News - CNC West Technical Report: Machine-ready Blanks | DIX Metals, Inc.
Blanks, Blanks, And More Blanks!
Dix Metals Specializes In Supplying Precision, Machine-Ready Blanks Nationwide.
Huntington Beach, CA's Dix Metals provides local and national metalworking customers with precision, aluminum, steel and other metal blanks.
Founded in 1972 by Bob Dix and his wife, Bonnie, the company has grown steadily over the years through total specialization in providing blanks. The company currently has 55 employees and occupies a 110,000 sq ft facility fully equipped to meet its customers' requirements.
In keeping with our effort to provide our readers with profiles of potential resources we recently visited Dix Metals for an interview with its founder, Bob Dix. The results of that interview are presented here for your review.
CNC West: Bob, I was a little surprised when I heard that your company specializes in providing precision blanks without any other secondary machining services offered. Is there a reason for such a narrow specialty?
Dix: Yes, of course. For one thing our customers are machine shops and manufacturers. We're in business to provide them with precision, machine-ready blanks, not to compete with them as a machining job shop. Also, we've been able to grow steadily over the years without branching out. To give you an idea of what I mean, we've added one new customer a day to our books for the past three years. We now have about 2800 customers we supply with precision blanks and about 25% of our business is outside the State of California. For us the bottom line is we give them machine-ready blanks and they do the rest.
CNC West: You call your blanks 'machine-ready.' How is that different from, say, pre-machined blanks?
Dix: Well, it's probably just two different ways to describe the same thing, except we limit the kinds of machining we do to the blanks. At Dix Metals we think the term machine-ready is more descriptive of what we do. The only machining we do is to prepare our blanks to make them ready for our customers to do their own machining. Therefore, we call them machine-ready blanks.
CNC West: Okay, got it. But, if you don't do any secondary operations, what exactly do you do to create a machine-ready blank?
Dix: Basically, what we do is square the part. We can remove material from six sides of a part and consistently achieve flatness and parallel tolerances to .001" and surface finishes to 16Ra. On the other hand, we also can give customers simple rough blanks cut to size. It just depends on their needs.
CNC West: But why would they pay you to flatten and finish their blanks? Don't your customers have the ability to machine their own blanks?
Dix: Sure, most of them do. But it's really simple economics, Chuck. Over the years we have invested in some heavy-duty, specialized equipment that our customers don't have. As a result, they really can't do what we do to the blanks as economically as we can. For most customers it makes dollars and sense to use our equipment for these really specialized processes. Also, if you realize how long it would tie up their equipment to achieve the kinds of flatness and finish we give them, you can quickly see it's more economical to have us do it.
CNC West: Yes, I can see that. But what about materials and quantities and part sizes? Are you limited in any way in what you can deliver?
Dix: Not really. The way we like to describe our size range is to say we can provide blanks in sizes ranging from parts small enough to hold a handful to parts so big two men can barely lift them. As far as materials, we have a huge inventory of aluminum, but in fact we can provide our customers with virtually any kinds of blanks they need, whether it's steel, stainless steel, Inconnel, Titanium, brass, plastic, you name it. We supply a full range of materials.
CNC West: Seeing that kind of size range and material capability makes me want to go back and ask about your equipment. You said you have some very specialized machines that your customers probably don't have. What kinds of equipment are you talking about?
Dix: Well, for starters, we have seven state-of-the-art precision CNC plate saws. To my knowledge that may be the largest number of such saws under one roof in Southern California. These machines can cut plate up to 12 inches thick, 12 feet wide and 12 feet deep and they can hold tolerances to five thousandths.
CNC West: I see. I think I also saw Blanchard grinders mentioned on your web site.
Dix: Yes. We have two really large rotary disk grinders, or Blanchard grinders as they're also known, and we have three smaller Blanchards. The big machines are 200 horsepower with 84" chucks. As far as specialized equipment, we also have five double-disk grinders that go up to 42 inches in diameter, plus we have ten duplex mills, five CNC and five manual. Those machines run pretty much two shifts a day. As you can see, none of this is equipment our customers would normally have in their own shops.
CNC West: Some of this equipment looks pretty old.
Dix: Well, looks can be deceiving, Chuck. Take our twin mills, for example. We've had this equipment overhauled and updated with the latest CNC controls. Those machines were primarily designed for the automotive industry back in the 70's and 80's and you can't buy them anymore. So what we did was convert these machines into very close tolerance, all CNC, state-of-the-art equipment. We tore them down to the bare castings and had them rebuilt from scratch. As a result, they're really unique.
CNC West: Understood. But looking at the huge investment you have, it just struck me that you can't afford to make mistakes when you get an order. I mean, suppose a customer orders a lot of half-inch parts squared to within .001" or something and you make a mistake and ship the wrong thing. That could cost a small fortune, couldn't it?
Dix: Yes, you're right, but we don't let that happen. We have procedures in place to prevent it.
CNC West: Maybe you should tell us something about that. I'm sure potential customers will want to know how you handle quality control and what kinds of QC services you offer.
Dix: Sure, glad to. First, maybe I should say we serve a lot of industries that require really stringent quality control measures. Industries like semiconductor, automotive, and pharmaceutical manufacturing. As a result, we have committed to a philosophy of continuous improvement. We offer our customers SPC services, plus, if they require it, we can provide full traceability right back to the original metal manufacturer's batch. We use a company in Canada called Traceability and they give us instant retrieval of data. Of course, we use a lot of different methods to check our work before we ship product, but frankly, quality control starts before we even get the order.
CNC West: Would you mind explaining that?
Dix: Not at all. What I mean is that if a customers gives us the wrong order or we misunderstand the order, there's a good chance we'll ship the wrong parts. For that reason our inside sales people go to a lot of trouble to be sure both they and our customers agree on exactly what is being ordered. Our people ask a lot of questions to be sure we have it right and sometimes we find that a purchasing agent may not know the answer. At that point we may fax our questions to the customer and ask them to come back to us with the answers we need. Once we have a clear understanding of an order we ask our customers to sign off on an authorization form.
CNC West: Does that ever make them angry?
Dix: Maybe in the beginning, but most people think its a great way to assure they get exactly what they need.
CNC West: You have a modern new facility, 55 employees and 2800 customers. You must be doing something right, Bob. Thanks for the interview.


