The natural history of conducting and reporting clinical trials: interviews with trialists
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Division of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK
Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GS, UK
To investigate the nature of the research process as a whole, factors that might influence the way in which research is carried out, and how researchers ultimately report their findings.
Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with authors of trials, identified from two sources: trials published since 2002 included in Cochrane systematic reviews selected for the ORBIT project; and trial reports randomly sampled from 14,758 indexed on PubMed over the 12-month period from August 2007 to July 2008.
A total of 268 trials were identified for inclusion, 183 published since 2002 and included in the Cochrane systematic reviews selected for the ORBIT project and 85 randomly selected published trials indexed on PubMed. The response rate from researchers in the former group was 21% (38/183) and in the latter group was 25% (21/85). Overall, 59 trialists were interviewed from the two different sources. A number of major but related themes emerged regarding the conduct and reporting of trials: establishment of the research question; identification of outcome variables; use of and adherence to the study protocol; conduct of the research; reporting and publishing of findings. Our results reveal that, although a substantial proportion of trialists identify outcome variables based on their clinical experience and knowing experts in the field, there can be insufficient reference to previous research in the planning of a new trial. We have revealed problems with trial recruitment: not reaching the target sample size, over-estimation of recruitment potential and recruiting clinicians not being in equipoise. We found a wide variation in the completeness of protocols, in terms of detailing study rationale, outlining the proposed methods, trial organisation and ethical considerations.
Our results confirm that the conduct and reporting of some trials can be inadequate. Interviews with researchers identified aspects of clinical research that can be especially challenging: establishing appropriate and relevant outcome variables to measure, use of and adherence to the study protocol, recruiting of study participants and reporting and publishing the study findings. Our trialists considered the prestige and impact factors of academic journals to be the most important criteria for selecting those to which they would submit manuscripts.
That clinical research is important for the continued development of healthcare provision and the wellbeing of society is undisputed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence on which to base healthcare decisions about healthcare interventions, making it essential that trials are performed and reported to the highest standards. Researchers have a responsibility to conduct the best research they can and publish accurate and unbiased results from it 1 , 2 . However, there is a large and growing body of evidence, across many specialties of healthcare, that the current conduct and reporting of RCTs is inadequate 3 - 6 .
Problems associated with the conduct of research have been linked to the lack of a structured, practical and businesslike approach 7 , 8 . Problems include: trials failing to recruit the pre-specified number of participants 8 , trials taking longer than expected to be completed 9 , and problems associated with the collection of outcome data 10 .
Another element of trial conduct that can be problematic relates to dissemination and reporting of findings. Underreporting or selective reporting of findings has been described as scientific misconduct 11 . Empirical research consistently suggests that findings from published research are more likely to be statistically significant than those from research that remains unpublished 12 . Not reporting whole studies based on the strength and direction of the trial results has been termed ‘publication bias’ 13 . Reporting bias can also occur within an individual study. For example, it may be that several outcomes are measured but only a selected subset of them are reported 14 .
Published research articles generally provide an overview of the research questions, the methods used to determine their answers and the study results. Such articles rarely reveal the practical challenges encountered by researchers as the research progressed and how these challenges were managed. Thus, what is missing from the currently available literature is any account of the reality of undertaking research with all its challenges. Yet, it is important to know more about how trialists understand and carry out research and to explore how this might affect both research progress and reporting of findings. Moreover, there is a growing recognition that building a robust evidence base relies on trials being conducted to the highest standards, and it is widely accepted that those high standards cannot be assumed but have to be demonstrated by full and honest reporting of trials 15 .
Qualitative research methods are ideal for studies that aim to explore previously unresearched topics and to identify perceptions and uncover meanings. At the time of designing this study, we scrutinised relevant databases and contacted key researchers but were unable to find any qualitative research that assessed the research process from the viewpoint or situation of the researcher. We therefore decided to investigate qualitatively the nature of the research process as a whole and factors that might influence the way in which research is carried out and researchers ultimately report their findings.
The study we report here was part of a larger study investigating outcome reporting bias in clinical trials, the ORBIT project 16 . Our focus here was on trialists’ real life experiences of carrying out and publishing findings from clinical trials across a range of clinical areas. The broad aim of ORBIT was to estimate quantitatively the prevalence and impact of outcome reporting bias in clinical trials. A nine point classification system for missing outcome data in RCTs was developed and applied to the trials assessed in a large, unselected cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Trialists were contacted and the reason sought for the non-reporting of data. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of outcome reporting bias on reviews that included a single meta-analysis of the review primary outcome. Outcome reporting bias was suspected in at least one RCT in more than a third of the Cochrane systematic reviews examined 16 .
