Netflix explore America's most haunted locations and we're already creeped out
Brace yourselves horror fans – Netflix is planning a new documentary series about some of the most haunted locations across America.
Although it sounds quite terrifying there’s no doubt that we will be binge watching our way through this, and we cannot wait.
The upcoming docuseries is described as a ‘gritty and meticulous study’ of some of ‘America’s most haunted locations’, according to Variety.
Joe Berlinger, who is responsible for the true crime documentary series Conversations With A Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes and feature film Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil And Vile, is set to direct the upcoming series.
The documentary could potentially take a look at abandoned mansions and mental asylums, as well as Eastern State Penitentiary – a former prison which is now open to the US public as a museum.
Advertisement Advertisement
Netflix has acquired the project from Ron Howard and Brian Grazer’s Imagine Entertainment, alongside another series set to focus on sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.
Gabe Spitzer, director of original documentaries at Netflix, has said that the team at Imagine is ‘excited’ for the docuseries to be brought to the streaming service.
‘The Imagine team have quickly built a first-rate division working with many of the industry’s top documentary filmmakers,’ he said.
‘We’re excited about the rich and compelling series coming to Netflix and look forward to sharing these with our members around the world.’
It is not yet known when the series will hit Netflix, although it is expected to be sometime in 2020.
In the meantime, fans of true crime will be able to catch Netflix’s latest offering, The Confession Killer, which focuses on serial killer Henry Lee.
Henry was convicted of murdering his mother in 1960 and two others in 1983 – but confessed to killing hundreds of other people while speaking to police – with people left wondering whether or not he was telling the truth.
Advertisement Advertisement
The Confession Killer is released to Netflix on 6 December.
Got a showbiz story?
If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us<EMAIL_ADDRESS>calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page - we'd love to hear from you.


Neuer Gruppenname: AD&R (= Advanced Dungeons and Robots)
Team:
- Stefan Esterer (der.stefon at gmail.com)
- Michael Park (mingipark at gmail.com )
- Elias Pschernig (epschern at cosy)
Slides:
Sources:
Report:
Video Clips:
Historic page contents
Tasks:
- Brick OS Firmware upload -> done
- Test Program upload -> done
- Robot is moving -> done
- Robot is following black line (only left turns) -> done
- Detect Left and/or Right line -> done
- Studying E/S code from sortbot -> done
- Simple E/S code programm like sortbot -> done
- Robot is following black line (all turns; more sensors?!) -> more to do
- Robot recognizes crossings
- Robot can manager more than one crossing
- Robot manages a dungeon
Detail Todo:
- mittlere linie problem
- zuverlässigkeit verbessern
- aktuellen code einbetten in e+s+code
---
Software:
- Brick OS
- E / S Code Style (like sortbot)
---
Meetings:
- 6.12 15:30 -> done
- 13.12 16:30 (Elias-> sortbot; mingi-> HW; stefon->SW integration) -> done
- 21.12 16:00: short meeting
---
Bot diagram:
__
|L3|
|__|
__
|R2|
|__|
__
|M3|
|__|
__ __ __
|M1| |L1| |M2|
|__| |__| |__|
Motors M1, M2, M3
Light sensors L1, L3
Rotation sensor R2
M1 and M2 move the left and right tank chains.
M3 moves the turret.
R2 measures the turret position.
L1 and L3 track the path.


---
layout: default
title: Communications and Hours - Team Handbook - Wikimedia Security Team
tags: handbook
---
Communications
Slack
#security-team is our team channel. It is expected that team members will be logged in and responding to Slack conversation during their personal work hours. Additional team channels include #privacy-engineering and #app-sec.
There are many WMF channels geared towards both work and personal interests which you are welcome to join.
Asana
Asana is used to create an agenda for the weekly Team Meeting, and to track any ongoing tasks that are created as a result of that call. Asynchronous communication via Asana tickets is highly encouraged. Assigned tickets are to be kept current with regards to status.
Asana is widely used both by the team and across the Foundation. Please feel free to track ideas, tasks, and self-defined projects in Asana. If you would like assistance in setting up a system that works for you, please talk to your Project Manager.
Meetings
Meeting Protocol
- Meetings are an important part of our team dynamic and should be accepted or declined asap, and at least 24 hours prior to meeting time.
- Meetings are not optional unless you are specifically invited as an optional attendee.
- Being late is sometimes unavoidable but do your best to be on time as a sign of respect to others.
- We generally try to live by the 5 minute rule. If someone is 5 minutes late for a meeting we start without them.
Standing Meetings
1:1
- Who: Individual team member and Director
- What: Come with your own agenda and if you don't have one the Director will provide one
- When / Where: Cadence TBD by team member but not to exceed 1 month w/out meeting
Team Meeting
- Who: Security Team members and Director
- What: This weekly meeting is intended to serve as an all-team touchpoint where news, shoutouts, and guest speakers provide relevant and timely information and general questions can be addressed.
- Note: Asynchronous agenda building and communication via the Team Meeting Asana board is highly encouraged
- When / Where: Tuesdays at 9:05am PT via Google Hangout (invite only)
Security Clinic
- Who: Security Team members
- What: The Security team’s Clinic serves as the intake point for work from all sources
- When / Where: Usually on Mondays at 8:00am PT via Google Hangout (invite only)
Quarterly Retro
- Who: Security Team members
- What: A quarterly opportunity for the team to reflect on and discuss what does and does not work well. Action items are created to facilitate improvement
- When / Where: This meeting is held once per quarter in Retrium (invite only)
AppSec Stand-Up
- Who: Application Security engineers and PM
- What: Review of ticket status, clearing of blockers, and triage if needed
- When / Where: Tuesdays at 8:45am PT via Google Hangout (invite only)
Work Hours
- If you are going on vacation or will be out for half a day or longer, update the team calendar to reflect that you are out of office. Create an event in the team calendar and then invite yourself to the event to have an easily updated entry on both calendars. Please do not provide additional details.
- If you are sick drop a note to our team mailing list or Slack channel so folks are not trying to track you down.
- If you take vacation time then you need to really take vacation time. This means disconnecting and spending your time away from work. If something bad happens we’ll figure it out.
- As a corollary to the previous statement, if you feel like you cannot take off we need to discuss this as a team and make sure everyone has a backup. If you don’t have a backup now, let’s get that fixed ASAP.
- If you are taking a remote training course, or working on remote continuing education this is is work time. Count it as work time. If you are in a week long remote SANS course, for example, you are not available for regular work and should concentrate on the material at hand. A rising tide lifts all boats! :)


FOF, known as the Fund of Funds, is similar to the “Superfund” that can make investment in different products and go beyond the single management boundary, for the purpose of risk diversification and flexible allocation. FOF is one of the important asset allocation means.
Centering on major asset allocation, Tianhong’s FOF operations flexibly take advantage of various investment strategies in pursuit of gains in the all-weather market environment. It strives to generate a relatively sound return in different markets through allocation of different risk assets.
Established on Nov. 08, 2004, Tianhong Asset Management is one of the nationwide publicly offered fund management companies authorized by China Securities Regulatory Commissionwith registered capital of RMB 514.3 million Yuan. In 2013, Tianhong Asset Management promoted the first Internet fund – Yu’ebao, jointly with AliPay. As the fund manager of Yu’ebao, Tianhong Asset Management breaks a new ground for the Internet finance.


Woman Injured in Syria's Aleppo After Rocket Attack by Militants - Reports
BEIRUT (Sputnik) - A woman was injured after two rocket shells were fired at a neighborhood in Aleppo, Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported Saturday.
She was injured as a result of the attack on the local market in the Al-Nil district in the city of Aleppo, according to Syrian Arab News Agency.
Once the largest city in Syria, Aleppo has been recovered by the government forces in 2016 after four years being controlled by the then-opposition forces. Since then, militants regularly conduct sporadic shelling on residential areas of Aleppo, causing civilian casualties.
The Syrian army, in turn, destroys the firing positions of the terrorists in response.
Russia, Turkey and Iran are the ceasefire guarantors of the conflict. Russia regularly carries out humanitarian operations across the country and helps Damascus provide safe passage for the return of Syrian refugees.


"x"
"1" "ORNER,G, NIEDING,WJ AND KORTE,DW, MUTAGENIC POTENTIAL OF2-HYDROXYIMINOMETHYL- 3-METHYL-1-(2-METHYLSULFONYLETHYL)IMIDAZOLIUM CHLORIDE INTHE AMES SALMONELLA/ MAMMALIAN MICROSOME MUTAGENICITY TEST, U.S. __ ARMY MEDICALRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, NTIS AD-A214317, 1989"


Files CCore/inc/Timer.h CCore/src/Timer.cpp
There are two generic timer classes and six instantiations.
The class Timer can be used to get a time. We need a class, because we have to store the start time.
template <UIntType T,T Time()>
class Timer
{
T start;
public:
Timer() { reset(); }
void reset() { start=Time(); }
using ValueType = T ;
T get() const { return Time()-start; }
bool less(T lim) const { return get()<lim; }
bool exceed(T lim) const { return get()>=lim; }
void shift(T delta) { start+=delta; }
static T Get() { return Time(); }
};
This class is parameterized by the time value type and the time function. Constructor and the method reset() record the start time. Once you have done it, you can get a current time relative to the start time by the method get(). Methods less() and exceed() compare the current time with the given limit. The method shift() adjusts the start time. Static members ValueType and Get() present the class parameters.
The following example demonstrates the timed loop:
for(SecTimer timer; timer.less(10) ;) { .... } // repeat some job withing 10 seconds
The next class DiffTimer returns the differentiated time, i.e. the time between calls.
template <UIntType T,T Time()>
class DiffTimer
{
T prev;
public:
DiffTimer() { reset(); }
void reset() { prev=Time(); }
using ValueType = T ;
T get() { return Diff(prev,Time()); }
};
Here is an example:
SecDiffTimer timer; // point1 .... auto t1=timer.get(); // point2 , t1 is the time between point1 and point2 .... auto t2=timer.get(); // point3 , t2 is the time between point2 and point3
There are six timer class instantiations for different time resolutions — millisecond, second, and clock:
using MSecTimer = Timer<Sys::MSecTimeType,Sys::GetMSecTime> ; using SecTimer = Timer<Sys::SecTimeType,Sys::GetSecTime> ; using ClockTimer = Timer<Sys::ClockTimeType,Sys::GetClockTime> ; using MSecDiffTimer = DiffTimer<Sys::MSecTimeType,Sys::GetMSecTime> ; using SecDiffTimer = DiffTimer<Sys::SecTimeType,Sys::GetSecTime> ; using ClockDiffTimer = DiffTimer<Sys::ClockTimeType,Sys::GetClockTime> ;
These instantiations are based on target provided functions. Clock time is a fastest available time resolution on the target, comparable with the CPU clock speed.