text:
Wireless Savings!
Looking for deals to help you save on the hottest new phone? With the AT&T Signature Program, union members can take advantage of special savings on wireless–including exclusive rebate offers designed to help you save on your next smartphone upgrade! Learn more
MEMBER SPOTLIGHT: Chelsea Bland, Chair, Local 2 LGBTQIA+ Committee
Chelsea Bland is a full-time unionist, in and out of the workplace. As a union communication professional, she supports the American Federation of Governmental Employees' communication department. And as a member of her own union, OPEIU Local 2 in Washington, D.C., she's played an active role in developing the local union's internal LGBTQIA+ Committee.
In 2015, Bland agreed to chair the committee and begin to develop its structure and goals. "I thought this was an opportunity to become more active inside of our union," she says.
When times are tough, we're here for you
Union Plus partners with brands you trust to offer special protections for union members and their families during tough times. If you're having a hard time — reach out. We're here to help. Don't struggle in silence!
Learn about Union Plus Hardship
Health Care COVID-19 ETS Good Start, More Work Needed
Statement from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issuing a COVID-19 emergency temporary standard (ETS) for health care workers:
Fifteen months into this pandemic, health care workers will finally have enforceable OSHA protections that will require their employers to provide prevention measures to keep them safe from COVID-19 at work. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh should be commended for taking this overdue step to care for the workers who care for us.
Watch Local 40 Vice President Dina Carlisle, RN on WNYZ News Channel 7 discussing the federal investigation into McLaren Macomb Hospital.
(WXYZ) — Last month, the 7 Investigators showed you how nurses inside McLaren Macomb were blowing the whistle on what they said were unsanitary conditions and a lack of COVID-19 protocols inside the hospital. That story sparked a social media firestorm, prompting thousands of shares and comments from patients and employees detailing similar concerns.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Swimming in a Sea of Green
by Dr. Rodger Murphree, D.C.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PRMA), the industry's trade association, recently announced new voluntary guidelines concerning direct marketing to physicians. Under the new guidelines doctors won't be getting pens, pads, mugs, and other gifts that drug makers bombard doctors with on a daily basis. Under the new guidelines these items and other freebies will be forbidden. In order to squelch the groundswell of public distrust for drug company tactics, the PRMA has been cowed into action.
"What took so long?" you might ask. There are millions of reasons that come to mind—all of them green with former presidents on the front of them. The medical institutions and doctors themselves have become addicted to the pharmaceutical industry's largesse; it's hard to imagine they can break their addiction.
But, please be aware that these are voluntary guidelines. And they provide no definite limit on the millions of dollars spent on speaking and consulting arrangements that drug makers have forged with tens of thousands of doctors. Nor do they ban the bribing of office staff through office breakfasts and lunches. Nor do they ban the common practice of inviting and paying doctors to attend educational dinners at fancy restaurants.
In 2005, drug companies paid hundreds of millions of dollars and provided for 60 to 80 percent of the costs of doctors' continuing-education classes.1
These classes have now become nothing more than a "my drug is best," brainwashing sales-pitch. Medical doctors routinely receive expense-free trips to vacation destinations for these seminars. Many are paid handsomely to speak on behalf of the drug companies at these conferences. We're talking $750 to $2,000 for a thirty-minute speech.
For instance, drug companies paid the American Psychiatric Association $60,000 for each of its 50-plus yearly industry-sponsored symposia. Pharmaceutical companies paid an additional $200,000 to $400,000 in expenses to host each of these events.2
Pharmaceutical companies often fly doctors to annual
meetings in exotic locations—free of charge—where they dine on gourmet meals in four-star resorts.
"I'm not that hopeful for any real change," says Dr. Marcia Angell, past editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and author of The Truth About Drug Companies. "They have bought politicians and doctors. They've looked at everyone and anyone who could stand in their way and they've thrown money at them."
Drug companies have lined the pockets of politicians, universities, and the medical profession (as a whole) for so long and with so much money that real change isn't even on the radar. In fact, drug companies spend more money on lobbying than does any other industry. There are now two lobbyists for every member of congress.3
Through the promise of increased wealth, the drug companies continue to persuade (bribe) and brainwash the majority of medical doctors about the newest "great" drug. As reported by Melody Petersen in her book, Our Daily Meds, Dr. Martin Keller, the chief of the psychiatry department at Brown University, earned more than $500,000 in consulting fees, mostly from companies whose drugs he touted at medical conferences and in published reports.4
And bottom-line results clearly show that free samples, vacation "workshop" retreats to posh resorts, and free educational "classes" over gourmet dinners do, in fact, sway the opinion of doctors. Profits are soaring for drug companies. The top ten companies reported combined profits of $35.9 billion dollars in 2002. That was more than the remaining 490 Fortune-500 companies put together ($33.7 billion) for the same year.5
"The result of all those attractive women in short skirts armed with pseudo-science invading the practices of doctors is that Americans are over-medicated, taking far too many drugs, most of which they don't even need, and they are paying too much for them," says Jerome Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Americans now spend over $250 billion a year on prescription drugs. In fact, Americans spend more on drugs than do all of the people in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom combined!6
Spending on drugs continues to increase by an average of 12 percent each year. Drugs are now the fastest growing part of the staggeringly high American health-care bill, and over $400 billion is spent on prescription drugs worldwide.7
Drug companies must aggressively market their wares, lest the public and gullible doctors learn the truth about the drugs they peddle. First, they're often ineffective. Second, they're quite dangerous. Drugs aren't the "magic bullets" that the TV ads would like for you to believe. Far from it, they are often no better than a placebo. Dr. Brian Spear, a scientist at Abbott Laboratories, reviewed the effectiveness of drugs used to treat fourteen different diseases and found that the recommended drugs worked for as few as 25 percent of those who took them.8
Dr. Allen Roses, a top executive at GlaxoSmithKline, has reported that some 90 percent of drugs work in only thirty to fifty percent of the people who take them.9
Drug companies definitely don't want you to know that prescription drugs—taken as directed—claim the lives of 300 Americans a day.10,11
Nonetheless, drug companies are all too happy to provide us with an abundance of synthetic, often worthless, and potentially dangerous drugs for everything that might ail us.
While I applaud the PRMA's new voluntary guidelines, I don't think much will change. Doctors will still be paid to attend free seminars at posh resorts while their peers on the drug company payroll deliver highly manipulated data promising what they most likely can't deliver—a safe and effective treatment. The American Medical Association and the other drug-company influenced associations have been swimming in a sea of green for so long, it's hard to imagine their coming ashore.
Dr. Murphree is a board certified nutritional specialist and chiropractic physician who has been in private practice since 1990. He is the author of 5 books for patients and doctors, Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won't Tell You and Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. To contact Dr. Murphree or for more information about his Doctors VIP One-on-One Nutritional Coaching Program, visit www.Essentialthera.com or call 1-888-884-9577.
1. Relman A., "Defending Professional Independence: ACCME's Proposed New Guidelines for Commercial Support of CME," JAMA, May `14, 20003, 2418.2. Relman A., "Defending Professional Independence:ACCME's Proposed New Guidelines for Commercial Support of CME," JAMA, May `14, 20003, 2418.3. Public Citizens Congress Watch, "The Other Drug War 2003: Drug Companies Deploy an Army of 675 Lobbyists to Protect Profits," June 2003 (www.citize.org).4. Melody Peterson, Our Daily Meds, Sarah Crichton Books, New York, NY 2008, pg. 25.5. Public citizen, "2002 Drug Industry Profits: Hefty Pharmaceutical Company Margins Dwarf Other Industries, "Congress Watch (June 2003), http//www.citizen.org/congress/reform/drug_industry/corporate/articles.cfm?ID=9923.6. Melody Peterson, Our Daily Meds, Sarah Crichton Books, New York, NY 2008, pg.5.7. Public citizen, "2002 Drug Industry Profits: Hefty Pharmaceutical Company Margins Dwarf Other Industries, "Congress Watch (June 2003), http//www.citizen.org/congress/reform/drug_industry/corporate/articles.cfm?ID=99238. Spear, et al., "Clinical Approaches of Pharmacogenetics," Trends in Molecular Medicine (May 2001).9. Connor, "Glaxo Chief: Our Drugs Do Not Work on Most People," The Independent (December 8 2003).10. Haley D, "The Other Drug War," Alt Med Mag, Sept. 2001 Issue-3.
11. Gary Null et al., "Death by Medicine," Life Extension (March 2004 web special), http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag/2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.hym.
Author itPosted on September 24, 2010 Categories Integrative Healthcare
Previous Previous post: Yellow Pages
Next Next post: Increased Injury to Vertebrae Adjacent to Fused Segments


Ci4100QL-THX is an in-wall speaker certified to THX SELECT2 standard. A deep understanding of the filmmaking process and surround sound is at the very heart of every THX certified 2.1, 5.1 and 7.1 speaker system.
Ci4100QL-THX is an in-wall speaker certified to THX SELECT2 standard. A deep understanding of the filmmaking process and surround sound is at the very heart of every THX certified 2.1, 5.1 and 7.1 speaker system. Engineered with design characteristics of professional studio speakers, THX recreates the tonal balance of the filmmaker's final mix in your living room. The results? Action sequences are impactful, and dialogue-driven moments are natural and engaging.


text:
Read Next David Crosby Answers Your Questions on Parenting, Joe Biden, and Fearing Death
Home Music Album Reviews
August 20, 2013 4:05AM ET
Songs From St. Somewhere
Jon Dolan
Jon Dolan's Most Recent Stories
The Best Albums of December 2020: Paul McCartney, Taylor Swift and More
18 Great Albums You Might Have Missed in 2020
Year in Review: Best Music of 2020 — Staff Picks
Jimmy Buffett's 31st album is full of chill evocations of island life, from "Einstein Was a Surfer" to "Somethin' 'Bout a Boat." His music is an island, too – a place apart where country, old-guy rock, jokey storytelling and Caribbean rhythms lap into one another. Buffett clearly has Wi-Fi on his boat ("Useless But Important Information" takes a shot at Twitter, and "I'm No Russian" references persecuted punks Pussy Riot). But he's most likable drifting away from the real world, as on "Too Drunk to Karaoke," a duet with Toby Keith, and "Tides," an ode to his own flip-flops-rocking leisure that could make a landlubber jealous.
In This Article: Jimmy Buffett


Yale researchers studying how the human cortex performs its remarkable feats have shown that regional variations in brain local circuitry — not just long-distance connections between regions — help determine how well we think, perceive, and analyze the world around us.
Imaging studies of the brain have shown in intricate detail that the cerebral cortex forms extensive networks of brain areas interacting through long-range connections. This led many scientists to focus on deficits in connections between brain areas as major causes of many mental health disorders.
However, the Yale team led by John Murray, assistant professor of psychiatry, used fMRI studies to show how localized differences can impact function across different brain regions. Incorporating neuroimaging and genetic data, they built a mathematical model of the human brain that predicts how these localized differences can influence patterns of activity throughout the cortex.
The research was published Feb. 7 in the journal Neuron.


Clueso (born 1980 as Thomas Hübner in Erfurt) is a German singer, rapper, songwriter and producer. Clueso, named after Inspector Clouseau in The Pink Panther, started making music in 1995. In 1998 he got to know his future manager Andreas Welskop and canceled his apprenticeship training in hairdressing.
His first vinyl Clüsolo was released on BMG Ufa the same year. In 1999 he moves to the 10vor10-Studios in Cologne with Welskop. A year later he signs a label contract at Four Music and releases Text und Ton in 2001.
Around that time he performs with Curfew at the MTV HipHop Open in Stuttgart and at Beats for Life in Cologne.In 2002 Clueso moves back to Erfurt and records the Rowdy-Club-Tape 2002. Another year later he starts producing his second album "Gute Musik" (featuring Blumentopf, Steer M, Tilmann Jarmer, Delhia, Tim Neuhaus and Jürgen Kerth), which was be finished by 2004.
It does not contain any English tracks and concentrates on singing rather than rapping. In 2005 Clueso represented Thuringia with the song "Kein Bock zu geh'n" at the Bundesvision Song Contest. The same year he was partner of Start Ab, the 'biggest non-commercial remix contest in Europe'.
Source: WikipediaIn 2006 Clueso released his third album called "Weit Weg" which means "far away". Again the album was relased by Four Music. The album is changing mood and style contiuously. It varies between influences of chilled pop, soul, funk and reggae.
Over the last two years Clueso toured with his band. They played over 120 club and festival gigs with a total crowd of 300,000. On the album Clueso joined forces with the likes of Max Herre (former lead singer of Freundeskreis), Flowin'Immo, New Telephatics and Razkajam.
Ralf C. Mayer who also had produced "Gute Musik", the forerunner of the current album, and artists like Xavier Naidoo and Die Fantastischen Vier helped Clueso to find his sound, from sounds of whisper to grolling bitter thunder.
Clueso performs hip-hop, singer-songwriter music and can be booked for (private) corporate events, personal appearances, or other music performances. The estimated booking fee range to book Clueso for your event, Please Contact. Clueso has more than 303.5K listeners worldwide and really knows how to entertain your audience. Similar artists are Philipp Poisel, Max Herre, Blumentopf, Fettes Brot, Tim Bendzko, Jan Delay, Die Fantastischen Vier, Marteria, Fotos . Contact AAE Music agency for ratings, reviews, videos and information on scheduling Clueso for an upcoming event.