The qualitative sub-study which is the focus of this paper was performed in two distinct parts. First, we compared original trial protocols with their linked subsequent publication(s) to identify the frequency of and reasons for selective outcome reporting and, for each trial where selective outcome reporting was identified, an aide memoire was produced, detailing both the pre-specified outcomes and the published outcomes as the focus for further discussion with the trialists concerned during semi-structured telephone interviews. The findings from this comparison have been reported elsewhere 17 . Second, trialists’ experiences of carrying out and reporting of research more generally were also explored through the interviews; it is this latter element of the sub-study which is reported here.
We interviewed chief or lead investigators or co-authors of trials identified from two sources: trials published since 2002 covered in Cochrane systematic reviews selected for the ORBIT project 16 ; and trial reports randomly sampled from 14,758 indexed on PubMed over the 12-month period from August 2007 to July 2008. Each interview was tape-recorded with the trialist’s permission, transcribed and anonymised. All interviews were conducted in English by one of the investigators (RMDS). Study methods used are described in more detail elsewhere 17 . The project was not required to be reviewed under the terms of the Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees in the UK as it was considered the project came under the remit of audit/service development.
The focus of the interview schedule was on factors influencing the way research is carried out and how researchers report their findings. The schedule was organised sequentially, following the ‘natural history’ of a trial, and therefore had a pre-defined structure. The interview opened with questions about the main purpose of the trial in question, how the trial outcome variables were identified, and the use of and degree of the general adherence to the trial protocol. This was followed by questions relating to how the trial progressed and any associated challenges. Trialists were also asked to describe the process of writing up the findings and trying to get them published (including when papers were initially rejected). Additional information obtained at the time of the interview provided a descriptive summary of the characteristics of the trialist sample; for example, their previous research experience, the number of research sites involved in the trial under scrutiny, source of funding, level of statistical input to the trial design and analysis, and the planned and actual sample size. The interview schedule is as follows:
1. General discussion about the trial as a whole - time taken to complete the trial, role of team members, funding, objective/motivation for doing the trial, clinical context at the time relating to intervention
2. Regarding pre-specified outcomes - choice of pre-specified outcomes, pre-specify 1°/2°
3. Questions relating to reporting of outcomes (reported elsewhere)
4. Key questions relating to missing/partial reporting of outcomes (reported elsewhere)
5. Questions relating to the writing/getting paper published - roles of authors, statistician involvement, decisions made regarding publishing, decisions regarding choice of journal, journal decision, peer review
6. Role of the protocol - writing of the protocol, journal asked to see trial protocol, protocol used during trial/writing up period
7. Questions relating to publication bias more generally - ever not published (data/trial)
8. Reflecting on your experience of the trial - do differently, lessons learnt, regrets
9. Questions relating to experience - position at time, qualifications, trial experience
10. End.
Interviews were taped and transcribed, and qualitative analysis of transcripts was conducted 18 . The total number of interviews undertaken was governed by pragmatic reasons (that is, the number of trialists approached and agreeing to be interviewed), rather than theoretical considerations (that is, attainment of data saturation). The interview transcripts were compared and contrasted in order to elicit information regarding the individual trialists’ experiences, attitudes, perspectives, and opinions about the broad areas of trial design, conduct and reporting highlighted in the previous section. The analysis was led by RMDS but, to reduce possible interpreter bias and assess the plausibility and trustworthiness of the interpretation of the data, interviews were independently analysed early on by another member of the study team (AJ).The duplicate assessments were compared by going back to the original statements in the transcripts made by the trialists to validate both sets of interpretation. Two trialists requested, and were provided with, their interview transcript in order to add or clarify issues, and to ensure validity of the account produced. Each interview was given a unique identifier.
A total of 268 trials were identified for possible inclusion in the qualitative sub-study: 183 published since 2002 and covered in the Cochrane systematic reviews selected for the ORBIT project and 85 randomly selected published trials indexed on PubMed. The response rate from researchers in the former group was 21% (38/183) and in the latter group was 25% (21/85). Overall, 59 trialists were interviewed from the two different sources (Figure
Figure 1
Trialists eligible for interview.
