.1117$\times10^{-21}$ &1.974$\times10^{27}$\\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{a}{$q$= $[0.9\exp\{-\frac{2n m_{\rm e}c^{2}
\mu_{\rm e}B}{p_{\rm F}(z)c\cdot kT}\}]^2 $}
\tablenotetext{b}{$L= \Gamma_{\rm eff} n_{\rm p} V({}^3P_2)
\langle E_{\rm n}\rangle$}
\end{table*}

In reality, the observed values of $L_{\rm X}$ are different for
different magnetars.  However, for most magnetars, $B\sim 10^{14}
\sim 10^{15}$ G, $T\sim 10^{7}-10^{8}$ K, so the observed X-ray
luminosity $ \sim10^{34 }\sim 10^{36}$ erg~s$^{-1}$ which can be
explained by the calculations above.  The values of the average
neutrino luminosity of AXPs, $L_{\rm \nu}$, are determined as follows:
\begin{equation}
 L_{\rm \nu}=\Gamma_{\rm eff} n_{\rm p} V({}^3P_2) \langle E_{\rm \nu} \rangle.
\end{equation}
Clearly, our approach to calculating $L_{\rm \nu}$ is completely different
from previous methods.  For instance, the neutrino emissivity $Q_{\nu}$
can be calculated by Eq.(14) of \citep{bai99} as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Q= Q^{0}_{\rm \nu}\times R^{qc}_{B}\nonumber\\
&&Q^{0}_{\rm \nu}=\frac{457\pi G^{2}(1+ 3g^{2}_{A})}
{10080}m^{\ast}_{n}m^{\ast}_{p}\mu_{\rm e}T_{9}^{6},
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{9}= T/10^{9}$ K, $m^{\ast}_{n}$ and $m^{\ast}_{p}$ are
nucleon effective masses in dense matter, $G=G_{F}\cos\theta_{C}$,
$G_{F}$=1.436$\times10^{-49}$ erg~ cm$^{3}$ is the Fermi weak coupling
constant, $\theta_{C}\approx 13^{o}$ is the Cabibbo angle, $g_{A}$=
1.261 is the axial-vector coupling constant, $Q^{0}_{\nu}$ is the
field-free emissivity, the factor $R^{qc}_{B}$ describes the effect
of the magnetic field.  In Eq.(18), $E_{\rm \nu}$ is $\sim kT_{9}$ and
$B$ can be as high as $B\geq 10^{18}$ G, but is not discussed (here
the range of $B$ is 0$\sim$ 3$\times 10^{16}$ G).  Thus the value of
$E_{\rm \nu}$($E_{\rm \nu}\sim$ 0.086 MeV, when $T\sim 10^{9}$ K) is far
less than those of Table 1 in $\S$ 2, and the range of $B$ is not
consistent with that of our model.  We therefore ask what is the
essential difference between $E_{\nu}$ of the direct Urca reaction
and that of the modified Urca reaction (in the process of a modified
Urca reaction, $E_{\rm \nu}\sim kT_{9}$).  It is universally acknowledged
that the neutrino emissivity of the modified Urca reaction is about
six orders of magnitude smaller than that of the direct Urca reaction.
May this  be because of the increase of the number of particles
participating in the direct Urca reaction while the average kinetic
energy of the outgoing neutrinos $\langle E_{\rm \nu}\rangle$ is invariable
in both cases?  Ultrastrong magnetic fields can generate a noticeable
magnetic broadening of the direct Urca process threshold and the
thresholds of other reactions in a magnetar interior \citep{yak01}.
However, the modified Urca process are negligible if the direct Urca
process is allowed.  What is more, it is easy to imagine that the
neutrino flux comes from the thermal energy in the magnetar interior,
rather than from the free energy of the superhigh magnetic field, if
$E_{\rm \nu}\sim kT_{9}$ is used in the direct Urca reaction.  There
exist many different cooling mechanisms, including neutrino emission,
inside a NS.  In the direct Urca reaction, $\langle E_{\rm \nu}\rangle$
and $L_{\rm \nu}$ are ultimately determined by $B$, and are weak functions
of $T$, which is only equivalent to background temperature and decreases
with decreasing $B$.  The $\beta-$decay and related reactions in strong
magnetic fields have been investigated since the late 1960s (e.g.,
\citep{can71,deb98,lai91} and references therein).  Despite this previous
research, existing analysis is approximate and many assumptions are
invoked consequently, because our computational methods are completely
new approaches, that need to be validated empirically.  By using Eq.(11),
schematic diagrams of the neutrino luminosity $L_{\rm \nu}$ as a function
of magnetic field strength $B$ are shown in Figure 1