Oh, and… American Airlines lost my luggage so yeah, shopping was how I spent the 45 minutes I had in Ushuaia (a lovely resort town that begged for exploration which alas I couldn't do). A quick drop into a half a dozen shops provided me with two sets of fleece pants, long johns (pants & shirts), fleece pullovers, a fleece jacket, hat, cowl, scarf, mittens, sock liners and socks, some basic toiletries, and a tube of serious sunblock. While this only represented a small portion of what I believed needed for a comfortable 10 days in the Antarctic, I knew it would be enough if I stayed on top of nightly hand washing in the sink.
Of course, my struggles were nothing compared to the Herculean efforts of Shackleton, Scott, Amundsen, and the many others who braved Antarctica in the early 20th century.
The idea that you can just hop on a few planes to get down to Ushuaia, the gate city to Antarctica (in a sense, the actual last city), or that you can easily replace high-tech polar gear at the last second (did I mention the airline lost my luggage?), is astounding. Hey, they didn't even have micro-fiber fleece and hand warming packs back then. (Not that I was able to replace the packs – those seemed unattainable in the region and must be more a Northern Hemisphere luxury).
But enough of how the travel here pushed me beyond what I thought were my limits… except for one thing – a small lesson from the universe I received along the way (the first of many, I hope). A few days back – while camping out with a good thousand other souls at JFK Airport, I happened to run into TJ Thyne. While most will know him as Hodgins on Bones, he's also the lead in Validation, an award-winning short I show in my screenwriting course each semester. In a nutshell, the film is about a man who validates parking tickets for a living, but what he really does is go out of his way to generously say something positive – to validate – those around him.
This has been a tough year. Not just for me, but pretty much everyone I know. We're all worn out, pushing ourselves just to keep going forward. I'm as guilty as anyone for not taking the two seconds to express recognition of others when we interact. We are each individuals with something unique to bring to the table. Letting someone know that you recognize their distinctiveness, by validating their existence — it's remarkable how a tough day, a tough year, a tough life, becomes softened just a bit.
The ship is a sturdy ice breaker. It's red hull, green painted decks, and white washed cabins evoke a cheery assurance that whatever may come, the Polar Star will endure. Unlike that top-heavy ship which went awry in the notorious Drake in December, I had no doubts we'd be fine. Best part about the ship? The bridge is open to anyone, day or night. Up on the 6th deck, the bridge carries the latest in satellite navigation coupled with a few well-kept naval traditions. Brass and wood blend with the high-tech, capped off by surrounding windows which looked out in all directions.
We met the expedition leader, a woman by the name of Hannah Lawson. Part zoologist, part artist (she spends the Antarctic winters in her studio in the English Pennines. Any penguin or whale sighting is cause to celebrate for Hannah – even if that sighting comes at 6 in the morning when you'd rather be warmly ensconced in your bunk. Her cheery announcements over the PA system beat any alarm clock on the face of the planet. There's a sense of absolute calm and joie de vivre in the woman's every choice of action. Her enthusiasm is contagious as she details what lies ahead. Her love of the penguins is particularly evident when reading through the daily "call sheets" for what each day's landings will entail. Seeing the iconic black and white birds is more an afterthought to my reasons for coming, but I'm more than willing to enjoy the penguins – considered by superstitious seamen to be the lost souls of former sailors. Don't get me wrong, they're cute, but as my kid recently pointed out, the penguin is the pigeon of the Antarctic.
It's 11:22pm ship-time and we're clearing the Beagle Channel as I write this. A pilot tug escorted the icebreaker through the channel, past Magellan penguins diving in and out of the chilly black waters, past a few porpoises dashing around the boat, and into the wide open waters of the notorious Drake Passage. The ship is rocking back and forth, very much like a giant cradle lulling me into a comatose state. I've much to share from the first few hours onboard about the crew, the expedition leaders, and a few other interesting passengers I've been fortunate to meet in addition to the researchers who've dedicated their lives to travelling down to the bottom of the world.
But that will all have to come tomorrow. I'm toast. Happy toast (being out on open waters does that to this overgrown kid), but still… toast.


Welcome to a new school year. I am pleased to be your child's teacher. Let me know of any allergy concerns or any special concerns regarding your child. Kindergarten is a time of discovery. Children will experience learning in many forms. It is my desire that your child develops a passion for learning by seeing, hearing, and manipulating. Together, we can make this a happy and rewarding year for your child. My door is always open to help in this process. Please feel free to come in and discuss any aspect of your child's learning. Email or call from 2:45 to 3:15.
We will have a snack each day.Please send a box or bag of cereal ONCE a month. Some good choices are corn pops, lucky charms, cocoa puffs, and fruit loops.
We love to celebrate birthdays! You are welcome to come with a treat, or send one for your child's special day. I try to have birthday treats from 2:00 to 2:30. Let me know your wishes.
Expect a KinderKorner page each Monday in your child's homework folder. It will explain the skills to be taught for the week. I will assign individual homework for the first 12 weeks. After that, your child will be in a reading/math group for the remainder of the year. HOMEWORK is intended to reinforce the lessons taught during the school week. I DO NOT want your child to do more than 30 minutes of homework each evening. We work hard during the school day. Homework gives your child a "yes I can..." attitude.
I send many books for your child to practice through the week. This gives your child the opportunity to practice more than one rule a week. Each child is individual in needs. My own two boys were as different as night and day! One always wanted more work and the other would barely do the minimum requirements.
The calendar and the "little phonics readers" are sent home for reinforcement as needed. Use these items to fit your child's needs.
Note: Please send a change of clothes to keep in your child's backpack. I'm looking forward to a GREAT year with your terrific kid!
How Can I Help My Child Before Kindergarten?


A career ending injury can happen to anyone, no matter how physically and mentally rigorous their job is. At Berry, Smith & Bartell, a Professional Law Corporation, we know that probably one of the most common fields for career-ending injuries is professional sports.
If you are unable to return to your previous position due to the injury you have sustained, you may be able to receive paid vocational training to pursue another type of position. Vocational training includes education at an accredited school.
With such a serious injury involved, the costs of treatment, surgery, rehabilitation, and other forms of medical care can be crippling. Because you are dealing with a lifetime injury, you need competent legal assistance filing your workers' compensation claim and seeking the benefits you need.
At Berry, Smith & Bartell, a Professional Law Corporation, we are proud of our qualifications that include more than 130 years of combined legal experience and a background that includes serving as a former workers' compensation judge.
When you have gone through a circumstance as horrific as sustaining a career-ending injury, you can count on us to interact with you in the most compassionate, helpful and respectful way possible. We know that sometimes during this process you are jilted by your employer and/or their insurance agency and we are committed to providing you with the best representation in order to attain the most benefits.
When you have suffered a serious injury, you can count on our serious legal representation. If you would like a free case evaluation with our Fresno workers' compensation attorneys, call our office at 1-800-848-6288 today!


text:
Q: Automatic database restore fails as cannot find file A while back I asked for help automating a database restore using a backup file provided from another server: Automatically restore SQL Server database from file from another server. I'm pleased to say that I now have this working as a SQL Server Agent job.
We are now trying to trigger this job as part of a maintenance plan that runs on the other (dev) server. At the moment we have a maintenance plan that runs on the live server and performs the following steps, in sequence:

*

*Back up the target databases

*Call an external process to copy the created backup files

*Clean up any backup older than 2 days (runs at the same time as 2)

*Start the restore job on the other server

When I run the maintenance plan on live it reports success, however when we check the job history on the dev server it shows that it has failed saying that it could not find the file. Running the job again returns success, and a manual check indicates that the files have been copied correctly.
It would seem that the restore job is being started too soon but I can't figure out why. Is there any reason why the restore job is being triggered before the copy process has completed?
EDIT: I've checked the maintenance plan logs and the restore job step starts 1 second after the transfer step. Obviously the transfer takes longer than this, so I can at least see evidence of the problem.