Trialists eligible for interview. *Includes chief or lead investigators or co-authors of trials identified from two sources: trials published since 2002 covered in Cochrane systematic reviews and trial reports randomly sampled from 14,758 indexed on PubMed over the 12-month period from August 2007 to July 2008.
Most interviews (48/59, 81%) were conducted with the trial chief investigator, eight of whom were also PhD students. A further eight interviews were conducted with the lead author and three with a co-author. Trialists were invited from 7 high-income countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, UK and USA). All trials were performed after 1993. Trialists varied in their level of research experience; 32 (54%) had extensive experience and had been recruiting to trials for many years and had run their own trials. In contrast, six (10%) had no research experience. Just over a quarter (28%) said that no one with statistical expertise had been involved in the trial. Few trials (8%) recruited over 1,000 participants, most recruiting fewer than 100 participants (47%). Funding was provided by non-commercial sources for the majority of trials (56%).
Forty-three trialists provided the full study protocol for comparison with subsequent publication(s) by the ORBIT sub-study team. Despite the fact that many trialists highlighted the need for a formal, agreed, comprehensive protocol, there was wide variation in the quality of the protocols in terms of detailing the study rationale, proposed methods, organisation, and ethical considerations, and all lacked some key information such as a clear definition of the primary outcome or a description of the statistical methods planned for the analysis. There was no complete protocol available for the remaining 16 trials: six provided the ethics committee application, two the funding application, one a summary taken from the full protocol, and three extracts from relevant chapters of their doctoral theses. For one trial the protocol sent was simply a letter outlining a description of the trial sent to the funders. For two trials the full protocol was available, but not in English, and so an English summary was provided. For the remaining trial we obtained an abridged version of the protocol from the clinical trials.gov website 17 .
Characteristics of the publication(s) were compared between trialists agreeing (n = 59) and those not agreeing (n = 209) to be interviewed. A higher proportion of trialists who did not agree to be interviewed were funded by industry (82% vs 18%). There was no evidence of association between a trialist agreeing to be interviewed and the sample size of the trial.
The median publication year was 2005 (range 2002 to 2008). In all but one case interviews were performed with one trial investigator from each trial; for one trial we interviewed the chief investigator, the lead author and statistician simultaneously at their request. Interviews lasted on average 56 minutes (range 19 to 96 minutes).
A number of major but related responses were identified regarding the conduct and reporting of trials. In presenting these we have ordered the data to reflect the natural history of conducting a clinical trial, namely:
Framing the research question
Defining key outcomes
Role of the study protocol
Problems with conduct of the research
Issues around getting the research published.
All trials were conducted as a result of identification of a clinical need or where clinicians were in clinical equipoise. Some of the trialists were experienced researchers and had themselves performed previous empirical research, as a consequence their research questions were “in part generated through our earlier work”.
Others, however, identified voids in the published research literature where little or no actual research had been performed. As a consequence, this gave the trialists the basis on which to formulate their research questions:
“There were virtually no control studies of the intervention, so it seemed to be a wide open area where there is a great need to pursue intervention” (31).
“So I discussed it with colleagues that you know I wonder if this isn’t something that should be tested. We looked at the research and we couldn’t find anything published that actually did a test” (6).
One trialist used the term equipoise spontaneously, talking about it at an individual level and the wider community level: “We had equipoise on this subject, and we felt that other people did not have equipoise. So there was an international move to change policy, and introduce an intervention that we felt had not been tested and evaluated adequately” (27).
The responses from the trialists clearly showed that pre-specified outcome variables were generally identified from either clinical practice or expert opinion:
“It is a very clinical question and they are experienced clinicians who know what’s important in the clinic” (7).
“Well we looked at the literature and we also spoke directly to [name] - he has done more trials with the population than anyone else, and so he and our colleagues met with him and got his advice about what should be measured” (37).
We asked trialists if there was a formal consensus process in their clinical field for identifying outcomes. However, very few (n = 2) were able to base decisions about what constituted key outcomes, as for most they often did not exist. Others identified the role systematic reviews play:
“I think one of the challenges with the protocol development is us defining what an appropriate outcome was, and I think at the time when this was written, I think that was about 2003, there was not yet a consensus based criteria. So at the time that was part of the challenge in figuring out what was a reasonable outcome that was feasible for the study that we were planning to conduct but actually had some validity” (56).
“According to Cochrane analysis we must take into account not only [outcome] and problems of patients, but also quality of life and therefore we added quality of life in our measurements” (2).