Print our Name
This service returns figlet for entered text
Enter Name:
Now running on
Google Cloud RUN


Grand Master Schule:
Speak with
Sir Klaus Vasper in Gludin Village
to learn how to get the
Sword of Ritual
. He's the leader of the Warrior Guild.
Return


Home
Parents
Providers
Log In / Sign Up
Our Development Team
Van Jordon
Backend
Dave Irwin
Front End
Elvis Knapman
Front End
Tatiana Faramarzi
Front End
Trang Nguyen
Front End
Zachary Peasley
User Interface
Ryan Barnhill
User Interface


1. Describe the null hypotheses to which the p-values given in Table 3.4 correspond. Explain what conclusions you can draw based on these p-values. Your explanation should be phrased in terms of sales, TV, radio, and newspaper, rather than in terms of the coeﬃcients of the linear model.
The null hypotheses associated with Table 3.4 are that advertising budgets of "TV", "radio" or "newspaper" do not have an effect on sales. More precisely $H_0^{(1)} : \beta_1 = 0$, $H_0^{(2)} : \beta_2 = 0$ and $H_0^{(3)} : \beta_3 = 0$. The corresponding p-values are highly significant for "TV" and "radio" and not significant for "newspaper"; so we reject $H_0^{(1)}$ and $H_0^{(2)}$ and we do not reject $H_0^{(3)}$. We may conclude that newspaper advertising budget do not affect sales.
More on p-value:
2. Carefully explain the diﬀerences between the KNN classiﬁer and KNN regression methods.
The KNN classifier is typically used to solve classification problems (those with a qualitative response) by identifying the neighborhood of $x_0$ and then estimating the conditional probability $P(Y = j | X = x_0)$ for class $j$ as the fraction of points in the neighborhood whose response values equal $j$. The KNN regression method is used to solve regression problems (those with a quantitative response) by again identifying the neighborhood of $x_0$ and then estimating $f(x_0)$ as the average of all the training responses in the neighborhood.
3. Suppose we have a data set with five predictors, $X1 = \mathrm{GPA}$, $X2 = \mathrm{IQ}$, $X3 = \mathrm{Gender}$ (1 for Female and 0 for Male), $X4 = \mathrm{Interaction\ between\ GPA\ and\ IQ}$, and $X5 = \mathrm{Interaction\ between\ GPA\ and\ Gender}$. The response is starting salary after graduation (in thousands of dollars). Suppose we use least squares to fit the model, and get $\hat{\beta_0} = 50$, $\hat{\beta_1} = 20$, $\hat{\beta_2} = 0.07$, $\hat{\beta_3} = 35$, $\hat{\beta_4} = 0.01$, $\hat{\beta_5} = -10$.
(a) Which answer is correct, and why?
The least square line is given by $\hat{y} = 50 + 20GPA + 0.07IQ + 35Gender + 0.01GPA\times IQ - 10GPA\times Gender$ which becomes for the males $\hat{y} = 50 + 20GPA + 0.07IQ + 0.01GPA\times IQ,$ and for the females $\hat{y} = 85 + 10GPA + 0.07IQ + 0.01GPA\times IQ.$ So the starting salary for males is higher than for females on average iff $50 + 20GPA\ge 85 + 10GPA$ which is equivalent to $GPA\ge 3.5$. Therefore iii. is the right answer.
(b) Predict the salary of a female with IQ of 110 and a GPA of 4.0.
It suffices to plug in the given values in the least square line for females given above and we obtain $\hat{y} = 85 + 40 + 7.7 + 4.4 = 137.1$, which gives us a starting salary of $137100\$$.
(c) True or false: Since the coefficient for the GPA/IQ interaction term is very small, there is very little evidence of an interaction effect. Justify your answer.
False. To verify if the GPA/IQ has an impact on the quality of the model we need to test the hypothesis $H_0 : \hat{\beta_4} = 0$ and look at the p-value associated with the $t$ or the $F$ statistic to draw a conclusion.
4. I collect a set of data ($n = 100$ observations) containing a single predictor and a quantitative response. I then fit a linear regression model to the data, as well as a separate cubic regression, i.e. $Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X + \beta_2 X^2 + \beta_3 X^3 + \varepsilon$ .
(a) Suppose that the true relationship between $X$ and $Y$ is linear, i.e. $Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X + \varepsilon$. Consider the training residual sum of squares (RSS) for the linear regression, and also the training RSS for the cubic regression. Would we expect one to be lower than the other, would we expect them to be the same, or is there not enough information to tell? Justify your answer.
Without knowing more details about the training data, it is difficult to know which training RSS is lower between linear or cubic. However, as the true relationship between $X$ and $Y$ is linear, we may expect the least squares line to be close to the true regression line, and consequently the RSS for the linear regression may be lower than for the cubic regression.
(b) Answer (a) using test rather than training RSS.
In this case the test RSS depends upon the test data, so we have not enough information to conclude.
(c) Suppose that the true relationship between X and Y is not linear, but we don’t know how far it is from linear. Consider the training RSS for the linear regression, and also the training RSS for the cubic regression. Would we expect one to be lower than the other, would we expect them to be the same, or is there not enough information to tell? Justify your answer.
Here also, there is not enough information to tell. If the actual data is pretty linear, then a linear regression may yield better results than a cubic regression. However, if the actual data is more cubic, then cubic regression may be the better option. Whichever one is the better option will yield lower RSS than the other.
(d) Answer (c) using test rather than training RSS.
See answer for (c) above.
5. Consider the fitted values that result from performing linear regression without an intercept. In this setting, the i-th fitted value takes the form $\hat{y_i} = x_i\hat{\beta}$, where $\hat{\beta} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n x_iy_i}{\sum_{k=1}^nx_k^2}$. Show that we can write $\hat{y}_i = \sum_{j=1}^na_jy_j$. What is $a_j$ ?
We have immediately that $\hat{y}_i = x_i\frac{\sum_{j=1}^n x_jy_j}{\sum_{k=1}^nx_k^2} = \sum_{j=1}^n\frac{x_ix_j}{\sum_{k=1}^nx_k^2}y_j = \sum_{j=1}^na_jy_j$.
6. Using (3.4), argue that in the case of simple linear regression, the least squares line always passes through the point $(\overline{x},\overline{y})$.
The least square line equation is $y = \hat{\beta}_0 + \hat{\beta}_1x$, so if we substitute $\overline{x}$ for $x$ we obtain $y = \hat{\beta}_0 + \hat{\beta}_1\overline{x} = \overline{y} - \hat{\beta}_1\overline{x} + \hat{\beta}_1\overline{x} = \overline{y}$. We may conclude that the least square line passes through the point $(\overline{x},\overline{y})$.
7. It is claimed in the text that in the case of simple linear regression of $Y$ onto $X$, the $R^2$ statistic (3.17) is equal to the square of the correlation between $X$ and $Y$ (3.18). Prove that this is the case. For simplicity, you may assume that $\overline{x} = \overline{y} = 0$.
We have the following equalities $R^2 = 1 - \frac{RSS}{TSS} = 1 - \frac{\sum_i(y_i - \hat{y}_i)^2}{\sum_jy_j^2};$ with $\hat{y}_i = \hat{\beta}_1x_i$ we may write $R^2 = 1 - \frac{\sum_i(y_i - \sum_jx_jy_j/\sum_jx_j^2 x_i)^2}{\sum_jy_j^2} = \frac{\sum_jy_j^2 - (\sum_iy_i^2 - 2\sum_iy_i(\sum_jx_jy_j/\sum_jx_j^2)x_i + \sum_i(\sum_jx_jy_j/\sum_jx_j^2)^2x_i^2)}{\sum_jy_j^2}$ and finally $R^2 = \frac{2(\sum_ix_iy_i)^2/\sum_jx_j^2 - (\sum_ix_iy_i)^2/\sum_jx_j^2}{\sum_jy_j^2} = \frac{(\sum_ix_iy_i)^2}{\sum_jx_j^2\sum_jy_j^2} = Cor(X, Y)^2$.
8. This question involves the use of simple linear regression on the "Auto" data set.
(a) Use the lm() function to perform a simple linear regression with mpg as the response and horsepower as the predictor. Use the summary() function to print the results. Comment on the output. For example :
Auto = read.csv("../../../data/Auto.csv", header = T, na.strings = "?")
Auto = na.omit(Auto)
summary(Auto)
lm.fit1 = lm(mpg ~ horsepower, data = Auto)
summary(lm.fit1)
There is a relationship between horsepower and mpg as deterined by testing the null hypothesis of all regression coefficients equal to zero $H_0 : \beta_i = 0\ \forall i$. Since the F-statistic is far larger than 1 and the p-value of the F-statistic is close to zero we can reject the null hypothesis and state there is a statistically significant relationship between horsepower and mpg.
We may note that as the $R^2$ is equal to 0.6059, almost 60.5948% of the variability in "mpg" can be explained using "horsepower".
As the coeficient of "horsepower" is negative, the relationship is also negative.
The more horsepower an automobile has the linear regression indicates the less mpg fuel efficiency the automobile will have.
predict(lm.fit1, data.frame(horsepower=c(98)), interval="confidence")
predict(lm.fit1, data.frame(horsepower=c(98)), interval="prediction")
(b) Plot the response and the predictor. Use the abline() function to display the least squares regression line.
plot(Auto$horsepower, Auto$mpg, main = "Scatterplot of mpg vs. horsepower", xlab = "horsepower", ylab = "mpg", col = "blue")
abline(lm.fit1, col = "red")
(c) Use the plot() function to produce diagnostic plots of the least squares regression fit. Comment on any problems you see with the fit.
par(mfrow = c(2, 2))
plot(lm.fit1)
The plot of residuals versus fitted values indicates the presence of non linearity in the data. The plot of standardized residuals versus leverage indicates the presence of a few outliers (higher than 2 or lower than -2) and a few high leverage points.
9. This question involves the use of multiple linear regression on the Auto data set.
(a) Produce a scatterplot matrix which include all the variables in the data set.
pairs(Auto)
(b) Compute the matrix of correlations between the variables using the function cor(). You will need to exclude the name variable, which is qualitative.
cor(subset(Auto, select = -name))
(c) Use the lm() function to perform a multiple linear regression with mpg as the response and all other variables except name as the predictors. Use the summary() function to print the results. Comment on the output. For instance :
lm.fit2 = lm(mpg ~ . - name, data = Auto)
summary(lm.fit2)
Yes, there is a relatioship between the predictors and the response by testing the null hypothesis of whether all the regression coefficients are zero. The F-statistic is far from 1 (with a small p-value), indicating evidence against the null hypothesis.
We can answer this question by checking the p-values associated with each predictor's t-statistic.
We can see that displacement, weight, year, and origin have a statistically significant relationship, while cylinders, horsepower, and acceleration do not.
The coefficient ot the "year" variable suggests that the average effect of an increase of 1 year is an increase of 0.7508 in "mpg" (all other predictors remaining constant).
(d) Use the plot() function to produce diagnostic plots of the linear regression fit. Comment on any problems you see with the fit. Do the residual plots suggest any unusually large outliers ? Does the leverage plots identify any observations with unusually high leverages ?
par(mfrow = c(2, 2))
plot(lm.fit2)
As before, the plot of residuals versus fitted values indicates the presence of mild non linearity in the data. The plot of standardized residuals versus leverage indicates the presence of a few outliers (higher than 2 or lower than -2) and one high leverage point.