A: Copy step of your job will just inform operating system to start copy process and will mark this step completed and this will initiate next step "Restore Database", but meanwhile operating system is still copying your file to destination.
Before restore, you must verify file existence first.
Declare @file_exists int
EXEC xp_fileexist 'c:\MyDatabase.bak', @file_exists out
IF @file_exists = 1
BEGIN
  RESTORE DATABASE ....................
END
ELSE
  RAISERROR ('Restore Job Step Failure!', 16, 1)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Meet Dr. Scott
How to Reach Youth Today
Teaching Across Cultures
Book Dr. Scott
Turn the Page Assemblies
"If I don't speak, a student might drop out, commit suicide, or shoot up a school. So I don't speak because I want to; I speak because I must. Someone's life depends on it."
"Dr. Manny Scott is the best speaker we've ever had!"
That is what most superintendents and conference chairs say after they have heard Dr. Scott speak. He is the speaker of choice for conferences, conventions, and convocations all over the world.
He has delivered over 2,000 presentations.
He has delivered keynote addresses at nearly every national education conference in the country.
He is the only speaker in ASCD's long history to keynote at their national conference twice.
He spoke to 12,000 people from 192 countries in Hong Kong after President Nelson Mandela and Mrs. Coretta Scott King
Dr. Scott Regularly Speaks at the Highest Level
Click HERE to see for yourself what nearly 100 superintendents, principals, and others said about how Dr. Manny Scott impacted their students and staff.
How Can Dr. Manny Scott Empower Your Group?
Can educators really make a lasting difference in the lives of underperforming, traumatized, and hopeless students in just one semester?
In this keynote, Manny explains how teachers, admins, and other school employees helped him rise from a 0.6. GPA to a 3.9 GPA in one semester, and inspired him become the educator, scholar, and family man he is today.
R.E.A.C.H. Youth Today
How can your school staff reach, teach, and empower even your most underperforming students to excel in school and graduate prepared for work and life without burning out?
Through the proven practices, data-supported approaches, and life-changing principles of R.E.A.C.H.
How can your students take responsibility for their own behaviors so they can succeed in school, work, and life even if they have had adverse childhood experiences?
Turn the Page Assemblies not only inspire grit and raise student achievement; they also prevent suicides, reduce bullying, and create school-wide unity...in just one 1 hour.
How To Get Your Students To LOVE Learning - Guaranteed!
Watch the Video Now.
▶ Access Video
© 2023 Manny Scott


text:
Q: How does pickle handle serialization of recursive objects? I was going through the documentation on pickle (python pickle) and in the comparison with marshal section I found out that in case of multiple references to an object, pickle serializes only one instance of the object and all the other references are pointed to the master copy of the serialized object.
But i want to know how pickle serializes object in case of recursive objects.

A: If you already understand how it's replacing repeated references with pointers to the master, there's really nothing different happening for recursive objects, except for one minor twist.

Let's just step through some simple examples, using a simplified version of what pickle actually does.
To dump [1, 1], you need to:

*

*step into the list

*

*dump that 1

*dump that second 1

*dump a list-build(2) instruction

If you keep a memo dictionary of elements you've seen, you can:

*

*look for id([1, 1]) in memo—not seen, so step into the list

*

*look for id(1) in memo—not seen, so dump the 1, and add it to memo

*look for id(1) in memo—already there, so just dump a reference

*dump a list-build(2) instruction

*add the list to memo

Now, what if we have something like lst = []; lst.append(lst) and try to dump that?

*

*look for id([...]) in memo—not seen, so step into the list

*

*look for id([...]) in memo—not seen, so step into the list

… oops, that will hit a RecursionError.
So, what you do instead is to add the target for id([...]) to memo as soon as you see it—before you actually emit the code that builds the list. That's fine; references only need to know the position, not what's there. So:

*

*look for id([...]) in memo—not seen, so add it to memo, then step into the list

*

*look for id([...]) in memo—seen, so just put a reference

*put a list-build(1) instruction

This does make things slightly slower, and can generate larger pickles, so pickle has a fast option to not pass down a memo dict. If you use that option, you will get a RecursionError. And the option is deprecated anyway. As the docs say, the way to get smaller pickles is to build the pickle normally, then call optimize on it, which will filter out any unnecessary PUTs that got created.

Of course the real pickle doesn't dump things like 1 and list-build(2)—but it's actually not that different. You can use the pickletools module to see what it really does generate:
    0: \x80 PROTO      3
    2: ]    EMPTY_LIST
    3: q    BINPUT     0
    5: (    MARK
    6: K        BININT1    1
    8: K        BININT1    1
   10: e        APPENDS    (MARK at 5)
   11: .    STOP

As you can see, the 1 is basically just BININT1 1, and it didn't bother making a shared reference because 1 is a simple object that's just as small as the reference would be. But, rather than a build-list(2) it actually creates an EMPTY_LIST and then calls and APPENDS to add the elements to the list.
And if you dump the recursively self-including list:
    0: \x80 PROTO      3
    2: ]    EMPTY_LIST
    3: q    BINPUT     0
    5: h    BINGET     0
    7: a    APPEND
    8: .    STOP

… it's just appending the list to itself. The same way you build it in Python.


When the surgery is closed you will be asked to call the NHS 111 service.
Please note that reception opening times above are when the telephone lines are on.
Rating 1 out of 5 stars - Frustrating to get an appointment.


text:
Ein Katholisches Militärpfarramt (KMilPfA) ist eine Ortsbehörde des Bundes im Geschäftsbereich des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung. Die rund 100 Kleinstdienststellen an Bundeswehrstandorte im gesamten Bundesgebiet sowie an vier Standorten im Ausland bestehen grundsätzlich aus einem Militärpfarrer, der die Behörde leitet und Beamter auf Zeit ist, und einem Pfarrhelfer.

Status und Aufgaben
Die Katholischen Militärpfarrämter gehören zum Organisationsbereich Militärseelsorge der Bundeswehr und unterstehen (mit Ausnahme der Auslandsstandorte) den Katholischen Militärdekanaten, die die Dienstaufsicht über sie ausüben. Diese sind wiederum dem Katholischen Militärbischofsamt als Bundesoberbehörde nachgeordnet. Dessen Leiter, der Militärgeneralvikar, ist Disziplinarvorgesetzter aller Militärgeistlichen.

Die Katholischen Militärpfarrämter sind in der Regel für verschiedene Dienststellen und Liegenschaften zuständig und betreuen die dortigen Soldaten in ihrem Dienst in der Bundeswehr, im soldatischen Alltag wie auch bei den Auslandseinsätzen. Durch Seelsorge geben sie Orientierung und Unterstützung für alle Bundeswehrangehörigen.

In Einzelfällen haben die Katholischen Militärpfarrämter weiteres Personal, wie einem Diakon, einem weiteren Pfarrhelfer oder einer Bürokraft, aber immer nur einen Militärpfarrer. Daher gibt es an den größten Bundeswehr-Standorten mit vielen katholischen Soldaten mehrere Katholische Militärpfarrämter: Drei in Koblenz und jeweils zwei in Berlin, Hamburg, Köln, Ulm und Wilhelmshaven. Einige Katholische Militärpfarrämter sind mit leitenden Militärgeistlichen besetzt, die die Amtsbezeichnung Militärdekan führen und keine Beamte auf Zeit sind.

Zu den kirchlichen Aufgaben der Katholischen Militärpfarrämter gehören die Durchführung von Gottesdiensten und von Seelsorgegesprächen. In der Erfüllung der kirchlichen Aufgaben ("geistlicher Auftrag") sind die Militärgeistlichen von staatlichen Weisungen unabhängig. Dort können das kirchliche Seelsorgegeheimnis und das kirchliche Beichtgeheimnis gelten. Zu den staatlichen Aufgaben gehört die Erteilung von Lebenskundlichem Unterricht, welcher nicht als Religionsausübung gilt, ist für alle Soldaten verpflichtend ist und nach Vorgaben und im Auftrag des Staates durchgeführt wird.

Auslandsstandorte
Die drei Deutschen Katholischen Militärpfarrämter an den Auslandsstandorten der Bundeswehr sind:

 Deutsches Katholisches Militärpfarramt Belgien/Frankreich (SHAPE)
 Deutsches Katholisches Militärpfarramt Italien (Neapel)
 Deutsches Katholisches Militärpfarramt USA (Fort Bliss)

Sie werden nicht durch ein Katholisches Militärdekanat, sondern unmittelbar durch das Katholische Militärbischofsamt geführt. Zudem gibt es vier Katholische Militärgeistliche im Nebenamt:

 Katholischer Militärgeistlicher im Nebenamt für Portugal (Lissabon)
 Katholischer Militärgeistlicher im Nebenamt für Spanien (Albacete)
 Katholischer Militärgeistlicher im Nebenamt für die Türkei (Antalya)
 Katholischer Militärgeistlicher im Nebenamt für Washington, D.C./USA

Geschichte
Der Bestand der Katholischen Militärpfarrämter wird regelmäßig an die Struktur der Bundeswehr (Standortschließungen, -reduzierungen, -aufwüchse) angepasst.

Weblinks
 Katholische Militärpfarrämter auf www.bundeswehr.de

Einzelnachweise

Behörde der Militärseelsorge (Bundeswehr)
Katholische Militärseelsorge

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Numpy not found after installation I just installed numpy on my PC (running windows 10, running python 3.5.2) using WinPython, but when i try to import it in IDLE with:   import numpy I get the ImportError: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Users\MY_USERNAME\Desktop\DATA\dataScience1.py", line 1, in <module>
    import numpy
ImportError: No module named 'numpy'.
Did I possibly install it incorrectly, or do I need to do something else before it can be used?

A: In Linux and Mac OS systems we can install modules directly by mentioning
pip install modulename (or) sudo pip install modulename

in terminal or command prompt.
But in windows we should mention location of python folder in c directory like c:\python3 and later we should use
pip install modulename

in command prompt or terminal.
or
go n check whether numpy module is installed in sitepackages of python 3 folder in c directory or not.