There was, though, evidence of some degree of guidance or informal consensus within individual specialties which was provided by two trialists:
“Yes there are, there are recommendations or guidelines. And there is some latitude within those guidelines” (15).
“So in the absence of a consensus statement [....] there probably is informal consensus” (53).
In addition to lack of consensus about whether they were informative, relevant or important, one trialist recognised different factors were dominating the selection of outcome variables, for example ensuring the trial would be funded:
“I think even when we were designing the protocol, there was less consensus over whether that was an important outcome. I think partly because if you had omitted that I think some reviewers might have said: ‘wow you are not measuring [outcome]’. That being said there is a vast amount of literature showing that it’s of completely no relevance, but it was a practical decision to make sure we got money. So I think we were pretty ambivalent about its inclusion, and certainly once we had analysed it we thought you know, it didn’t really add much to the information coming out from the paper, so we didn’t include it” (56).
The role of the protocol was discussed in the interviews. Authors reported differences in application of, and adherence to, the protocol during the conduct of their trial. Some, unsurprisingly, used the protocol to ensure adherence to study procedures and to assist in writing the final publication. Conversely, in some cases it was apparent the protocol was not referred to once the trial was in progress:
“Yes, the physicians that are participating in the trial, yes they, they do have the protocol and they are expected to follow the protocol clearly” (41);
“You write the protocol you spend months doing it, and you have got a really good grasp of it and then as the trial progresses the protocol fades, and it’s not just in this trial, but in other trials” (59).
Regarding journals requirement of submission of the trial protocol alongside the manuscript, three trialists had been asked to provide their trial protocol as part of the process. All journals had an impact factor of at least 30.
Where the trialists identified problems with trial conduct, these were mainly surrounding recruitment difficulties and the target sample size not being met. Thirteen trialists reported that recruitment was more difficult than expected, resulting in fewer participants being recruited, of which four acknowledged this in their reporting, reasons for which are unclear. Recruitment difficulties were variously explained by potential participants’ lack of motivation to join the trial and over-estimation of recruitment potential:
“We actually got a very high take-up rate, but treatment as usual made the trial a bit unpopular with some people, I think we had 60 odd who refused. They didn’t want to be in a trial where there was a 1 in 3 chance of getting treatment as usual” (20).
“We had some difficulty with enrolment, I think because there were less patients available than we had envisaged at the beginning” (35).
The interviews also highlighted instances where recruitment problems led to early trial closure or prompted changes in the research design:
“We were running out of money and the recruitment was still quite slow, so we looked at the collection of subjects and we found no difference, it just didn’t seem worth going on. Also, the analysis was driven by an opportunity to present the data at a conference and so we analysed what we had at that point, it didn’t seem worth continuing” (5).
“We changed the follow up interval [from 24 months to 20 months] because it took us longer to do recruitment than we thought it would. Also we wanted to finish the study in the time line we had funding for and decided that probably those four months weren’t going to make a whole heck of difference, so we compressed the timeline” (4).
Trialists also highlighted problems among trial recruiters themselves. Although equipoise was generally not expressed overtly, it appeared that clinicians were always not uncertain about the treatment effects; and it was apparent that some were unable to recruit participants effectively in situations where they had some doubts:
“It was more difficult to recruit than we had imagined. We realised that the nurses were recruiting in a very sort of naive way – in that they were selecting women for the trial who they thought the trial would work for. So they had a preconceived idea in their head although we had spoken to them and provided them with information” (37).
Interviews also highlighted that trial recruitment was being stopped early based on the statistical significance of the results at the interim analysis:
“We finished earlier because we found that there were statistically significant differences and therefore we didn’t continue with more than 28 patients. If there were no statistical differences maybe we would have asked our agency to continue funding, but we found differences and it was good for us, very good news for us” (2).
“The initial power calculation was for 60 patients and after 30 patients when we analysed the data we did see, you know a trend, benefit at 6 months so we felt let’s publish and go for it. If I didn’t see any differences I would have probably continued to enrol patients – if I didn’t see anything to publish” (34).
For six trials, although the sample size was achieved it was not without recruitment difficulties, mostly linked to poor planning of the trial. Trialists reported problems with participant eligibility, either because of inclusion criteria being too tight (n = 3) or because changes in clinical practice led to changes in the eligibility of certain populations (n = 1):
“The percentage of people who actually agreed was remarkably high, I think two thirds of everybody approached agreed to be in the study. The problem was finding them to approach them and that required a fairly intensive effort. We had to have teams of people waiting in the medical offices for a person of the right age, and that turned out to be much harder than we had thought, and we eventually had to add more staff and add more clinics to reach our sample size” (15).