(e) Use the * and : symbols to fit linear regression models with interaction effects. Do any interactions appear to be statistically significant ?
lm.fit3 = lm(mpg ~ .*., data = Auto[, 1:8])
summary(lm.fit3)
The interactions between "acceleration:origin", "acceleration:year" and "displacement:year" appear to be statistically significant.
(f) Try a few different transformations of the variables, such as $\log{X}$, $\sqrt{X}$, $X^2$. Comment on your findings.
par(mfrow = c(2, 2))
plot(log(Auto$horsepower), Auto$mpg)
plot(sqrt(Auto$horsepower), Auto$mpg)
plot((Auto$horsepower)^2, Auto$mpg)
We limit ourselves to examining "horsepower" as sole predictor. It seems that the log transformation gives the most linear looking plot.
10. This question should be answered using the Carseats data set.
(a) Fit a multiple regression model to predict Sales using Price, Urban and US.
Carseats = read.csv("../../../data/Carseats.csv", header=T, na.strings="?")
summary(Carseats)
attach(Carseats)
lm.fit4 = lm(Sales ~ Price + Urban + US)
summary(lm.fit4)
(b) Provide an interpretation of each coefficient in the model. Be careful - some of the variables in the model are qualitative!
The coefficient of the "Price" variable may be interpreted by saying that the average effect of a price increase of 1 dollar is a decrease of 54.4588 units in sales all other predictors remaining fixed. The coefficient of the "Urban" variable may be interpreted by saying that on average the unit sales in urban location are 21.9162 units less than in rural location all other predictors remaining fixed. The coefficient of the "US" variable may be interpreted by saying that on average the unit sales in a US store are 1200.5727 units more than in a non US store all other predictors remaining fixed.
(c) Write out the model in equation form, being careful to handle the qualitative variables properly.
The model may be written as $Sales = 13.0435 + (-0.0545)\times Price + (-0.0219)\times Urban + (1.2006)\times US + \varepsilon$ with $Urban = 1$ if the store is in an urban location and $0$ if not, and $US = 1$ if the store is in the US and $0$ if not.
(d) For which of the predictors can you reject the null hypothesis $H_0 : \beta_j = 0$?
Based on the p-values, F-statistic, and p-value of the F-statistic we can reject the null hypothesis for the "Price" and "US" variables.
(e) On the basis of your response to the previous question, fit a smaller model that only uses the predictors for which there is evidence of association with the outcome.
lm.fit5 = lm(Sales ~ Price + US)
summary(lm.fit5)
(f) How well do the models in (a) and (e) fit the data?
The $R^2$ for the smaller model is marginally better than for the bigger model. Essentially about 23.9263% of the variability is explained by the model.
Based on the RSE and $R^2$ of the linear regressions, they both fit the data similarly, with linear regression from (e) fitting the data slightly better.
(g) Using the model from (e), obtain 95% confidence intervals for the coefficient(s).
confint(lm.fit5)
(h) Is there evidence of outliers or high leverage observations in the model from (e) ?
plot(predict(lm.fit5), rstudent(lm.fit5))
All studentized residuals appear to be bounded by -3 to 3, so not potential outliers are suggested from the linear regression.
par(mfrow = c(2, 2))
plot(lm.fit5)
The plot of standardized residuals versus leverage indicates the presence of a few outliers (higher than 2 or lower than -2) and a one leverage point.
There are a few observations that greatly exceed $(p+1)/n$ (r 3/397
) on the leverage-statistic plot that suggest that the corresponding points have high leverage.
11. In this problem we will investigate the t-statistic for the null hypothesis $H_0 : \beta = 0$ in simple linear regression without an intercept. To begin, we generate a predictor $x$ and a response $y$ as follows.
set.seed(1)
x = rnorm(100)
y = 2 * x + rnorm(100)
(a) Perform a simple linear regression of $y$ onto $x$, without an intercept. Report the coefficient estimate $\hat{\beta}$, the standard error of this coefficient estimate, and the t-statistic and p-value associated with the null hypothesis $H_0$. Comment on these results.
lm.fit6 = lm(y ~ x + 0)
summary(lm.fit6)
According to the summary above, we have a value of 1.9939 for $\hat{\beta}$, a value of 0.1065 for the standard error, a value of 18.7259 for the t-statistic and a value of 2.6422 × 10-34 for the p-value. The small p-value allows us to reject $H_0$.
(b) Now perform a simple linear regression of $x$ onto $y$, without an intercept. Report the coefficient estimate $\hat{\beta}$, the standard error of this coefficient estimate, and the t-statistic and p-value associated with the null hypothesis $H_0$. Comment on these results.
lm.fit7 = lm(x ~ y + 0)
summary(lm.fit7)
According to the summary above, we have a value of 0.3911 for $\hat{\beta}$, a value of 0.0209 for the standard error, a value of 18.7259 for the t-statistic and a value of 2.6422 × 10-34 for the p-value. The small p-value allows us to reject $H_0$.
(c) What is the relationship between the results obtained in (a) and (b)?
We obtain the same value for the t-statistic and consequently the same value for the corresponding p-value.
Both results in (a) and (b) reflect the same line created in 11(a). In other words, $y = 2x + \epsilon$ could also be written $x = 0.5 (y - \epsilon)$.*
(d) For the regrssion of $Y$ onto $X$ without an intercept, the t-statistic for $H_0 : \beta = 0$ takes the form $\hat{\beta}/SE(\hat{\beta})$, where $\hat{\beta}$ is given by (3.38), and where $SE(\hat{\beta}) = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n(y_i - x_i\hat{\beta})^2}{(n - 1)\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^2}}$.
(These formulas are slightly diﬀerent from those given in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, since here we are performing regression without an intercept.) Show algebraically, and confirm numerically in R, that the t-statistic can be written as
$\frac{\sqrt{n - 1}\sum_{i=1}^nx_iy_i}{\sqrt{(\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^2)(\sum_{i=1}^ny_i^2) - (\sum_{i=1}^nx_iy_i)}}$.
We have
$t = \frac{\sum_ix_iy_y/\sum_jx_j^2}{\sqrt{\sum_i(y_i - x_i\hat{\beta})^2/(n - 1)\sum_jx_j^2}} = \frac{\sqrt{n - 1}\sum_ix_iy_i}{\sqrt{\sum_jx_j^2\sum_i(y_i - x_i\sum_jx_jy_j/\sum_jx_j^2)^2}} = \frac{\sqrt{n - 1}\sum_ix_iy_i}{\sqrt{(\sum_jx_j^2)(\sum_jy_j^2) - (\sum_jx_jy_j)}}$.
Now let's verify this result numerically.
n = length(x)
t = sqrt(n - 1)*(x %*% y)/sqrt(sum(x^2) * sum(y^2) - (x %*% y)^2)
as.numeric(t)
We may see that the t above is exactly the t-statistic given in the summary of the "lm.fit7".
(e) Using the results from (d), argue that the t-statistic for the regression of $y$ onto $x$ is the same t-statistic for the regression of $x$ onto $y$.
It is easy to see that if we replace $x_i$ by $y_i$ in the formula for the t-statistic, the result would be the same.
If you swap t(x,y) as t(y,x), then you will find t(x,y) = t(y,x).
(f) In R, show that when regression is performed with an intercept, the t-statistic for $H_0 : \beta_1 = 0$ is the same for the regression of $y$ onto $x$ as it is the regression of $x$ onto $y$.
lm.fit8 = lm(y ~ x)
summary(lm.fit8)
lm.fit9 = lm(x ~ y)
summary(lm.fit9)
It is again easy to see that the t-statistic for the both fit are equal to 18.5556.
12. This problem involves simple linear regression without an intercept.
(a) Recall that the coefficient estimate $\hat{\beta}$ for the linear regression of $Y$ onto $X$ witout an intercept is given by (3.38). Under what circumstance is the coefficient estimate for the regression of $X$ onto $Y$ the same as the coefficient estimate for the regression of $Y$ onto $X$ ?
The coefficient estimate for the regression of $Y$ onto $X$ is $\hat{\beta} = \frac{\sum_ix_iy_i}{\sum_jx_j^2}$;
The coefficient estimate for the regression of $X$ onto $Y$ is $\hat{\beta}' = \frac{\sum_ix_iy_i}{\sum_jy_j^2}$.
The coefficients are the same iff $\sum_jx_j^2 = \sum_jy_j^2$.
(b) Generate an example in R with $n = 100$ observations in which the coefficient estimate for the regression of $X$ onto $Y$ is different from the coefficient estimate for the regression of $Y$ onto $X$.
set.seed(1)
x = 1:100
y = 2 * x + rnorm(100, sd = 0.1)
lm.fit10 = lm(y ~ x + 0)
summary(lm.fit10)
lm.fit11 = lm(x ~ y + 0)
summary(lm.fit11)
(c) Generate an example in R with $n = 100$ observations in which the coefficient estimate for the regression of $X$ onto $Y$ is the same as the coefficient estimate for the regression of $Y$ onto $X$.
x = 1:100
y = 100:1
lm.fit12 = lm(y ~ x + 0)
summary(lm.fit12)
lm.fit13 = lm(x ~ y + 0)
summary(lm.fit13)
13. In this exercise you will create some simulated data and will fit simple linear regression models to it. Make sure to use set.seed(1) prior to starting part (a) to ensure conistent results.
(a) Using the rnorm() function, create a vector, x, containing 100 observations drawn from a $N(0,1)$ distribution. This represents a feature, $X$.
set.seed(1)
x = rnorm(100)
(b) Using the rnorm() function, create a vector, eps, containing 100 observations drawn from a $N(0, 0.25)$ distribution.
eps = rnorm(100, sd = 0.25)
(c) Using x and eps, generate a vector y according to the model $Y = -1 + 0.5X + \varepsilon$. What is the length of the vector y ? What are the values of $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ in this linear model ?
y = -1 + 0.5 * x + eps
length(y)
y is of length 100. The values of $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are -1 and 0.5 respectively.
(d) Create a scatterplot displaying the relationship between x and y. Comment on what you observe.
plot(x, y)
The relationship between "x" and "y" looks linear with some noise introduced by the "eps" variable.
(e) Fit a least squares linear model to predict y using x. Comment on the model obtained. How do $\hat{\beta}_0$ and $\hat{\beta}_1$ compare to $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ ?
lm.fit14 = lm(y ~ x)
summary(lm.fit14)
The linear regression fits a model close to the true value of the coefficients as was constructed. The model has a large F-statistic with a near-zero p-value so the null hypothesis can be rejected.
The values of $\hat{\beta}_0$ and $\hat{\beta}_1$ are pretty close to $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$.
(f) Display the least squares line on the scatterplot obtained in (d). Draw the population regression line on the plot, in a different color. Use the legend() function to create an appropriate legend.
plot(x, y)
abline(lm.fit14, col = "red")
abline(-1, 0.5, col = "blue")
legend("topleft", c("Least square", "Regression"), col = c("red", "blue"), lty = c(1, 1))
(g) Now fit a polynomial regression model that predicts y using x and x^2. Is there evidence that the quadratic term improves the model fit ? Explain your answer.
lm.fit15 = lm(y ~ x + I(x^2))
summary(lm.fit15)
The coefficient for "x^2" is not significant as its p-value is higher than 0.05. So there is not sufficient evidence that the quadratic term improves the model fit even though the $R^2$ is slightly higher than the linear model.
(h) Repeat (a)-(f) after modifying the data generation process in such a way that there is less noise in the data. The initial model should remain the same. Describe your results.