A: Support for Python 3 was added in NumPy version 1.5.0, so to begin with, you must download/install a newer version of NumPy.
or use this command to install numpy. This will install the latest version of numpy.
pip install numpy

A: Winpython has two size, and the smallest "Zero" size doesn't include numpy


text:
«Автопортрет у білому кожусі» — автопортрет українського художника і педагога Федіра Кричевського. Відомості про час створення портрета суперечливі: з 1926 по 1932 рр. Зберігається в Національному художньому музеї України.

Опис
Перед нами імпозантний, сильний, величний і впевнений в собі чоловік, він стоїть, розставивши ноги, «як супермен часів Відродження» (мистецтвознавець Дмитро Горбачов).«Маскулінний легень у білому кожусі». Могутня постать вольового й рішучого чоловіка з руками, упертими в боки, який ніби готовий до бою, замає все полотно. Чітко та ясно висловлена українська народна основа портрета. Науковці вважають, що у композиції автопортрета та манері зображення одягу портрета вальника відчувається вплив ренесансних традицій, зокрема «сарматського» портрета польської шляхти XVI-XVII ст.

Примітки
Картини Національного художнього музею України
Автопортрети


text:
Remembering Murray Gell-Mann
(1929–2019), Inventor of Quarks
First Encounters
In the mid-1970s, particle physics was hot. Quarks were in. Group theory was in. Field theory was in. And so much progress was being made that it seemed like the fundamental theory of physics might be close at hand.
Right in the middle of all this was Murray Gell-Mann—responsible for not one, but most of the leaps of intuition that had brought particle physics to where it was. There'd been other theories, but Murray's—with their somewhat elaborate and abstract mathematics—were always the ones that seemed to carry the day.
It was the spring of 1978 and I was 18 years old. I'd been publishing papers on particle physics for a few years, and had gotten quite known around the international particle physics community (and, yes, it took decades to live down my teenage-particle-physicist persona). I was in England, but planned to soon go to graduate school in the US, and was choosing between Caltech and Princeton. And one weekend afternoon when I was about to go out, the phone rang. In those days, it was obvious if it was an international call. "This is Murray Gell-Mann", the caller said, then launched into a monologue about why Caltech was the center of the universe for particle physics at the time.
This essay is also in:
Scientific American »
Perhaps not as starstruck as I should have been, I asked a few practical questions, which Murray dismissed. The call ended with something like, "Well, we'd like to have you at Caltech".
A few months later I was indeed at Caltech. I remember the evening I arrived, wandering around the empty 4th floor of Lauritsen Lab—the home of Caltech theoretical particle physics. There were all sorts of names I recognized on office doors, and there were two offices that were obviously the largest: "M. Gell-Mann" and "R. Feynman". (In between them was a small office labeled "H. Tuck"—which by the next day I'd realized was occupied by Helen Tuck, the lively longtime departmental assistant.)
There was a regular Friday lunch in the theoretical physics group, and as soon as a Friday came around, I met Murray Gell-Mann there. The first thing he said to me was, "It must be a culture shock coming here from England". Then he looked me up and down. There I was in an unreasonably bright yellow shirt and sandals—looking, in fact, quite Californian. Murray seemed embarrassed, mumbled some pleasantry, then turned away.
With Murray at Caltech
I never worked directly with Murray (though he would later describe me to others as "our student"). But I interacted with him frequently while I was at Caltech. He was a strange mixture of gracious and gregarious, together with austere and combative. He had an expressive face, which would wrinkle up if he didn't approve of what was being said.
Murray always had people and things he approved of, and ones he didn't—to which he would often give disparaging nicknames. (He would always refer to solid-state physics as "squalid-state physics".) Sometimes he would pretend that things he did not like simply did not exist. I remember once talking to him about something in quantum field theory called the beta function. His face showed no recognition of what I was talking about, and I was getting slightly exasperated. Eventually I blurted out, "But, Murray, didn't you invent this?" "Oh", he said, suddenly much more charming, "You mean g times the psi function. Why didn't you just say that? Now I understand". Of course, he had understood all along, but was being difficult about me using the "beta function" term, even though it had by then been standard for years.
I could never quite figure out what it was that made Murray impressed by some people and not others. He would routinely disparage physicists who were destined for great success, and would vigorously promote ones who didn't seem so promising, and didn't in fact do well. So when he promoted me, I was on the one hand flattered, but on the other hand concerned about what his endorsement might really mean.
The interaction between Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman was an interesting thing to behold. Both came from New York, but Feynman relished his "working-class" New York accent, while Gell-Mann affected the best pronunciation of words from any language. Both would make surprisingly childish comments about the other.
I remember Feynman insisting on telling me the story of the origin of the word "quark". He said he'd been talking to Murray one Friday about these hypothetical particles, and in their conversation they'd needed a name for them. Feynman told me he said (no doubt in his characteristic accent), "Let's call them 'quacks'". The next Monday he said Murray came to him very excited and said he'd found the word "quark" in James Joyce. In telling this to me, Feynman then went into a long diatribe about how Murray always seemed to think the names for things were so important. "Having a name for something doesn't tell you a damned thing", Feynman said. (Having now spent so much of my life as a language designer, I might disagree). Feynman went on, mocking Murray's concern for things like what different birds are called. (Murray was an avid bird watcher.)
Meanwhile, Feynman had worked on particles which seemed (and turned out to be) related to quarks. Feynman had called them "partons". Murray insisted on always referring to them as "put-ons".
Even though in terms of longstanding contributions to particle physics (if not physics in general) Murray was the clear winner, he always seemed to feel as if he was in the shadow of Feynman, particularly with Feynman's showmanship. When Feynman died, Murray wrote a rather snarky obituary, saying of Feynman: "He surrounded himself with a cloud of myth, and he spent a great deal of time and energy generating anecdotes about himself". I never quite understood why Murray—who could have gone to any university in the world—chose to work at Caltech for 33 years in an office two doors down from Feynman.
Murray cared a lot about what people thought of him, but would routinely (and maddeningly to watch) put himself in positions where he would look bad. He was very interested in—and I think very knowledgeable about—words and languages. And when he would meet someone, he would make a point of regaling them with information about the origin of their name (curiously—as I learned only years later—his own name, "Gell-Mann", had been "upgraded" from "Gellmann"). Now, of course, if there's one word people tend to know something about, it's their own name. And, needless to say, Murray sometimes got its origins wrong—and was very embarrassed. (I remember he told a friend of mine named Nathan Isgur a long and elaborate story about the origin of the name "Isgur", with Nathan eventually saying: "No, it was made up at Ellis Island!".)
Murray wasn't particularly good at reading other people. I remember in early 1982 sitting next to Murray in a limo in Chicago that had just picked up a bunch of scientists for some event. The driver was reading the names of the people he'd picked up over the radio. Many were complicated names, which the driver was admittedly butchering. But after each one, Murray would pipe up, and say "No, it's said ____". The driver was getting visibly annoyed, and eventually I said quietly to Murray that he should stop correcting him. When we arrived, Murray said to me: "Why did you say that?" He seemed upset that the driver didn't care about getting the names right.
Occasionally I would ask Murray for advice, though he would rarely give it. When I was first working on one-dimensional cellular automata, I wanted to find a good name for them. (There had been several previous names for the 2D case, one of which—that I eventually settled on—was "cellular automata".) I considered the name "polymones" (somehow reflecting Leibniz's monad concept). But I asked Murray—given all his knowledge of words and languages—for a suggestion. He said he didn't think polymones was much good, but didn't have any other suggestion.
When I was working on SMP (a forerunner of Mathematica and the Wolfram Language) I asked Murray about it, though at the time I didn't really understand as I do now the correspondences between human and computational languages. Murray was interested in trying out SMP, and had a computer terminal installed in his office. I kept on offering to show him some things, but he kept on putting it off. I later realized that—bizarrely to me—Murray was concerned about me seeing that he didn't know how to type. (By the way, at the time, few people did—which is, for example, why SMP, like Unix, had cryptically short command names.)
But alongside the brush-offs and the strangeness, Murray could be personally very gracious. I remember him inviting me several times to his house. I never interacted with either of his kids (who were both not far from my age). But I did interact with his wife, Margaret, who was a very charming English woman. (As part of his dating advice to me, Feynman had explained that both he and Murray had married English women because "they could cope".)
While I was at Caltech, Margaret got very sick with cancer, and Murray threw himself into trying to find a cure. (He blamed himself for not having made sure Margaret had had more checkups.) It wasn't long before Margaret died. Murray invited me to the memorial service. But somehow I didn't feel I could go; even though by then I was on the faculty at Caltech, I just felt too young and junior. I think Murray was upset I didn't come, and I've felt guilty and embarrassed about it ever since.
Murray did me quite a few favors. He was an original board member of the MacArthur Foundation, and I think was instrumental in getting me a MacArthur Fellowship in the very first batch. Later, when I ran into trouble with intellectual property issues at Caltech, Murray went to bat for me—attempting to intercede with his longtime friend Murph Goldberger, who was by then president of Caltech (and who, before Caltech, had been a professor at Princeton, and had encouraged me to go to graduate school there).
I don't know if I would call Murray a friend, though, for example, after Margaret died, he and I would sometimes have dinner together, at random restaurants around Pasadena. It wasn't so much that I felt of a different generation from him (which of course I was). It was more that he exuded a certain aloof tension, that made one not feel very sure about what the relationship really was.
A Great Time in Physics
At the end of World War II, the Manhattan Project had just happened, the best and the brightest were going into physics, and "subatomic particles" were a major topic. Protons, neutrons, electrons and photons were known, and together with a couple of hypothesized particles (neutrinos and pions), it seemed possible that the story of elementary particles might be complete.
But then, first in cosmic rays, and later in particle accelerators, new particles started showing up. There was the muon, then the mesons (pions and kaons), and the hyperons (Λ, Σ, Ξ). All were unstable. The muon—which basically nobody understands even today—was like a heavy electron, interacting mainly through electromagnetic forces. But the others were subject to the strong nuclear force—the one that binds nuclei together. And it was observed that this force could generate these particles, though always together (Λ with Κ, for example). But, mysteriously, the particles could only decay through so-called weak interactions (of the kind involved in radioactive beta decay, or the decay of the muon).
For a while, nobody could figure out why this could be. But then around 1953, Murray Gell-Mann came up with an explanation. Just as particles have "quantum numbers" like spin and charge, he hypothesized that they could have a new quantum number that he called strangeness. Protons, neutrons and pions would have zero strangeness. But the Λ would have strangeness -1, the (positive) kaon strangeness +1, and so on. And total strangeness, he suggested, might be conserved in strong (and electromagnetic) interactions, but not in weak interactions. To suggest a fundamentally new property of particles was a bold thing to do. But it was correct: and immediately Murray was able to explain lots of things that had been observed.
But how did the weak interaction that was—among other things—responsible for the decay of Murray's "strange particles" actually work? In 1957, in their one piece of collaboration in all their years together at Caltech, Feynman and Gell-Mann introduced the so-called V-A theory of the weak interaction—and, once again, despite initial experimental evidence to the contrary, it turned out to be correct. (The theory basically implies that neutrinos can only have left-handed helicity, and that weak interactions involve parity conservation and parity violation in equal amounts.)