“When we did the pilot study we were recruiting from the emergency department and were able to get phone consent from parents when they weren’t present in the emergency department. Between that trial and this trial the hospital changed its rules and we had to have in-person signed parental consent before we could start the assessment and intervention with the children, and that made things a lot more difficult in terms of recruitment and enrolment” (13).
In addition, trialists reported practical difficulties in running a trial, either because of difficulties collecting outcome data (n = 4), problems associated with the randomisation process (n = 1), difficulty recruiting research staff (n = 1) and revisions required post-pilot phase (n = 1). Concerns were also raised regarding the level of adverse outcomes, even when lower than expected:
“Even though we had said a 20% mortality for study suspension or closure and we were not at that, it was still felt that probably the number was too high and there was just general concern about the extent of early mortality in this study” (58).
“Just looking at the raw data without knowing what treatment they were assigned, you could see there was poor efficacy overall. So at that point we got someone independent (statistician) to look at the data and there was absolutely no difference at all. Then what we did was say if there was a tiny difference do a power calculation on how many patients you need to recruit to see a small difference and you need something like 500 – so we knew there was no point recruiting further patients. Together we, with the PI, we decided there was no point going on with this. We discussed it with the statistician and we all agreed there was no point continuing because there was such a strong signal that it was negative” (46).
This trialist indicates that although they were blinded to intervention allocation they nonetheless had access to outcome data. The trialist goes on to describe the approach taken by the study team, which was to decide as a group to stop the trial.
In about half the trials (n = 30) there were no issues with recruitment or retention, in three cases the sample size being achieved earlier than expected. Some groups performed pilot studies, which assisted in predicting and preventing problems prior to the trial starting. One group had forecast recruitment difficulties but decided to go ahead anyway, in order to secure funding (n = 1):
“The grant they gave us was the maximum so we put together a proposal that could make best of that knowing it was unlikely that we would achieve what we wanted to achieve within that money, and I think the funder knew that as well, so they were very forthcoming when we asked for an extension” (30).
Trialists were asked about the process of publishing the primary paper from the trial. Thirty-five (59%) trialists had their manuscript accepted at first submission; twenty-three had their manuscripts rejected at first submission, one trialist could not recall if accepted at first submission. The most common reasons given by the trialists for rejection at first submission were related to study design (n = 13), non-significant results (n = 3), not fitting with the topic areas of the journals approached (n = 2), or trialists unable to recall reason/no reason by journal given (n = 5).
Trialists reported that the impact factors of journals and their kudos within the clinical specialty where they worked generally dictated which journal they approached first for publication: “It’s the most prestigious journal in our field; it has the highest citation value of any journal in our field” (53). Some authors were forced to opt for lower impact factor journals due to methodological issues (that is, ending recruitment early, or failing to recruit the pre-specified number of patients): “For the kind of journals which are high impact factor; unfortunately they wouldn’t take a paper like this for two reasons – one which is valid is that it was stopped prematurely and because it’s not positive and negative trials are quite difficult to publish. So the high impact journals we thought probably wouldn’t take it” (46).
Several trialists reported feeling restricted by word limits imposed by journals and highlighted the implications for reporting of all outcomes:
“The reviewers do not want us to report on all the outcomes, if the journals would allow us to publish longer papers and were interested in reading longer papers I would be happy to report on all possible outcomes. Secondly, there is limitation in terms of pages, in terms of tables, in terms of words that you can submit” (41).
For one trialist there was little guidance given by the journal regarding what aspects of the paper were to be omitted, and therefore the reporting of results was not affected:
“We were asked to cut the paper, they did not give us specific direction on what to cut they just told us to cut it, none of the analysis were removed” (13).
A number of trialists cited problems with journal peer review as influencing the final version of the manuscript, one in particular citing the problem of competing interests amongst peer reviewers:
“My recollection was we had three very positive reports and one that was very bad, and I know who that was from, that was one of our competitors, but it was so obvious who it was from” (38).
Other trialists acknowledged issues around study design and inadequate sample size as problematic for publication:
“I don’t think the referees liked the fact we didn’t have a placebo, so that was a design aspect. And the design was actually forced on us by the funders. Because this was a pragmatic trial, we actually put in for a placebo controlled efficacy trial, and the [funders] told us we should be doing an effectiveness or cost effectiveness trial” (20).