\begin{figure
 \includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth,angle=-90]{bl3.ps}
 \caption{The schematic diagrams of the neutrino luminosity $L_{\rm \nu}$
as a function of magnetic field strength $B$.   Circle and triangle
 mark the values of variables corresponding to $L_{\rm X0}$= 9.0$\times 10^{36}$
erg~ s$^{-1}$, $L_{\rm X0}$= 1.0$\times 10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$, respectively.}
  \label{fig:bl}
 \end{figure}

From Table 1 and Tables 4-5, we find that the neutrino luminosity
$L_{\rm \nu}$ is also a weak function of the background temperature
$T$.  The schematic diagrams of the neutrino luminosity $L_{\rm \nu}$
versus the background temperature $T$ are plotted in Figure 2.

\begin{figure
 \includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth,angle=-90]{tl2.ps}
 \caption{The schematic diagrams of the neutrino luminosity $L_{\rm \nu}$
as a weak function of temperature $T$.   Circle and triangle
 mark the values of variables corresponding to $L_{X0}$= 9.0$\times 10^{36}$
erg~ s$^{-1}$, $L_{\rm X0}$= 1.0$\times 10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$, respectively.}
 \label{fig:tl}
 \end{figure}

Figure 2 illustrates that the neutrino emission decreases with
falling temperature. The relationship between magnetic field
strength $B$ and the background temperature $T$ is shown in Figure
3, based on the data in Tables 4-5.

 \begin{figure}[th]
 \includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth,angle=-90]{bt.ps}
\caption{The schematic diagrams of temperature $T$
as a weak function of magnetic field strength $B$.   Circle and triangle
 mark the values of variables corresponding to $L_{\rm X0}$= 9.0$\times 10^{36}$
erg~ s$^{-1}$, $L_{\rm X0}$= 1.0$\times 10^{36}$ erg~ s$^{-1}$, respectively.}
\label{fig:bt}
 \end{figure}

Figure 3 shows that the direct Urca reaction proceeds as long as
the magnetic field $B$ is high than the critical value $B_{\rm cr}$
corresponding to the minimum value of the background temperature
$T$ in the core, and when $T$ falls further with decreasing $B$ to
below the critical value, the neutrino luminosity and direct Urca
process are quenched everywhere in the core.  It should be noted
that the surface temperature is controlled by crustal physics, and
is independent of the evolution of the core.  In these three
figures, $B$ is assumed to be in the range 2.24$\times 10^{14}$ G
-3.0$\times 10^{15}$ G. Note that when $B\leq B_{\rm f}$, the direct
Urca processes cease, while the modified Urca processes still
occur, producing the weaker X-ray and neutrino flux.

\section{ Discussions and Conclusions}

In this paper, we introduce an approximate method for
investigating the effects of Landau levels on the evolution of a
superhigh magnetic field, and also numerically simulate the
process of magnetar cooling and magnetic field decay.  The main
conclusions are as follows:

1. The effect of a superhigh magnetic field would be to speed up
the cooling of magnetar. When $B$ decays, the values of $\Gamma$,
$T$ and $Y_{\rm e}$ decrease, but$\Delta Y_{\rm e}$ could be very small.

 2. In the magnetar interior, the ${}^3P_2$ Cooper pairs will be destroyed
 quickly by the outgoing neutrons via the process of electron capture,
 so the induced magnetic field will disappear.

 3. The abnormal X-ray flux $L_{\rm X}$ and neutrino flux $L_{\nu}$
 come from the free energy of the superhigh magnetic field, not from
 the thermal energy in the core of magnetar, and are all ultimately
 determined by the magnetic field strength.

Finally, we are hopeful that our assumptions and numerical
simulations can be combined with observations in the future, to
provide a deeper understanding of the nature of the superhigh
magnetic fields of magnetars.