As soon as the quantum mechanics of electrons and other particles was formulated in the 1920s, people started wondering about the quantum theory of fields, particularly the electromagnetic field. There were issues with infinities, but in the late 1940s—in Feynman's big contribution—these were handled through the concept of renormalization. The result was that it was possible to start computing things using quantum electrodynamics (QED)—and soon all sorts of spectacular agreements with experiment had been found.
But all these computations worked by looking at just the first few terms in a series expansion in powers of the interaction strength parameter α≃1/137. In 1954, during his brief time at the University of Illinois (from which he went to the University of Chicago, and then Caltech), Murray, together with Francis Low, wrote a paper entitled "Quantum Electrodynamics at Small Distances" which was an attempt to explore QED to all orders in α. In many ways this paper was ahead of its time—and 20 years later, the "renormalization group" that it implicitly defined became very important (and the psi function that it discussed was replaced by the beta function).
While QED could be investigated through a series expansion in the small parameter α≃1/137, no such program seemed possible for the strong interaction (where the effective expansion parameter would be ≃1). So in the 1950s there was an attempt to take a more holistic approach, based on looking at the whole so-called S-matrix defining overall scattering amplitudes. Various properties of the S-matrix were known—notably analyticity with respect to values of particle momenta, and so-called crossing symmetry associated with exchanging particles and antiparticles.
But were these sufficient to understand the properties of strong interactions? Throughout the 1960s, attempts involving more and more elaborate mathematics were made. But things kept on going wrong. The proton-proton total interaction probability was supposed to rise with energy. But experimentally it was seen to level off. So a new idea (the pomeron) was introduced. But then the interaction probability was found to start rising again. So another phenomenon (multiparticle "cuts") had to be introduced. And so on. (Ironically enough, early string theory spun off from these attempts—and today, after decades of disuse, S-matrix theory is coming back into vogue.)
But meanwhile, there was another direction being explored—in which Murray Gell-Mann was centrally involved. It all had to do with the group-theory-meets-calculus concept of Lie groups. An example of a Lie group is the 3D rotation group, known in Lie group theory as SO(3). A central issue in Lie group theory is to find representations of groups: finite collections, say of matrices, that operate like elements of the group.
Representations of the rotation group had been used in atomic physics to deduce from rotational symmetry a characterization of possible spectral lines. But what Gell-Mann did was to say, in effect, "Let's just imagine that in the world of elementary particles there's some kind of internal symmetry associated with the Lie group SU(3). Now use representation theory to characterize what particles will exist".
And in 1961, he published his eightfold way (named after Buddha's Eightfold Way) in which he proposed—periodic-table style—that there should be 8+1 types of mesons, and 10+8 types of baryons (hyperons plus nucleons, such as proton and neutron). For the physics of the time, the mathematics involved in this was quite exotic. But the known particles organized nicely into Gell-Mann's structure. And Gell-Mann made a prediction: that there should be one additional type of hyperon, that he called the Ω–, with strangeness -3, and certain mass and decay characteristics.
And—sure enough—in 1964, the Ω– was observed, and Gell-Mann was on his way to the Nobel Prize, which he received in 1969.
At first the SU(3) symmetry idea was just about what particles should exist. But Gell-Mann wanted also to characterize interactions associated with particles, and for this he introduced what he called current algebra. And, by 1964, from his work on current algebra, he'd realized something else: that his SU(3) symmetry could be interpreted as meaning that things like protons were actually composed of something more fundamental—that he called quarks.
What exactly were the quarks? In his first paper on the subject, Gell-Mann called them "mathematical entities", although he admitted that, just maybe, they could actually be particles themselves. There were problems with this, though. First, it was thought that electric charge was quantized in units of the electron charge, but quarks would have to have charges of 2/3 and -1/3. But even more seriously, one would have to explain why no free quarks had ever been seen.
It so happened that right when Gell-Mann was writing this, a student at Caltech named George Zweig was thinking of something very similar. Zweig (who was at the time visiting CERN) took a mathematically less elaborate approach, observing that the existing particles could be explained as built from three kinds of "aces", as he called them, with the same properties as Gell-Mann's quarks.
Zweig became a professor at Caltech—and I've personally been friends with him for more than 40 years. But he never got as much credit for his aces idea as he should (though in 1977 Feynman proposed him for a Nobel Prize), and after a few years he left particle physics and started studying the neurobiology of the ear—and now, in his eighties, has started a quant hedge fund.
Meanwhile, Gell-Mann continued pursuing the theory of quarks, refining his ideas about current algebras. But starting in 1968, there was something new: particle accelerators able to collide high-energy electrons with protons ("deep inelastic scattering") observed that sometimes the electrons could suffer large deflections. There were lots of details, particularly associated with relativistic kinematics, but in 1969 Feynman proposed his parton (or, as Gell-Mann called it, "put-on") model, in which the proton contained point-like "parton" particles.
It was immediately guessed that partons might be quarks, and within a couple of years this had been established. But the question remained of why the quarks should be confined inside particles such as protons. To avoid some inconsistencies associated with the exclusion principle, it had already been suggested that quarks might come in three "colors". Then in 1973, Gell-Mann and his collaborators suggested that associated with these colors, quarks might have "color charges" analogous to electric charge.
Electromagnetism can be thought of as a gauge field theory associated with the Lie group U(1). Now Gell-Mann suggested that there might be a gauge field theory associated with an SU(3) color group (yes, SU(3) again, but a different application than in the eightfold way, etc.). This theory became known as quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. And, in analogy to the photon, it involves particles called gluons.
Unlike photons, however, gluons directly interact with each other, leading to a much more complex theory. But in direct analogy to Gell-Mann and Low's 1954 renormalization group computation for QED, in 1973 the beta function (AKA g times psi function) for QCD was computed, and was found to show the phenomenon of asymptotic freedom—essentially that QCD interactions get progressively weaker at shorter distances.
This immediately explained the success of the parton model, but also suggested that if quarks get further apart, the QCD interactions between them get stronger, potentially explaining confinement. (And, yes, this is surely the correct intuition about confinement, although even to this day, there is no formal proof of quark confinement—and I suspect it may have issues of undecidability.)
Through much of the 1960s, S-matrix theory had been the dominant approach to particle physics. But it was having trouble, and the discovery of asymptotic freedom in QCD in 1973 brought field theory back to the fore, and, with it, lots of optimism about what might be possible in particle physics.
Murray Gell-Mann had had an amazing run. For 20 years he had made a series of bold conjectures about how nature might work—strangeness, V-A theory, SU(3), quarks, QCD—and in each case he had been correct, while others had been wrong. He had had one of the more remarkable records of repeated correct intuition in the whole history of science.
He tried to go on. He talked about "grand unification being in the air", and (along with many other physicists) discussed the possibility that QCD and the theory of weak interactions might be unified in models based on groups like SU(5) and SO(10). He considered supersymmetry—in which there would be particles that are crosses between things like neutrinos and things like gluons. But quick validations of these theories didn't work out—though even now it's still conceivable that some version of them might be correct.
But regardless, the mid-1970s were a period of intense activity for particle physics. In 1974, the
J/ψ particle was discovered, which turned out to be associated with a fourth kind of quark (charm quark). In 1978, evidence of a fifth quark was seen. Lots was figured out about how QCD works. And a consistent theory of weak interactions emerged that, together with QED and QCD, defined what by the early 1980s had become the modern Standard Model of particle physics that exists today.
I myself got seriously interested in particle physics in 1972, when I was 12 years old. I used to carry around a copy of the little Particle Properties booklet—and all the various kinds of particles became, in a sense, my personal friends. I knew by heart the mass of the Λ, the lifetime of the π0, and a zillion other things about particles. (And, yes, amazingly, I still seem to remember almost all of them—though now they're all known to much greater accuracy.)
At the time, it seemed to me like the most important discoveries ever were being made: fundamental facts about the fundamental particles that exist in our universe. And I think I assumed that before long everyone would know these things, just as people know that there are atoms and protons and electrons.
But I'm shocked today that almost nobody has, for example, even heard of muons—even though we're continually bombarded with them from cosmic rays. Talk about strangeness, or the omega-minus, and one gets blank stares. Quarks more people have heard of, though mostly because of their name, with its various uses for brands, etc.
To me it feels a bit tragic. It's not hard to show Gell-Mann's eightfold way pictures, and to explain how the particles in them can be made from quarks. It's at least as easy to explain that there are 6 known types of quarks as to explain about chemical elements or DNA bases. But for some reason—in most countries—all these triumphs of particle physics have never made it into school science curriculums.
And as I was writing this piece, I was shocked at how thin the information on "classic" particle physics is on the web. In fact, in trying to recall some of the history, the most extensive discussion I could find was in an unpublished book I myself wrote when I was 12 years old! (Yes, full of charming spelling mistakes, and a few physics mistakes.)
When I first met Murray in 1978, his great run of intuition successes and his time defining almost everything that was important in particle physics was already behind him. I was never quite sure what he spent his time on. I know he traveled a lot, using physics meetings in far-flung places as excuses to absorb local culture and nature. I know he spent significant time with the JASON physicists-consult-for-the-military-and-get-paid-well-for-doing-so group. (It was a group that also tried to recruit me in the mid-1980s.) I know he taught classes at Caltech—though he had a reputation for being rather disorganized and unprepared, and I often saw him hurrying to class with giant piles of poorly collated handwritten notes.
Quite often I would see him huddled with more junior physicists that he had brought to Caltech with various temporary jobs. Often there were calculations being done on the blackboard, sometimes by Murray. Lots of algebra, usually festooned with tensor indices—with rarely a diagram in sight. What was it about? I think in those days it was most often supergravity—a merger of the idea of supersymmetry with an early form of string theory (itself derived from much earlier work on S-matrix theory).
This was the time when QCD, quark models and lots of other things that Murray had basically created were at their hottest. Yet Murray chose not to work on them—for example telling me after hearing a talk I gave on QCD that I should work on more worthwhile topics.
I'm guessing Murray somehow thought that his amazing run of intuition would continue, and that his new theories would be as successful as his old. But it didn't work out that way. Though when I would see Murray, he would often tell me of some amazing physics that he was just about to crack, often using elaborate mathematical formalism that I didn't recognize.
By the time I left Caltech in 1983, Murray was spending much of his time in New Mexico, around Santa Fe and Los Alamos—particularly getting involved in what would become the Santa Fe Institute. In 1984, I was invited to the inaugural workshop discussing what was then called the Rio Grande Institute might do. It was a strange event, at which I was by far the youngest participant. And as chance would have it, in connection with the republication of the proceedings of that event, I just recently wrote an account of what happened there, which I will soon post [posted here].
But in any case, Murray was co-chairing the event, and talking about his vision for a great interdisciplinary university, in which people would study things like the relations between physics and archaeology. He talked in grand flourishes about covering the arts and sciences, the simple and the complex, and linking them all together. It didn't seem very practical to me—and at some point I asked what the Santa Fe Institute would actually concentrate on if it had to make a choice.