set.seed(1)
x = rnorm(100)
eps = rnorm(100, sd = 0.0025)
y = -1 + 0.5 * x + eps
plot(x, y)
lm.fit16 = lm(y ~ x)
summary(lm.fit16)
abline(lm.fit16, col = "red")
abline(-1, 0.5, col = "blue")
legend("topleft", c("Least square", "Regression"), col = c("red", "blue"), lty = c(1, 1))
We reduced the noise by decreasing the variance of the normal distribution used to generate the error term $\varepsilon$. We may see that the coefficients are very close to the previous ones, but now, as the relationship is nearly linear, we have a much higher $R^2$ namely 1. Moreover, the two lines overlap each other as we have very little noise.
(i) Repeat (a)-(f) after modifying the data generation process in such a way that there is more noise in the data. The initial model should remain the same. Describe your results.
set.seed(1)
x = rnorm(100)
eps = rnorm(100, sd = 2.5)
y = -1 + 0.5 * x + eps
plot(x, y)
lm.fit17 = lm(y ~ x)
summary(lm.fit17)
abline(lm.fit17, col = "red")
abline(-1, 0.5, col = "blue")
legend("topleft", c("Least square", "Regression"), col = c("red", "blue"), lty = c(1, 1))
We increased the noise by increasing the variance of the normal distribution used to generate the error term $\varepsilon$. We may see that the coefficients are again very close to the previous ones, but now, as the relationship is not quite linear, we have a much lower $R^2$. Moreover, the two lines are wider apart but are still really close to each other as we have a fairly large data set.
(j) What are the confidence intervals for $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ based on the original data set, the noisier data set, and the less noisy data set ? Comment on your results.
confint(lm.fit14)
confint(lm.fit16)
confint(lm.fit17)
As the noise increases, the confidence intervals widen. With less noise, there is more predactibility in the data set.
14. This problem focuses on the collinearity problem.
(a) Perform the following commands in R.
set.seed(1)
x1 = runif(100)
x2 = 0.5 * x1 + rnorm(100)/10
y = 2 + 2*x1 + 0.3*x2 + rnorm(100)
The last line corresponds to creating a linear model in which y is a function of x1 and x2. Write out the form of the linear model. What are the regression coefficients?
The form of the linear model is $Y = 2 + 2X_1 +0.3X_2 + \varepsilon$ with $\varepsilon$ a $N(0,1)$ random variable. The regression coefficients are respectively 2, 2 and 0.3.
(b) What is the correlation between x1 and x2 ? Create a scatterplot displaying the relationship between the variables.
cor(x1, x2)
plot(x1, x2)
The variables seem highly correlated.
(c) Using this data, fit a least squares regression to predict y using x1 and x2. Describe the results obtained. What are $\hat{\beta}_0$, $\hat{\beta}_1$ and $\hat{\beta}_2$ ? How do these relate to the true $\beta_0$, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ ? Can you reject the null hypothesis $H_0 : \beta_1 = 0$ ? How about the null hypothesis $H_0 : \beta_2 = 0$ ?
lm.fit18 <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2)
summary(lm.fit18)
The coefficients $\hat{\beta}_0$, $\hat{\beta}_1$ and $\hat{\beta}_2$ are respectively 2.1305, 1.4396 and 1.0097. Only $\hat{\beta}_0$ is close to $\beta_0$. As the p-value is less than 0.05 we may reject $H_0$ for $\beta_1$, however we may not reject $H_0$ for $\beta_2$ as the p-value is higher than 0.05.
(d) Now fit a least squares regression to predict y using only x1. Comment on your results. Can you reject the null hypothesis $H_0 : \beta_1 = 0$ ?
lm.fit19 <- lm(y ~ x1)
summary(lm.fit19)
The coefficient for "x1" in this last model is very different from the one with "x1" and "x2" as predictors. In this case "x1" is highly significant as its p-value is very low, so we may reject $H_0$.
(e) Now fit a least squares regression to predict y using only x2. Comment on your results. Can you reject the null hypothesis $H_0 : \beta_1 = 0$ ?
lm.fit20 <- lm(y ~ x2)
summary(lm.fit20)
The coefficient for "x2" in this last model is very different from the one with "x1" and "x2" as predictors. In this case "x2" is highly significant as its p-value is very low, so we may again reject $H_0$.
(f) Do the results obtained in (c)-(e) contradict each other ? Explain your answer.
No, the results do not contradict each other. As the predictors "x1" and "x2" are highly correlated we are in the presence of collinearity, in this case it can be difficult to determine how each predictor separately is associated with the response. Since collinearity reduces the accuracy of the estimates of the regression coefficients, it causes the standard error for $\hat{\beta}_1$ to grow (we have a standard error of 0.7212 and 1.1337 for "x1" and "x2" respectively in the model with two predictors and only of 0.3963 and 0.633 for "x1" and "x2" respectively in the models with only one predictor). Consequently, we may fail to reject $H_0$ in the presence of collinearity. The importance of the "x2" variable has been masked due to the presence of collinearity.
(g) Now suppose we obtain one additional observation, which was unfortunately mismeasured.
x1 = c(x1, 0.1)
x2 = c(x2, 0.8)
y = c(y, 6)
Re-fit the linear models from (c) to (e) using this new data. What effect does this new observation have on each of the models ? In each model, is this observation an outlier ? A high-leverage point ? Explain your answers.
lm.fit21 = lm(y ~ x1 + x2)
summary(lm.fit21)
lm.fit22 = lm(y ~ x1)
summary(lm.fit22)
lm.fit23 = lm(y ~ x2)
summary(lm.fit23)
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(lm.fit21)
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(lm.fit22)
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(lm.fit23)
In the model with two predictors, the last point is a high-leverage point. In the model with "x1" as sole predictor, the last point is an outlier. In the model with "x2" as sole predictor, the last point is a high leverage point.
15. This problem involves the Boston data set, which we saw in the lab for this chapter. We will now try to predict per capita crime rate using the other variables in this data set. In other words, per capita crime rate is the response, and the other variables are th predictors.
(a) For each predictor, fit a simple linear regression model to predict the response. Describe your results. In which of the models is there a statistically significant association between the predictor and the response ? Create some plots to back up your assertions.
Boston = read.csv("../../../data/Boston.csv", header=T, na.strings="?")
Boston$chas <- factor(Boston$chas, labels = c("N","Y"))
summary(Boston)
attach(Boston)
lm.zn = lm(crim~zn)
summary(lm.zn) # yes
lm.indus = lm(crim~indus)
summary(lm.indus) # yes
lm.chas = lm(crim~chas)
summary(lm.chas) # no
lm.nox = lm(crim~nox)
summary(lm.nox) # yes
lm.rm = lm(crim~rm)
summary(lm.rm) # yes
lm.age = lm(crim~age)
summary(lm.age) # yes
lm.dis = lm(crim~dis)
summary(lm.dis) # yes
lm.rad = lm(crim~rad)
summary(lm.rad) # yes
lm.tax = lm(crim~tax)
summary(lm.tax) # yes
lm.ptratio = lm(crim~ptratio)
summary(lm.ptratio) # yes
lm.black = lm(crim~black)
summary(lm.black) # yes
lm.lstat = lm(crim~lstat)
summary(lm.lstat) # yes
lm.medv = lm(crim~medv)
summary(lm.medv) # yes
To find which predictors are significant, we have to test $H_0 : \beta_1 = 0$. All predictors have a p-value less than 0.05 except "chas", so we may conclude that there is a statistically significant association between each predictor and the response except for the "chas" predictor.
(b) Fit a multiple regression model to predict the response using all of the predictors. Describe your results. For which predictors can we reject the null hypothesis $H_0 : \beta_j = 0$ ?
lm.all = lm(crim ~ ., data = Boston)
summary(lm.all)
We may reject the null hypothesis for "zn", "dis", "rad", "black" and "medv".
(c) How do your results from (a) compare to your results from (b) ? Create a plot displaying the univariate regression coefficients from (a) on the x-axis, and the multiple regression coefficients from (b) on the y-axis. That is, each predictor is displayed as a single point on the plot. Its coefficient in a simple linear regression model is shown on the x-axis, and its coefficient estimate in the multiple linear regression model is shown on the y-axis.
# Simple regresion
x = c(coefficients(lm.zn)[2],
coefficients(lm.indus)[2],
coefficients(lm.chas)[2],
coefficients(lm.nox)[2],
coefficients(lm.rm)[2],
coefficients(lm.age)[2],
coefficients(lm.dis)[2],
coefficients(lm.rad)[2],
coefficients(lm.tax)[2],
coefficients(lm.ptratio)[2],
coefficients(lm.black)[2],
coefficients(lm.lstat)[2],
coefficients(lm.medv)[2])
# Multiple regresion
y = coefficients(lm.all)[2:14]
plot(x, y)
There is a difference between the simple and multiple regression coefficients. This difference is due to the fact that in the simple regression case, the slope term represents the average effect of an increase in the predictor, ignoring other predictors. In contrast, in the multiple regression case, the slope term represents the average effect of an increase in the predictor, while holding other predictors fixed. It does make sense for the multiple regression to suggest no relationship between the response and some of the predictors while the simple linear regression implies the opposite because the correlation between the predictors show some strong relationships between some of the predictors.
cor(Boston[-c(1, 4)])
So for example, when "age" is high there is a tendency in "dis" to be low, hence in simple linear regression which only examines "crim" versus "age", we observe that higher values of "age" are associated with higher values of "crim", even though "age" does not actually affect "crim". So "age" is a surrogate for "dis"; "age" gets credit for the effect of "dis" on "crim".
(d) Is there evidence of non-linear association between any of the predictors and the response ? To answer this question, for each predictor $X$, fit a model of the form $Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X + \beta_2 X^2 + \beta_3 X^3 + \varepsilon$.
lm.zn = lm(crim ~ poly(zn, 3))
summary(lm.zn) # 1, 2
lm.indus = lm(crim ~ poly(indus, 3))
summary(lm.indus) # 1, 2, 3
lm.nox = lm(crim ~ poly(nox, 3))
summary(lm.nox) # 1, 2, 3
lm.rm = lm(crim ~ poly(rm, 3))
summary(lm.rm) # 1, 2
lm.age = lm(crim ~ poly(age, 3))
summary(lm.age) # 1, 2, 3
lm.dis = lm(crim ~ poly(dis, 3))
summary(lm.dis) # 1, 2, 3
lm.rad = lm(crim ~ poly(rad, 3))
summary(lm.rad) # 1, 2
lm.tax = lm(crim ~ poly(tax, 3))
summary(lm.tax) # 1, 2
lm.ptratio = lm(crim ~ poly(ptratio, 3))
summary(lm.ptratio) # 1, 2, 3
lm.black = lm(crim ~ poly(black, 3))
summary(lm.black) # 1
lm.lstat = lm(crim ~ poly(lstat, 3))
summary(lm.lstat) # 1, 2
lm.medv = lm(crim ~ poly(medv, 3))
summary(lm.medv) # 1, 2, 3
See inline comments above, the answer is yes for most, except for black and chas.
For "zn", "rm", "rad", "tax" and "lstat" as predictor, the p-values suggest that the cubic coefficient is not statistically significant; for "indus", "nox", "age", "dis", "ptratio" and "medv" as predictor, the p-values suggest the adequacy of the cubic fit; for "black" as predictor, the p-values suggest that the quandratic and cubic coefficients are not statistically significant, so in this latter case no non-linear effect is visible.