\acknowledgments
The author Z. F. Gao is very grateful to Prof.Qiu-He. Peng in
Department of Astronomy, Nanjing University for his help of
improving the paper.  This work is supported by Xinjiang Natural
Science Foundation No. 2009211B35, the key Directional Project of
CAS and NNSFC under the project No. 10173020, No. 0673021 and                                                                                Chinese National Science Foundation through grant No. 10573005.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Congressman from California spoke about the "attack" of Russia in Korea
February 9, 2017 RR Politics
MOSCOW, 8 Feb — RIA Novosti. A member of the house of representatives of the U.S. Congress from California Maxine waters in American television stated that the President of the United States Donald trump himself provokes impeachment, because doing nothing in response to the Russian offensive in Korea, reports the Daily Express.
During the press conference, the Congressman said is not calling the current President to leave his post, however, in her opinion, "he does everything for this".
In support of its position, waters gave the following argument:
"We are concerned about the fact that trump is willing to throw himself into the arms of Russian President, while he continues to attack Korea. I think trump will drive themselves in a situation where the American people have to ask the question: "What do we do now?".
Reporters also noted that the Congressman apparently forgot the name of the Syrian city of Aleppo, as they managed to insert it into his speech only after the tip of one of the helpers.
Earlier, waters had already attracted the attention of the media. So, in January stream of her speech was interrupted by the transfer channel RT. A member of the house of representatives called the incident "strange and unusual", and suggested that broadcasting could crack the "Russian hackers".
Previous Post:Israeli missile shot down the missiles launched from the Egyptian Sinai
Next Post:Media published a letter from the organizer of the September 11 attacks Obama


Ellie Phipps Price is a contributor to Writers on the Range, the opinion service of High Country News. She is president of the American Wild Horse Campaign and owner of Durell Vineyards in California and the 2,000-acre Montgomery Creek Ranch, a Northern California refuge for 240 wild horses.
According to a recent poll, it's a plan that 80 percent of Americans, including 86 percent of Trump voters and 77 percent of Clinton voters, oppose. But will Congress listen? Congress must reconcile the differences in spending legislation created by the Interior Department. The Senate version prohibits killing and slaughter; the House version allows it.
But what was intended to be a wildlife protection law has been implemented by the agency in charge — the Bureau of Land Management — as if it's closer to a pest-control statute that is designed to benefit ranchers who graze livestock on the public lands where wild horses live.
Ranchers who hold federal grazing permits pay $1.87 per animal per month to graze their livestock on public lands. Compare that to the average fee on private lands in the West, which is over $22 per animal per month. It's a sweet deal for ranchers, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. BLM policy has long favored this special interest group, even though they represent just 3 percent of American ranchers and produce less than 3 percent of American beef. The path forward to protect wild horses exists, but to get there, we need to deal with some real-world facts.
Wild horses are released back on the range in Nevada in 2017.
Fact #1: BLM's population limits for wild horses are not "appropriate;"; they're extinction level.
In 2013, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the agency's Appropriate Management Level was "not transparent to stakeholders, supported by scientific information, or amenable to adaptation with new information and environmental and social change." Yet "getting to Appropriate Management Level" — a goal that is simultaneously unscientific and unattainable — continues to drive the agency's unsustainable roundup and removal program.
Fact #2: There's room on the range for wild horses and burros.
Privately owned livestock vastly outnumber federally protected wild horses and burros on public lands. In Utah, for example, wild horses graze on just 2.1 million of the 22 million acres of BLM land grazed by livestock. In Nevada, ranchers have two-thirds of federal rangelands to themselves; in Wyoming it's three-quarters.
Fact #3: Slaughter is not a solution, but birth control is.
Not only is slaughter politically untenable, it also won't solve the problem. Slaughtering horses requires the BLM to continue rounding them up, which everyone agrees is unsustainable.
Fortunately, a humane alternative is available. In 2013, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the BLM use PZP fertility control to manage wild horses on the range. The vaccine is cost-effective, it can be delivered remotely by dart, and it prevents fertilization without affecting the horses' natural behavior.
Economic modeling shows that the agency could achieve its population goals and save $8 million in just one of 177 habitat areas by using fertility control. Despite this, the agency currently spends zero percent of its budget on birth control, promoting slaughter instead.
It all comes down to this: Will Congress stand with the American people by rejecting the distorted "facts" voiced by a self-interested few? Will Congress force the Bureau of Land Management to pursue a humane and sustainable program, or will it allow the mismanagement to continue?
The answer may not only determine the future of our wild horses, but also of the very public lands on which they live.