People asked what I would suggest, and I (somewhat reluctantly, because it seemed like everyone had been trying to promote their pet area) suggested "complex systems theory", and my ideas about the emergence of complexity from things like simple programs. The audio of the event records some respectful exchanges between Murray and me, though more about organizational matters than content. But as it turned out, complex systems theory was indeed what the Santa Fe Institute ended up concentrating on. And Murray himself began to use "complexity" as a label for things he was thinking about.
I tried for years (starting when I first worked on such things, in 1981) to explain to Murray about cellular automata, and about my explorations of the computational universe. He would listen politely, and pay lip service to the relevance of computers and experiments with them. But—as I later realized—he never really understood much at all of what I was talking about.
By the late 1980s, I saw Murray only very rarely. I heard, though, that through an agent I know, Murray had got a big advance to write a book. Murray always found writing painful, and before long I heard that the book had gone through multiple editors (and publishers), and that Murray thought it responsible for a heart attack he had. I had hoped that the book would be an autobiography, though I suspected that Murray might not have the introspection to produce that. (Several years later, a New York Times writer named George Johnson wrote what I considered a very good biography of Murray, which Murray hated.)
But then I heard that Murray's book was actually going to be about his theory of complexity, whatever that might be. A few years went by, and, eventually, in 1994, to rather modest fanfare, Murray's book The Quark and the Jaguar appeared. Looking through it, though, it didn't seem to contain anything concrete that could be considered a theory of complexity. George Zweig told me he'd heard that Murray had left people like me and him out of the index to the book, so we'd have to read the whole book if we wanted to find out what he said about us.
At the time, I didn't bother. But just now, in writing this piece, I was curious to find out what, if anything, Murray actually did say about me. In the printed book, the index goes straight from "Winos" to Woolfenden. But online I can find that there I am, on page 77 (and, bizarrely, I'm also in the online index): "As Stephen Wolfram has emphasized, [a theory] is a compressed package of information, applicable to many cases". Yes, that's true, but is that really all Murray got out of everything I told him? (George Zweig, by the way, isn't mentioned in the book at all.)
In 2002, I'd finally finished my own decade-long basic science project, and I was getting ready to publish my book A New Kind of Science. In recognition of his early support, I'd mentioned Murray in my long list of acknowledgements in the book, and I thought I'd reach out to him and see if he'd like to write a back-cover blurb. (In the end, Steve Jobs convinced me not to have any back-cover blurbs: "Isaac Newton didn't have blurbs on the Principia; nor should you on your book".)
Murray responded politely: "It is exciting to know that your magnum opus, reflecting so much thought, research, and writing, will finally appear. I should, of course, be delighted to receive the book and peruse it, and I might be able to come up with an endorsement, especially since I expect to be impressed". But he said, "I find it difficult to write things under any conditions, as you probably know".
I sent Murray the book, and soon thereafter was on the phone with him. It was a strange and contentious conversation. Murray was obviously uncomfortable. I was asking him about what he thought complexity was. He said it was "like a child learning a language". I asked what that meant. We went back and forth talking about languages. I had the distinct sense that Murray thought he could somehow blind me with facts I didn't know. But—perhaps unfortunately for the conversation—even though A New Kind of Science doesn't discuss languages much, my long efforts in computational language design had made me quite knowledgeable about the topic, and in the conversation I made it quite clear that I wasn't convinced about what Murray had to say.
Murray followed up with an email: "It was good to talk with you. I found the exchange of ideas very interesting. We seem to have been thinking about many of the same things over the last few years, and apparently we agree on some of them and have quite divergent views on others". He talked about the book, saying that "Obviously, I can't, in a brief perusal, come to any deep conclusions about such an impressive tome. It is clear, however, that there are many ideas in it with which, if I understand them correctly, I disagree".
Then he continued: "Also, my own work of the last decade or so is not mentioned anywhere, even though that work includes discussions of the meaning and significance of simplicity and complexity, the role of decoherent histories in the understanding of quantum mechanics, and other topics that play important roles in A New Kind of Science". (Actually, I don't think I discussed anything relevant to decoherent histories in quantum mechanics.) He explained that he didn't want to write a blurb, and ended: "I'm sorry, and I hope that this matter does not present any threat to our friendship, which I hold dear".
As it turned out, I never talked to Murray about science again. The last time I saw Murray was in 2012 at a peculiar event in New York City for promising high-school students. I said hello. Murray looked blank. I said my name, and held up my name tag. "Do I know you?", he said. I repeated my name. Still blank. I couldn't tell if it was a problem of age—or a repeat of the story of the beta function. But, with regret, I walked away.
I have often used Murray as an example of the challenges of managing the arc of a great career. From his twenties to his forties, Murray had the golden touch. His particular way of thinking had success after success, and in many ways, he defined physics for a generation. But by the time I knew him, the easy successes were over. Perhaps it was Murray; more likely, it was just that the easy pickings from his approach were now gone.
I think Murray always wanted to be respected as a scholar and statesman of science—and beyond. But—to his chagrin—he kept on putting himself in situations that played to his weaknesses. He tried to lead people, but usually ended up annoying them. He tried to become a literary-style author, but his perfectionism and insecurity got in the way. He tried to do important work in new fields, but ended up finding that his particular methods didn't work there. To me, it felt in many ways tragic. He so wanted to succeed as he had before, but he never found a way to do it—and always bore the burden of his early success.
Still, with all his complexities, I am pleased to have known Murray. And though Murray is now gone, the physics he discovered will live on, defining an important chapter in the quest for our understanding of the fundamental structure of our universe.
Posted in: Historical Perspectives, Physics
I rapidly perused your unpublished book on particle physics and I was awesomely impressed. I like the way the book started, with all the stories and the histories. I loved particle physics when I was a teen but found out that I needed to know more mathematics before I could really understand. Then other things took over my time. Although I hope to get back into things I love like pure mathematics and particle physics later because of the powerful mental exercises that they are in their own rights, If you publish your unpublished book, correcting the errors and expressing most of the equations in Mathematica formalism (So we can easily run it as code) I would be happy to get a copy because It will be a doorway into the complex world of particle physics.
I think most elementary physics books used in secondary schools don't go beyond electrons and protons because the teachers themselves don't know any better. I think you are in a good position to write such a book if only you would have the time from your very busy schedule. But it will be a gift to the world no less than NKS
Jackreece Ejini
I'm touched by your description of your history with Murray. Thank you for sharing this with us.
Mike Park
Gell-Mann was famous for being non-committal to the issue of the quark's existence. Sort of "if they exist then I thought of them, but if they don't then they are a convenient fiction". See Genius by James Gleick.
Steven Green
This is, by far, the most insightful remembrance of Gell-Mann I have read. Thank you.
this accurately portrayed the man, his gift, but also his decline associated with LB dimentia.He had his shrewd moments, but I think his accusation regarding your use of "his work" in your book was a manifestation of a sickness and should not reflect as negatively upon the man without understanding his disease. Great writing. Thank you!
Nicholas Levis
I read your interesting essay on Murray Gell-Mann. Some of the material was unknown to me.
One common omission concerns the discovery of the omega minus. This occurred in 1954. Yehuda Eisenberg was the discoverer. Eisenberg discovered this particle in the cosmic radiation, in an experiment that was similar to those in which the other strange particles were first found. See Y. Eisenberg, Physical Review Vol 96, pp 541 – 543 (1954).
Interestingly, Murray Gell-Mann was aware of Eisenberg's discovery at the time. See page 87 of the "Eightfold Way" book, Benjamin (1964).
The introduction of QCD also includes relatively unknown contributions. See, for example, Nature Vol. 540, p 199 (2016).
Philip Yock
The scene in the taxi cab is so characteristic of Murray. One time I proposed an experiment over dinner. I said "Murray, lets just see if you can have a conversation without correcting anything or mentioning the history of a word." He liked the idea and thought it would be fun. We started with a test of 5 minutes. Within the first minute, he corrected a tiny fact I'd brought up, so he failed the test. I said, "OK. Let's try it for just three minutes." He failed again. We kept trying, lowering the bar to 1 minute. What I realized is that he literally couldn't stop doing it. For the 14 years we were together, I came to understand this behavior, along with other quirks, as disorders he couldn't control. I felt great sympathy towards his behavioral issues, which I thought of as obsessive compulsive and involuntary.
As he aged, though, they nearly derailed his quality of life. He became hyper-focused on arbitrary things. If he lost a sock in the dryer, he would worry for hours about what happened to it, and hours of searching began. I would say "Murray, you've got other socks. Why worry so about this one?" He'd say that it was a mystery he needed to solve. One time, he lost the white plastic pick from his Swiss Army Knife, and an entire day was spent looking for it, then calling the factory in Switzerland and arranging to have a replacement. If a spoon was left on the wrong side of the double sink, it was automatically in danger of being chewed up by the disposal. it had to go on the RIGHT side or he'd become very upset and hyper-focused on it. This kind of repetitive correcting was overwhelming for me, but especially to him. The involuntary perfectionism flowed over into nearly every aspect of his life. Every time he traveled, he would bring at least four suitcases, two of them packed with papers and books, just in case he needed to refer to them. He packed for every weather possibility. You never knew when it might snow in Borneo. (That's an exaggeration, of course, but he really did pack so much that took two or three luggage carts in the airport.). He needed to be near the gate about 3 hours ahead of time just in case the car broke down, or we were delayed in a traffic jam. (Traffic jams in New Mexico are rare.)
Murray's life wasn't easy, and yet he pursued his dreams as best he could. I took a sabbatical from teaching graduate writing students, to help him with his book. Again, getting things perfectly right was Murray's worst enemy. I still have the stacks and stacks of drafts we poured through with my suggestions plastered all over them. We went through his book word for word. Gradually, his writing became better–a little bit more tailored to a lay audience. The process was too slow, however. He lost his contract and had to pay back his advance. Another publisher picked up the book but used their own editor. This was absolute torture for Murry (and for the editor too I'm guessing) because the editor wouldn't get the science details perfect enough, and Murray would then need to correct the edits. It became a sort of rabbit hole after a while, but somehow, miraculously the book was completed.
I guess what I'm saying is this; Murray's genius came with a price–he had two people in him–Murray the child, and Murray the scientist. The child still in him, was undeveloped because he really never had a childhood in the usual sense due to a brain that has absorbed sue much knowledge at a very young age. The child was responsible for his eternal sense of wonder and curiosity–which is the part of Murray I so loved. It's the magical part that drove every success in his life.
But that child could also turn into a tantrum-throwing 2 year old with no sense whatsoever that his behavior wasn't appropriate. In the airport one time, his luggage was late and he threw a fit, grabbing an airport cart from a man who became quite upset. I removed myself from the scene and sat on a bench across the way, basically pretending that I didn't know Murray. He was yelling at the man, saying "that's MY cart." A woman sat down next to me. She was watching this excruciating scene and said–"How would you like to be married to THAT guy." My reply was "I can't even begin to imagine it."
Marcia Southwick
Thank you Stephen, Nicholas and Marcia for such a thoughtful and candid portrait of Murray! I was deeply moved! I look forward to hearing more personal anecdotes in the near future!
Terry Young
Thank you Stephen and Marcia for sharing the memories.
Sorry for your loss, Marcia.
Faster than Light in Our Model of Physics: Some Preliminary Thoughts
The Empirical Metamathematics of Euclid and Beyond