Welcome to my personal website, here you can find some information about me. My name is José Pereira, I am years old, living in Portugal. I am graduated in Integrated Master's, Software Engineering course at University of Minho. I am working for the ITSector as a Backend Developer.
My master degree is specialized in Application and Software Systemns Engineering. My master dissertation is based in microservices architectures, principles and patterns applied to an ecommerce problem.
| Name | Created | Last update | Language (most used) | Download |
|---|


Synopsis
The main frame story concerns Shahryār (Persian: شهريار, from
Middle Persian šahr-dār, lit. "holder of realm"), whom the
narrator calls a "Sasanian king" ruling in "India and China".
Shahryār is shocked to learn that his brother's wife is
unfaithful; discovering that his own wife's infidelity has
been even more flagrant, he has her killed. In his bitterness
and grief, he decides that all women are the same. Shahryār
begins to marry a succession of virgins only to execute each
one the next morning, before she has a chance to dishonor him.
Eventually the vizier, whose duty it is to provide them, cannot
find any more virgins. Scheherazade (Persian/ Farsi: شهْرزاد
Shahrazād, from Middle Persian čehr شهر, "lineage" + āzād ازاد,
"noble"), the vizier's daughter, offers herself as the
next bride and her father reluctantly agrees. On the night of
their marriage, Scheherazade begins to tell the king a tale,
but does not end it. The king, curious about how the story
ends, is thus forced to postpone her execution in order to
hear the conclusion. The next night, as soon as she finishes
the tale, she begins another one, and the king, eager to hear
the conclusion of that tale as well, postpones her execution
once again. This goes on for one thousand and one nights,
hence the name.
The tales vary widely: they include historical tales, love stories,
tragedies, comedies, poems, burlesques, and various forms of
erotica. Numerous stories depict jinns, ghouls, apes, sorcerers,
magicians, and legendary places, which are often intermingled with
real people and geography, not always rationally. Common
protagonists include the historical Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid,
his Grand Vizier, Jafar al-Barmaki, and the famous poet Abu
Nuwas, despite the fact that these figures lived some 200 years
after the fall of the Sassanid Empire, in which the frame tale
of Scheherazade is set. Sometimes a character in Scheherazade's
tale will begin telling other characters a story of his own, and
that story may have another one told within it, resulting in a
richly layered narrative texture.
The different versions have different individually detailed endings
(in some Scheherazade asks for a pardon, in some the king sees
their children and decides not to execute his wife, in some '
other things happen that make the king distracted) but they
all end with the king giving his wife a pardon and sparing
her life.
The narrator's standards for what constitutes a cliffhanger
seem broader than in modern literature. While in many cases a
story is cut off with the hero in danger of losing his life
or another kind of deep trouble, in some parts of the full
text Scheherazade stops her narration in the middle of an
exposition of abstract philosophical principles or complex
points of Islamic philosophy, and in one case during a
detailed description of human anatomy according to Galen—and
in all of these cases she turns out to be justified in her
belief that the king's curiosity about the sequel would buy
her another day of life.


Sharitive is a nonprofit mobile application that helps you help your community. It’s simple. Sign up for Sharitive and bookmark the page to easily access Sharitive from your Home screen. Earn dollars donated on your behalf for each purchase and check-in you make at Sharitive business partners. Donate your Sharitive funds to our nonprofit partners providing critical services in your community.
Business Partners
Nonprofit Partners
Mission
Sharitive’s mission is to create new funding and resources for critical urban-based nonprofits providing food, shelter, access to healthcare, and other services in our communities. Sharitive was created to help resolve our nationwide funding and resource crisis while breaking down barriers to community involvement and charitable giving prevalent in urban environments.
Sign up for Sharitive
Create an account. Bookmark the page to easily access the app from your Home screen.
Earn dollars
Earn dollars, donated on your behalf, for each purchase and check-in you make at Sharitive business partners.
Donate Sharitive funds
Donate your Sharitive funds to our local nonprofit partners. Match your Sharitive gift with your own donation, or pledge your time.
Latest Blog Post
September Recap in Numbers and Thoughts
October 9th, 2013With the close of September, fall has officially arrived and Sharitive ends its 5th month. As we progress throughout our pilot, we continue to see loyal users and a committed business partner driving this system of hyper-local giving.
A few numbers to sum up September: Read More...
We want to hear from you
For all customer service questions, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For all volunteer requests, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For all general questions and feedback, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow us:


Merry Christmas
We wish you a very
Merry Christmas
and a happy holiday season! Stay safe and take care.


BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPLICATION No. 07(THC)/2013(WZ) AND APPLICATION NO.36 (THC) OF 2013 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Kingaonkar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande (Expert Member) APPLICATION No. 07(THC)/2013(WZ) B E T W E E N: Sonyabapu s/o. Tukaram Rajguru, Aged 41 Years, Occu : Service, R/o. Karajgaon, Tq. Newasa, District :Ahmednagar. ....Applicant AND 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 1 2 The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, 3 The Collector, Ahmednagar, District :Ahmednagar, 4 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tq. Shrirampur, Distt :Ahmednagar, 5 The Tahsildar, Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Distt :Ahmednagar. 6 The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Sub-Regional Office, SavitribaiPhule Commercial Market, 1st Floor, Hall No.2 &3 , Near T.V. Centre, Savedi, Tq. &Distt :Ahmednagar, 7 Seetabai Rambhau Jorvekar, Aged 57 Years, Occu : Business, Resident of :Karajgaon, Tq. Newasa, District :Ahmednagar. ...Respondents Counsel for Applicant: Absent - Nemo Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Vikas Kulkarni, Adv. APPLICATION NO.36 (THC) OF 2013 B E T W E E N: PRABHAKAR PRATAP PANGAVHANE Age 70 years, Occ. Agriculture R/oMahe-Deshmukh, TalukaKopargaon, District Ahmednagar Through its Power of Attorney Holder Avinash Prabhakar Pangavhane Age 40 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Mahe-Deshmukh, Taluka : Kopargaon, (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 2 District Ahmednagar. . ........Applicant Versus 1. State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Environment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board, Kalpataru Point, 3rd Floor, Opp. Cine Planet, Sion Circle, Mumbai, Through its Chairman 3. Sub-Regional Office, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board SavitribaiPhuleVyapariSankul, Near T.V.Centre, Savedi, Ahmednagar. 4. District Revenue, Collector, Ahmednagar 5. Balasaheb Pundlik Kale Age Major, Occu. Business. 6. Jaywant Tukaram Kale, Age Major, Occu. Business. Respondent Nos.5 & 6, R/o Mahe-Deshmukh, Taluka Kopargoan District Ahmednagar. .....Respondents Counsel for Applicant Mr. Yogesh J.Kamat. Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. D.M.Gupte and Mrs Supriya Dangare for Respondent No.1,2, 3. Mr. A.P. Akut for Respondent Nos.5 & 6. (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 3 DATE : 24th February, 2014 COMMON - JUDGMENT 1. Two Writ Petitions No. 2059 of 2013 and WP No. 9855 of 2012 have been transferred to this Tribunal by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and thereafter have been registered as Applications. Both these Applications involve common issues related to pollution caused due to Brick kilns, environmental impacts of brick kilns and operating the Brick Kilns without necessary permissions from regulatory authorities, including MPCB. For the sake of clarity, facts in both these cases have been separately narrated before outlining the Issues to be decided in these Applications. Facts
in APPLICATION No. 07(THC)/2013(WZ)
2. Applicant Sonyabapu filed Writ Petition No.2059 of 2013 seeking prohibitory injunction against Respondent No.7 Sitabai from running brick-kiln in agricultural land bearing Gat No.51/2A, admeasuring 10 Gunthas (Aars) situated at village Karajgaon under Newasa Tahsil (District Ahmednagar). Incidentally, he also challenged order dated 5th December 2012 issued by Tahsildar, Newasa, whereby Respondent No.7 Sitabai was permitted to run the brick-kiln in the said agricultural land. (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 4
3. The above Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad by order dated October 01st, 2013. Afresh notices were issued thereafter. The pleadings were completed. The matter was thereafter heard on merits.
4. Briefly stated, case of Applicant Sonyabapu is that Respondent No.7 Sitabai is running a brick-kiln in agricultural land bearing Gat No.51/2A, situated at village Karajgaon, without obtaining valid permission of competent authority, in defiance of the statutory provisions. His father had filed Writ Petition No.2854 of 2005 in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, seeking relief against the illegal activities of running brick-kiln by Respondent No.7 Sitabai. That Writ Petition was, however, disposed of in view of statement made by Learned A.G.P. to the effect that the District Collector will take appropriate action against Respondent No.7 Sitabai if the brick-kiln is found to be illegal and being run without necessary permission. Still, however, no action was taken till the date.
5. Applicant Sonyabapu gave account of civil dispute which was raised by filing a suit (R.C.S.No.27 of 2005) by Respondent No.7 Sitabai against him in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Newasa for prohibitory injunction.  The suit was (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 5 decreed by the Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23rd January 2009. Feeling aggrieved, Applicant Sonyabapu preferred an Appeal (R.C.A.No.14 of 2009) in the District Court, Shrirampur. He also sought stay to the injunction decree. An exparte stay order was granted by the District Court against the exparte order of stay, Respondent No.7 Sitabai has preferred Writ Petition No.5142 of 2012 in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. That Writ Petition is still pending.
6. According to Applicant Sonyabapu, he made various complaints against illegal activities of Respondent No.7 Sitabai. By communication dated 29th June 2009, the TahsildarNewasa informed him that Respondent No.7 has not obtained any permission from the District Health Officer or Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar or Gram Panchyat Karajgaon for running of the brick-kiln. He alleges that on enquiry, he came to know that the Gram Panchyat office of village Karajgaon did not issue "No Objection Certificate (NOC)" to Respondent No.7 Sitabai for running of the brick-kiln. He gathered information that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has not granted any permission to Respondent No.7 Sitabai for running of the brick-kiln.
7. It is the case of Applicant Sonyabapu that as per the guidelines of the MPCB, set-out vide communication dated 18th February 1997, no brick-kiln can be permitted within distance (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 6 of 500 meters from residential premises or a public road. The brick-kiln of Respondent No.7 Sitabai is being run illegally in as much as it is at a distance of about 120 ft. from the nearby public road. Thus, it is being operated in violation of the guidelines issued by the MPCB. Further, the brick-kiln is being run without payment of royalty to the Government for the stock of earth (soil) that was being used for manufacturing of the bricks. Therefore, on 24th February 2012, Respondent No.7 Sitabai was directed to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for illegally transporting of the earth (soil) without payment of royalty, as per the communication issued by the Tahsildar, Newasa. Though, previously the Tahsildar had prohibited Respondent No.7 Sitabai from running of the brick-kiln by an order dated 13th June 2012, yet subsequently by impugned order dated 5 th December 2012, the said prohibitory order was re-called and declamped.
8. According to Applicant Sonyabapu, brick-kiln of Respondent No.7 Sitabai is surrounded by residential houses of 300 to 400 inhabitants. The life and health of the inhabitants residing around the brick-kiln is endangered due to the pollution caused on account of running of the brick-kiln by Respondent no.7 Sitabai. The Air Pollution caused due to smoke emanating from the brick-kiln has also damaged the crops in the surrounding area. The authorities have failed to take suitable action against Respondent No.7 Sitabai in spite of (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 7 various complaints made by him and other inhabitants of the locality. His right to life and right to enjoy pollution-free atmosphere is violated due to running of the brick-kiln by Respondent No.7 Sitabai. It is necessary to shut down the illegal brick-kiln in order to protect his life as well as life of other inhabitants of the locality as per protection available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is in the wake of these background facts that he approached the Hon'ble High Court Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad by filing of the Writ Petition which has been transferred to this Tribunal.
9. By filing reply-Affidavit, Arun Ujagare, Tahsildar Newasa resisted the Application on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. All the material allegations of Applicant Sonyabapu are denied by him. He submitted that the earlier order dated 13th June 2012 was recalled by impugned order dated 5-12-2012 in view of subsequent developments. He contended that since Respondent No.7 Sitabai was granted prohibitory decree by the Civil Court, as a result thereof the earlier communication was recalled. His response in the matter is, however, of no much importance.
10. On behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Regional Officer, Shri. Ankush Fulse, filed reply affidavit. In his affidavit, he explained that the MPCB, is not the Authority to grant Consent to establish for the bricks Kilns and the same are being regulated by the Revenue Department, the Govt. of (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 8 Maharashtra till the date. His affidavit is to the effect that the role of MPCB, is limited to the extent of monitoring air emissions and to look into the complaints of air pollution, in respect of the bricks kiln activities. The affidavit shows that the emissions in respect of impugned brick kiln were found to be normal during the course of monitoring of ambient air quality, as conducted in pursuance to the communication of the District Collector, Ahmednagar, in June, 2006. The affidavit of Shri.Ankush Fulse, is to the effect that the impugned brick kiln is adjacent to the road and is situated at a distance of about 100 mtrs from the road. The affidavit further shows that the brick kiln of Respondent No.7, Sitabai, is approximately 2 km away from the village locality of Karajgaon and is about 2 km away from the river 'Mula'. So also, it is about 250-300 mts away from the residential house of the Applicant-Sonyabapu. The brick kiln was found closed w.e.f. 7th June, 2013. The affidavit shows that the brick kiln is an old type (traditionally used) for manufacturing of bricks at the countryside and is called 'Çhamp Bhatti'.
11. The stance of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, is that they are not the Authorities for granting permission/licence for the brick kilns and particularly, traditional type Clamp brick kilns run at the countryside.
12. By filing her reply affidavit, Respondent No.7, Sitabai, resisted the Application. She is the main contesting (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 9 party to the Application. According to her, the bricks kiln is being run since 1988, in traditional way. She submits that she is a Potter by caste and it is her family business to deal in manufacturing of the bricks. She narrated that she has obtained necessary permission for Non-Agricultural use (NA- permission) issued by the Revenue Authority for converting land Gat No.51/2A for Non-Agricultural use. She claims to have purchased the said land Gat No.51/2A, from its previous owner for valuable consideration. According to her, as per Notification of the Revenue and Forest department, the traditional Potter is permitted to remove earth, stone and murum up to the extent of 500 brass, from the bed of the Sea or from the bed of any creek, river and Nallas, in accordance with the Rules under the Mines and Mineral Regulation (Development) Act, 1957. She claims, however, to have paid royalty for procurement of the sand and the earth, for manufacturing of the bricks. According to her the bricks kiln, is being run without causing any pollution to the nearby area. Her case is that she had filed a suit bearing RCS No.27 of 2005, for perpetual injunction against the Applicant and sought injunction restraining the Applicant from running the bricks kiln business. She submits that the suit has been decreed and, therefore, the Applicant has filed various complaints including the present Application. She denied that the bricks kiln is being run without any lawful permission. She further denied that the bricks kiln is being run against the (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 10 settled parameters, as per the guidelines of the MPCB. Her contentions is that though the bricks kiln does not cause any air pollution and violation of environmental norms, yet the Applicant has filed false Application with a view to harass her. Hence, she sought dismissal of the Application.
13. No other response was filed by any other party. Nor we think that it is necessary to insist for calling any such response from them.
14. Before we proceed to consider the contentious Issues, let be it noted that the parties have already gone through one round of civil litigation. A suit bearing RCS No.27 of 2005, was filed by the Respondent No.7, Sitabai, against Applicant Sonyabapu for prohibitory injunction. The Civil Judge, Newasa, decreed that suit. It may be mentioned here that the Ld. Civil Judge, considered the question of lawful possession of Respondent No.7, Sitabai, over land Gat No.51/2A, in that suit. The decree in that suit, in fact, has no bearing in the context of the present Application. The subject matter of the present Application is the threat to the environment, which is caused, or likely to be caused due to running of the bricks kiln, particularly, due to the air pollutants discharged therefrom. The real question is whether any standards are prescribed for the traditional brick kilns called 'Çlamp (Country type) brick kilns'. Another important question is, whether the MPCB is licencing authority, under any rules for such kind of Bricks Industry. For, (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 11 the chief bone of contention raised by the Applicant is that the bricks kiln, is being run against the settled environmental norms and particularly the guidelines of the MPCB.
15. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.7 Sitabai argued that air quality Report of the MPCB was found to be as per prescribed standard when the samples were collected and examined. He referred to MPCB report dated 12-11-2006. The samples were collected on 7-1-2006. The report shows that the brick-kiln is located at a distance 2 k.m. from the village Karajgaon and is run seasonally for 5 months per year. The Report further shows that the fuel used is coal of 3 to 4 M.T. p.m. The proposal of renewal for licence was found pending with the Tahsildar. There was no Chimni fixed on brick-kiln. The report shows that there was no fugitive emission around the area. This report runs contrary to the Enquiry Report submitted by the Tahsildar, Newasa vide communication dated 29-2-2009. Moreover, the report pertaining to the samples collected in the month of January 2006 has hardly any bearing on the juxta position for the subsequent period. We have perused the photographs placed on record. We have also the perused the copies of challans filed by Respondent No.7 Sitabai. It appears, no doubt, that Respondent No.7 Sitabai has paid royalty for extraction of sand in order to run the brick-kiln. She has not however, placed on record any valid permission granted in her favour to run the brick-kiln.
(Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 12 16. We may mention at this juncture that by
communication dated 06-05-2012 bearing Tahsil/Jamin/31- 12, Tahsildar, Newasa directed Respondent No.7 Sitabai to close down the brick-kiln for the reason that the smoke emanating therefrom was causing nuisance to the inhabitants of the vicinity. The said communication further shows that the policy of the MPCB was that no permission should be granted to such old type Clamp (traditional) brick-kilns. Thus, it is amply clear that closure of said brick-kiln was ordered due to the fact that it was found to be nuisance to the residents of the vicinity due to the smoke which was found emanating there from. There is no substantial reason to deviate from such observations shown in the communication issued by the Tahsildar.
17. What appears from impugned communication dated 05-12-2012 (Ex-N) is that the Tahsildar, Newasa had withdrawn the earlier communication because the suit bearing R.C.S.No. 27/2005 was decreed and though the interim order was challenged, yet, the Tahsildar was not made a party in the suit as well as in Writ Petition No. 9131/2012. Obviously, withdrawal the previous communication was for extraneous reasons unconcerned with issue of environment and based upon the decree which was passed in the Civil Suit bearing R.C.S.No.27/2005. As stated before, the subject matter of that suit was the question of lawful possession claimed by Respondent No.7 Sitabai over land Gat No.51/2A and had no (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 13 relation with the question of environmental damage caused due to running of the brick-kiln in that land. Needless to say, the issues involved in the earlier suit and the present Application are quite distinct in nature.
18. Coming to the earlier Enquiry proceeding in the context of complaint made by Applicant Sonyabapu, a copy of Report submitted to Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur Division Shrirampur on 29-2-2009 is placed on record. It appears that Executive Magistrate of Sonai conducted an inquiry into the complaint in pursuance to communication dated 25-6-2009 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Shrirampur, Sub-Division. From the said report, following information may be gathered.
a) From 1992 onward Respondent no.7 Sitabai did not seek any NOC from Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat, Karajgaon.
b) There is residential locality near the said brick-
kiln. There were 35 houses in that locality in 1991 but during 2009, 70 houses were found around the brick-kiln and they are situated on eastern side of the road. The road is about 120 ft. away from the brick-kiln.
c) The brick-kiln was not in operation as was closed down in accordance with direction of the Tahsildar issued by communication dated 16-6-2002.
(Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 14
d) There are vegetables and fruit bearing plants in the adjoining areas which are likely to be damaged due to the Air Pollution caused during the running of the brick-kilns because of non-availability of free air.
(Emphasis supplied by us)
19. From the Fact Finding Report mentioned above, it is amply clear that running of the brick-kiln in land Gat No.51/2A by Respondent No.7 Sitabai, tantamounts to threat to the environment. It is not necessary to establish that actual loss or damage is caused to the environment.
FACTS OF APPLICATION NO.36 (THC) OF 2013
20. The Writ Petition No.9855 of 2012, was transferred to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad vide its order dated 20th September, 2013. This Application has been filed by the Applicant claiming that brick kilns operated by the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, have posed a serious issue of pollution and health hazard in the surrounding area and also ambient temperature has increased in the locality. It is claimed by the Applicant that he has agricultural farm in gut No.280 of village Mahe- Deshmukh, taluka Kopargaon District Ahmednagar. He has further submitted that the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have started brick kilns in gut Nos. 278 and 277 which are adjoining to his land. The Applicant further claims that serious air pollution is (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 15 caused and also the solid waste from the brick kilns is disposed improperly and therefore there is serious environmental concern and degradation in the area and his agricultural fields are affected and also there is serious threat to the health of people residing in the surrounding.
21. The Applicant further submits that he has made complaints to the Collector as well as the MPCB (Respondent Nos.2 and 3), however, the Authorities have not taken necessary action on his complaints. The Applicant further submits that the brick kilns are being operated illegally without obtaining statutory permission from the revenue Authorities as well as the MPCB. The MPCB visit inspection report is produced on record which shows that the brick kilns have not been provided with any type of air and water pollution control system. Further village Mahe-Deshmukh is about 250-300m from the brick kilns. Further the residence of complaints (Applicant) is about 250-300. The brick kilns are along Mahe-Deshmukh to Kolgaon Thadi road. The affidavit goes on to mention that various crops like Sugarcane, Wheat, Onion were observed in the agriculture lands adjoining to the brick kilns and the brick kilns were not in operation during the visit.
22. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed affidavit dated 18th January, 2014 through Shri. Ankush S. Fulse, the Regional officer of the MPCB. The Respondents have submitted that the MPCB is not granting consent to establish and consent to (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 16 operate to the brick kilns activity and these activities are regulated by the revenue department, Govt. of Maharashtra. He has further submitted that the Respondent Board had circulated the guidelines to all the District Collectors in the State of Maharashtra, by letter dated 18.2.1997 and the guidelines can be summarized as under:
1) Coal of 10 a.m. size with less dust content shall be used as a fuel in Brick kiln. The brick kilns shall be mechanized, so as to use coal properly. Rubber, Plastics, Hazardous Wastes etc. shall not be used as fuel in Brick Kiln to avoid any toxic emission & smell nuisance.
2) Waste/Ash generated from Brick Kilns shall be recycled for brick manufacturing activity to maximum extent.
3) The Owner of the mechanized Brick Kilns shall take necessary measures to minimize the noise pollution.
4) Ash generated from the brick kilns shall be covered with bricks/tiles to avoid spreading of dust. To minimize the dust emission, water shall be sprinkled around the brick kilns and approach roads shall be made pucca.
5) Around the brick kilns double layer compound wall wish ash between layer shall be constructed and to avoid losses of heat double layer steel cover with asbestos between layer shall be provided.
6) The location of brick kiln shall be 500 meters away from the State/National High way and human habitation.
These guidelines are also placed on record.
23. The affidavit further goes on to mention that there are emissions of air pollutants from the brick kiln activity, due to (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 17 combustion of various types of fuels. The affidavit further mentions that in the area surrounded by the brick kilns, the prescribed standards laid down for ambient air quality under the provisions of Environmental Regulations needs to be complied with.
24. The Respondent No.5, submitted detailed affidavit and pleaded that the Applicant has not pleaded, much less proved, as an actual time and date of 'cause of action' and/or knowledge thereof and, therefore, the Application is not maintainable in the present form. Further the Respondents have alleged that there are ulterior motives behind this Application, and appropriate proceedings have been initiated by the Respondents against the Applicant with the concerned Authorities. However, the Tribunal is not concerned with such issues and therefore refrains from commenting on the same.
25. The Respondent No.5 submits that the Respondents are running their two (2) traditional brick kilns in gut No.278 and 279 of village Mahe-Deshmukh, taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar since 2000-01. They further submit that they are running their traditional brick kilns by using fly ash, bagasse, soil, coal and wood for the brick kilns. They further submit that they have never used nor will ever use banned fuels such as Rubber, Plastic, hazardous wastes etc. for the operation of their traditional brick kilns. Solid waste generated from the bricks kilns, is again reused in the bricks kilns. It is also submitted (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 18 that there is no State and/or National Highway within 500m from traditional brick kilns of the Respondents. The Respondents, therefore, plead that they are operating their traditional brick kilns by paying necessary royalty to the revenue department and in fact, Tahasildar Kopargaon, has granted permission to the Respondents to operate their traditional brick kilns vide letter dated 29 January, 2014.
26. The Respondents further submit that gut Nos.278 and 279 in which the Respondents operate their traditional brick kilns are surrounded as under:
On or towards East : part of gut No.277 On or towards West : gut No.281 On or towards South : gut No.280 On or towards North : Road.
Copy of village map of village Mahe-Deshmukh, is also placed on record.
27. The Respondents have submitted 7x12 extracts of above lands since 1999 till the date and the Counsel for the Respondent No.5, argued on the basis of these documents that all gut numbers except gut No.280, which is owned by the Applicant, are being cultivated. He further mentioned that regular crops are being taken even in the gut Nos. 278 and 279 where the brick kilns are operational. He, therefore, argues that there is no truth in the allegations of the Applicant that the brick kilns operations have affected the agriculture fields and the (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 19 yield. He mentions that the Applicant's land is not being cultivated by the Applicants since year 2002, for the reasons best known to him and the Applicant is trying to blame the Respondents for his own inaction and negligence, which cannot permitted by any law and in equity. The Applicants have also submitted affidavits of some villagers, whom he claim to be users of this road, which is adjacent to the brick kilns on the north side, mentioning that there is no nuisance or pollution experienced while traversing through the road. The Respondents further submit that there is no human habitation within the distance of about 600m (2,000 ft) from the traditional brick kilns of the respondents and therefore, there is no question of having any adverse impact of pollution of brick kilns on the human health. The Respondents, therefore, have pleaded for dismissal of the Application with heavy costs.
28. We have heard learned Counsels for the contesting parties in both these Applications, including Counsel for the MPCB. We have perused the relevant material placed on record. We are of the opinion that the following Issues are involved in the Applications. They are:
1) Whether it can be said that the bricks kiln run by the concerned Respondents are being run in breach of the environmental norms and particularly any parameters fixed by the MPCB or under any Rules of the State Govt.?
2) Whether it is necessary to give directions to the Respondents to immediately close down the brick kiln?
(Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 20
3) Whether it is necessary to give any other directions, in order to ensure environmental protection and particularly prevention of air pollution which is likely to be caused due to running of the clamp type (Country) brick kilns, without fixation of proper norms ?
29. There is no denial to the fact that the MPCB, has issued guidelines for running of the brick kilns. The brick kilns are required to be run by obtaining necessary permission of the District Collector or any Authority to whom such power is delegated by the Collector. A communication dated 13th February, 1997, issued by the then Member Secretary of the MPCB, and addressed to the Collector, on the subject of permission to be granted to the brick kilns, would show that the safeguards and guidelines of the MPCB are required to be considered by the Authority, while granting such permission to run the brick kiln and same may be incorporated in the permission letter. The communication further shows that no separate consent by the MPCB will be necessary for running of the brick kilns. The communication is annexed with a separate note, which shows various guidelines, set out for five(5) kinds of brick kilns.
30. From the record, it appears that there are five (5) kinds of brick kilns, as shown below:
a) Clamps,
b) Movable Chimney Bull Trench Kiln (MCBTK),
c) Fixed Chimney Bull Trench Kiln (FCBTK), (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 21
d) High Draft Kilns (HDK), and
e) Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln (VSBK).
31. Admittedly, there is no particular standard fixed by the MPCB for grant of consent to traditional country type (clamp type-Bhatti) i.e. category-I brick-kilns. Nor, the MPCB initially claimed to be the authority to grant consent to establish/operate such kind of the brick-kilns. What appeared from the record is that the MPCB has issued communication to the District Collector of each district to incorporate safeguards as per those guidelines while granting permissions for establishment of the brick-kilns. The guidelines, no doubt, cannot be treated as part of the Rules. We find from the record that the Applicants in both Applications made various complaints in respect of the fugitive emissions arising from the brick-kilns run by concerned Respondents. However, MPCB has not submitted the levels of pollution and also, ambient air quality data, except one observed in 2006.
32. We have heard learned Counsel. During hearing on February 10, 2014, we have perused record of both the matters together. We have noted that Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) vide letter No. F.No.B-
29012/1/2012/ESS/1540, dated 4th June, 2002, has issued directions under Section 18 1(a) (b) of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, regarding classification of Industries into Red, Orange and Green categories to the State (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 22 PCBs. It is noticed from the letter that brickfields are classified as Orange Industry/Process, for grant of Consent and other relevant activities. The term 'Brickfield' has been defined by the Oxford Dictionary, as "an area of ground where bricks are made". Similarly, Free Dictionary defines the Brickfield' as "place where bricks are made and sold". It can be seen from the above that the CPCB, has already considered the brick manufacturing as an activity for which the consent under the Water and Air Pollution Act, is required and accordingly the directions have been issued to the State PCBs.
33. We brought this to the notice of counsel for MPCB and sought clarification from the MPCB, whether the directions of the CPCB dated 4.6.2012, and clarification of the entries in the said directions pertaining to bricks kilns, are applicable to the brick kilns of traditional nature i.e. Clamp type (country type) brick kilns (Bhatti). He was also asked to clarify whether any particular emission standards are prescribed or likely to be prescribed and whether any consent is necessary for such type of brick kilns from the MPCB?
34. Accordingly, the MPCB has filed additional affidavit on 17.2.2014, through Ankush S. Fulse, the Regional officer of the MPCB. The MPCB has submitted that the brick kilns (excluding fly ash bricks manufacturing using lime process), are covered under entry No.7 of the list of Orange category Units and therefore, in view of the specific categorization of the brick kilns (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 23 in Orange category, as far as consent regime is concerned, it is obligatory on the part of all the brick kilns to obtain consent form the Board. (Emphasis supplied). The affidavit further goes on to mention that the MPCB has, therefore, directed all the Regional Officers and Sub-Regional Officers to cover such type of activities under consent management by circulating CPCB directions. We have noted that this is complete change of stand taken by the MPCB, as in the earlier affidavits MPCB has stated that it is not at all concerned in the permission granting mechanism for the brick kilns and it is the revenue authority who grants them permission. However, the present affidavit has taken volte-face.
35. The affidavit of the MPCB further mentions that the MoEF has already notified the standards for bulls trench kilns (BTK), down draft kin (DDK) and necessary conditions have also been stipulated. However, the affidavit do not contain anything about the emission standards which have been prescribed or will be prescribed while considering the Applications for consent by clamp type i.e. traditional brick kilns, though it was specifically directed by the Tribunal to the MPCB to clarify the position. We, therefore, find it difficult to appreciate on what basis and circumstances; the Board has decided to cover these traditional brick kilns under the consent regime, when it has not decided any emission standards which form the core part of the Consent under the provisions of Air and Water (Prevention (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 24 and Control of Pollution) Acts. The affidavit itself mentions that unless the brick kilns obtains consent to operate (after stipulation of necessary pollution control arrangements) the brick kilns will not be allowed to operate. We find it difficult to understand such a proposition when the Board itself is not sure about the emission standards, required air pollution control system, required environmental safeguards which need to be considered in appraisal of the consent application and also, the monitoring mechanism for compliance of conditions.
36. MoEF has notified industry specific emission standards for the brick kilns under the provisions of Environmental (protection) Rules vide notification dated 22.7.2009, wherein emission standards have been specified for
(i) Bull's Trech Kiln (BTK), (ii) Down-Draft Kiln (DDK) and (iii) Vertical shaft kiln (VSK) types of the Brick kiln. This notification is salient about the emission standards for the Clamp type of Brick kiln. MoEF has further issued a office memorandum on 24.6.2013 notifying the guidelines for consideration of proposals for grant of environmental clearance under EIA notification for mining of 'Brick earth' and 'ordinary earth' which are also relevant in the instant case. Incidentally, SPCB's in Rajastan, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab have a policy to grant consent to Brick kilns under the provisions of Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974. In fact, Rajastan PCB grants consent to Brick kilns under Red category i.e. highly polluting activity. (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 25
37. One of the important observations noted in the present Application relates to absence of emission standards for the clamp type traditional brick-kilns, as noted from the MPCB affidavit. MPCB has already submitted that all the brick-kilns need to obtain the Consent from MPCB under Water and Water Acts in compliance with the directions issued by CPCB. It is an admitted fact that the emission standards and also, the conditions to be incorporated in consent are essential pre- requisites for appraising the consent applications. We therefore record the necessity of stipulating the air emission standards and other conditions for environment safeguard before implementing the decision of MPCB to cover the brick kilns under consent management. This Tribunal has already ruled on the Authority for prescribing the emission standards under provisions of Air Act, 1981 in M.A.No.202 of 2013 and according, it is the State Pollution Control Board which will have to formulate and stipulate the air emission standards and other environmental safeguards for such brick kilns. In the instant case, MPCB has taken the decision based on the directions given by CPCB, and therefore it is expected that CPCB must have considered all such aspects while issuance of directions, and if such standards have already been framed by CPCB, MPCB can consider adopting the same or develop its own standards by following due process of law.
(Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 26
38. The Tribunal has to consider "Precautionary Principle" as contemplated U/s. 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act while deciding such a substantial question relating to the environmental dispute. We may refer to the observation of the Apex Court in "Vellor Citizens' Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India, "(1996) 5 SCC 647" and further explained in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, "(2004) 12 SCC 118", the Apex Court observed:- "Law requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment." The Supreme Court, thereafter, observed in paragraph 26:
"26. The concept of "sustainable development" has been explained that it covers the development that meets the needs of the person without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs. It means the development, that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.
Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's" test. The development of the industries, irrigation resources and power projects are necessary to improve employment opportunities and generations of revenue; therefore, cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a balance has to be struck, for the reason that if the activity is allowed to go, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and there may be irreparable damage to the economic interest. A Similar view has been (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 27 reiterated by this Court in T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad (104) vs. U.O.I. &Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 222; and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India &Ors.(2009) 6 SCC 142".
39. Though, the MPCB has now taken a decision to issue such permission, yet, guide-lines issued by the MPCB in 1997 are ordinarily required to be followed in absence of fixation of standards for Clamp type of Brick kiln and particularly when there are no specific Rules framed for Clamp type Brick kiln by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) or the State Government. In both cases, these guidelines are not adhered to. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the running of impugned brick-kilns is illegal activity and will have to be shut down as it poses threat to the environment to the surrounding area. We are also of the opinion that there is need to consider fixation of environmental safeguard as per Environmental (Protection) Act 1986 and/or Air Act, 1981 and also to identify the authority who is competent to issue permission for establishment/operation of such brick-kilns. We have noted that the state of Uttar Pradesh has framed certain Rules titled "Uttar Pradesh brick-kilns setting Criteria for Establishment) Rules 2012". Govt. of Andhra Pradesh has also notified guidelines for Clamp type Brick Kilns. Rajastan Pollution Control Board has also issued guidelines for Brick kilns.
40. Admittedly, the brick kilns in both these cases are operating without the necessary consent from MPCB and also, (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 28 have not provided the air pollution control arrangements, as noted by MPCB. Cumulative result of the foregoing discussion is that the Applications will have to be allowed. We deem it proper to allow the Applications with certain conditions. We direct concerned Respondent owning and operating the Brick kilns to stop running of the brick-kilns and also direct the other Respondents to ensure that such activity is closed down. However, we are not inclined to make our order operational with immediate effect because MPCB has just now came forward with a decision to cover such brick kilns under consent regime and also, MPCB has not finalized any emission standards or the requirement of air pollution control arrangements at such brick kilns besides stipulating the required safeguards.
41. Considering foregoing discussion and legal position as above, the Applications are partly allowed in terms as shown below :
a. The Brick kilns operated by concerned Respondents shall not be operated beyond 1st September 2014, without the necessary consent of MPCB.
b. MPCB shall formulate and notify the emissions standards for clamp type traditional brick kilns under the provisions of Air (P&CP) Act, 1981, within a period of 4 months following due process of law. CPCB shall provide necessary technical assistance for the same.
(Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 29 c. The State Government of Maharashtra shall consider framing of suitable Rules for brick kilns, may be on line of the Rules notified by the Uttar Pradesh viz. Uttar Pradesh Brick-kilns Setting Criteria for Establishment Rules 2012 or other Rules/guidelines prevailing in other State like State of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, within next 4 months.
42. We make it clear, however, that Respondents owning and operating brick kilns will have a right to apply for permission or the consent to establish and operate the brick- kiln in their land if such Application is in accordance with relevant norms. The competent authority may consider their Application as per the norms/Rules existing as on the date of such application. In case such valid permission is granted, they may operate the brick-kiln without causing environmental damage as per the conditions that may be imposed, by avoiding environmental degradation/ nuisance/damage.
43. The Applications are accordingly allowed and disposed of. No Costs.
....................................,JM (Justice V. R. Kingaonkar) .................................., EM (Dr. Ajay. A. Deshpande) (Common-J) Application No.07(THC)/2013 & No.36(THC)/2013 (WZ) N.G.T.(WZ) 30


Hi,
We store the absolute minimum of your information needed to allow the tool to function.
We need you to sign in with your Twitter account because of the limit Twitter imposes on the number of searches that can be done by any one person for more details, see here.
But we don’t keep most of the information that’s passed to us we discard everything except for the access token that Twitter generates for you.


A reposnive site is deisnged to adapt to different screen sizes and orientations. The elements on a webpage will change their layout depending on the size of the screen. For example a menu bar that is horizontal on a large desktop screen may change to a vertiacal bar when viewed on a mbile phone. Responsioves is important becuase there are so many differente devices to view websites on. A web developer cannot assume that a website will only be displayed on a large screen.
Mobile first design is focusing on the layout of a website on a small screen before considering the layout on larger screens. Because mobile devices are so popular it is more likely your site will be viewed on a smaller screen. Therefore a mobile design should be the priority when designing a website. Larger screens can be catered for but the mobile screen layout should be considered first.
Frameworks are a structured collection of files (HTML, CSS, JavaScript etc) that can be used to support the development of websites. Frameworks provide a common structure so that developers don't have to re-create a website from scratch. They can use the code that is already provided in the framework.
Browser compatibility
Learn good practices
Speeds up the mock-up process
Unused code leftover
Slower learning curve
You don't learn to do it yourself
Wire framing is the initial stage of website design process. The purpose is to work in a minimal way to start organising content and the flow of information on a page. Wire framing allows you to work quickly and generate lots of ideas with out worrying about styling.
I have found the footer to be the most difficult element to implement. I managed to get the footer to stay at the bottom of my page when the screen is in 'mobile view'. However, sometimes the footer will jump up to the middle of the page on desktop view. This seems to happen if the content of the page runs longer than the height of the page.


Update/Clarification (21th August 2021):
Disclaimer: I'm not against using IDE's in general.
Sometimes they provide valuable tools like refactoring / function rename,
which would simply be dumb to do manually.
I myself use IntelliJ, CLion and MySQL workbench almost everyday.
I'm simply listing Reasons for not using one ALL THE TIME FOR EVERYTHING.
And there are real benefits to not using them for some projects.
But there are situations where using an IDE would be the best decision, in my opinion.
IDE's (Integrated Development Environments) have become very popular. They enable very fast programming of Applications in statically typed languages which have support for Autocomplete. An example would be programming in Java with Intellij Idea.  I met a friend recently who is programming C++, and he is just using a terminal text editor (Micro).
By not using an IDE, you have to remember the syntax of the language you are using, the subroutines from your own project and their arguments. You also remember (standard-)library subroutines better for your chose programming language.
When you have to manually find a file to change a subroutine implementation, or to refactor a subroutine, you will have good file names and a good directory structure. The Antipattern of the directory layout of your typical Java Enterprise Project is a Testament to this. (src/main/java/org/company/product/...)
 Some Projects with 40000+ files might take >5 minutes to load.
This is almost always the result of bad language design and/or bad library design. An example is developing android apps in Java with Android studio. Here, you will be slowed down a great deal in order to program without Android Studio. There will be a steep learning curve.
Good Open Source Projects encourage people to clone, fork, and maybe even to contribute to a Project. People are able to directly edit files on github, if an IDE is not required and they know the language being used. Not requiring an IDE makes it easier for blind people, who might be using screenreaders to understand your project, and enables people without modern hardware (which might be unable/impractical to run an IDE) to work on your project.
Have you ever seen a Java Enterprise Project? Sometimes the Java classes in there have 20+ import statements, automatically generated by the IDE. Working in this style, with such long package names and lots of classes/namespaces eventually almost forces you to use an IDE because there is just so much, that it becomes impractical to remember.
Not having Autocomplete / Code Generation guides you naturally
to writing more compact and idiomatic Code in the Language of your Choice.
It helps you to learn language-specific features and syntactic sugar.
Consider
System.out.println("hello"); printf("hello");You see that in C, where using an IDE is uncommon, the languge/libraries/frameworks naturally becomes more easily readable and writable.
In Java, there is the Concept of Getters, Setters, toString, hashCode
and so on. These methods can be auto-generated by the IDE.
In practise, this leads to bloat. The IDE is simply compensating for
missing language features (built-in hashing of a composite data type, built-in string representation ).
"Make each program do one thing well". IDE's tend to do many things,
any many things poorly (Visual Studio Code's poor man's autocomplete for languages which really don't support it well is a prime example).
You can create a great development environment for your project
by using multiple tools, such as