text:
Q: How to do onclick in CSS to do transition on image? I'm trying to rotate image by 180 degrees. The code below is working on hover, how can I do this when the image is clicked?
Is there a simple way to do this by using CSS?
CSS
img {
    display: block;
}

.rotate {
    -webkit-transition-duration: 2s;
    -moz-transition-duration: 2s;
    -o-transition-duration: 2s;
    transition-duration: 2s;
    -webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform;
    -moz-transition-property: -moz-transform;
    -o-transition-property: -o-transform;
    transition-property: transform;
}

.rotate:hover {
    -webkit-transform: rotate(180deg);
    -ms-transform: rotate(180deg);
    transform: rotate(180deg);
}

HTML

JSFiddle

A: You Can use the :focus on your rotate class which will make your image rotate on click, but be careful, clicking outside will lead to loosing the effect.
Below The Snippet.

img {
    display: block;
margin: 20px;
}

.rotate {
    -webkit-transition-duration: 2s;
    -moz-transition-duration: 2s;
    -o-transition-duration: 2s;
    transition-duration: 2s;
    -webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform;
    -moz-transition-property: -moz-transform;
    -o-transition-property: -o-transform;
    transition-property: transform;
    outline: 0;
}

.rotate:focus {
   -webkit-transform: rotate(180deg);
   -ms-transform: rotate(180deg);
    transform: rotate(180deg);
}

A: You can't. click is not a state and there's no pseudo class defined for it, hover is.
There are some tricks that can be used to simulate reacting to mouse clicks using plain CSS (such as using a checkbox), but the effects you can create this way are limited.

EDIT: Since apparently I couldn't explain myself in the comments, here's Pyere example done with a checkbox instead. It works a little different, maybe better maybe worse (depending on the exact effect required) and in any case "limited" compared to a JS click handler

img {
    display: block;
    margin: 20px;
}

.rotate {
    -webkit-transition-duration: 2s;
    -moz-transition-duration: 2s;
    -o-transition-duration: 2s;
    transition-duration: 2s;
    -webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform;
    -moz-transition-property: -moz-transform;
    -o-transition-property: -o-transform;
    transition-property: transform;
    outline: 0;
}

input[type=checkbox] {
  display: none;
}
input[type=checkbox]:checked+label>img {
   -webkit-transform: rotate(180deg);
   -ms-transform: rotate(180deg);
    transform: rotate(180deg);
}
<input type="checkbox" name="chkimage" id="chkimage"/>

A: You need javascript to listen the click event :

var rotate = document.getElementById('rotate');
rotate.addEventListener('click', function() {
  rotate.classList.add('rotated');
});
img {
  display: block;
}
.rotate {
  -webkit-transition-duration: 2s;
  -moz-transition-duration: 2s;
  -o-transition-duration: 2s;
  transition-duration: 2s;
  -webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform;
  -moz-transition-property: -moz-transform;
  -o-transition-property: -o-transform;
  transition-property: transform;
}
.rotated {
  -webkit-transform: rotate(180deg);
  -ms-transform: rotate(180deg);
  transform: rotate(180deg);
}

A: There'r no solution with pure CSS. You can do it just with jQuery, with method .click().

$( ".rotate" ).click(function() {
    //alert($( this ).css( "transform" ));
    if (  $( this ).css( "transform" ) == 'none' ){
        $(this).css("transform","rotate(180deg)");
    } else {
        $(this).css("transform","" );
    }
});
img {
    display: block;
    margin: 20px;
}

img {
    -webkit-transition-duration: 1s;
    -moz-transition-duration: 1s;
    -o-transition-duration: 1s;
    transition-duration: 1s;
    -webkit-transition-property: -webkit-transform;
    -moz-transition-property: -moz-transform;
    -o-transition-property: -o-transform;
    transition-property: transform;
}