“I think because the sample size was relatively small, and it was a negative study so they were concerned it wasn’t adequately powered to really answer the question” (5).
In addition, some trialists thought that the lack of statistical significance of their findings impacted on the decision by the journal not to publish:
“They declined it because it was a negative finding” (36).
“We felt, if you’ve got a negative trial that perhaps people were less interested” (59).
One trialist discussed several issues regarding rejection of their work, including that because the results were negative the journal editor vetoed publication, so giving publication bias as a suggestion of what had occurred:
“It was actually quite disappointing, we went through two rounds of reviews and after an extensive re-write they rejected it, and I think the line was – you know that your work is interesting but fundamentally your results are negative. It’s like I know that, so it certainly was an exercise in learning more about publication bias. I was surprised at how blatantly the editor stated it, I mean he just said it’s interesting but your results are negative. At the time I was more irritated because he had wasted our time, because you know he would have known that reading the abstract in my first submission then we could have just ended this, it just wasted three months of my time” (56).
In contrast, in considering their experience of getting their work published, a number of trialists described the constructive impact peer review had had on their manuscripts and felt that feedback ensured a more balanced manuscript:
“Journal reviewers are quite helpful in getting a better finished product. Reviewers ask important questions and help to clarify things that as an author you have thought were perfectly clear” (5).
“I think we probably, because the effect size was larger in the [intervention] group, we probably made it sound a little bit more positive in terms of our findings, that they wanted us to make sure that we toned it down to say that we really didn’t find many differences and that both of these treatments were pretty comparable in a lot of ways. I think that’s often the case, reviewers want to make sure you don’t claim more from your data than you can actually support” (23).
All but two trialists (due to time constraints of interview, n = 1; not performed a trial previously, n = 1) were asked directly whether they had ever chosen to not publish previously conducted trials. Over half the trialists (n = 33) stated that they themselves had never chosen not to publish data, even when the findings were unexpected, negative or unfavourable:
“We have had a couple of failed studies, there was one study, it was supposed to be a huge trial, looking to recruit 1,800 men, and we closed after 2 years with 35 randomised, so clearly you are not going to get anything useful out of that, but you know I badgered and badgered and eventually we managed to write a research letter to an international journal, where we just presented the baseline characteristics of the patients that joined and we talked about the randomisation of patients and we presented some anecdotal information about why we thought the trial failed” (7).
Three of the 33 trialists had, however, been involved as site investigators in industry-funded trials that were never published, one trialist reflecting on their experience as follows:
“I can think of at least one trial that has not been published. I was not the PI, I was just a site investigator, that was an industry sponsored trial that has not been published. Not only was it a negative result but the study was stopped early because of safety. And that has not been published” (26).
Those authors who had failed to publish any findings from a trial (n = 16) cited many reasons: negative study findings, lack of time, lack of resources, recruitment problem, rejection by journals, unclear results, or failure to complete the trial. Five trialists had published the primary, but not the secondary, outcome results:
“I have certainly not published as many papers as we could have, but not deliberately – it’s usually lack of the soft money that by the time you are done the grant has run out and then you have got a new thing starting and you know one person can’t publish all the papers” (4).
“The major problem was we were never able to recruit enough subjects for the study, and so the study got terminated and we were never able to make use of the data” (40).
Three trialists were in the process of writing up their findings at the time of the interview, one of whom highlighted the potential for apathy in writing up negative findings and hence a potential significant time lag between completion and publication of negative trials:
“Well I am actually struggling with it right now. I have an implementation trial and the results are negative and I am pushing myself along, I am taking longer to put it in than I should, and the paper is now drafted and we are working on the final references so it is going to go in, but you know I have to push myself pretty hard – I feel bored. And then I think sometimes people are really wedded to a hypothesis and they just don’t want the negative results out there” (15).
Our study adds to the scant literature on trialists’ experiences of performing and publishing clinical trials in healthcare. We set out to explore researchers’ experiences and to identify which factors appeared to shape their experiences. We have provided an insight into the nature of the research process from the researcher’s perspective and our results confirm that the conduct and reporting of some trials can be inadequate. Nonetheless, our work has identified that aspects of clinical research can be inherently challenging.
Our work has demonstrated that a substantial proportion of trialists identify outcome variables based on their clinical experience and knowing experts in the field. Thus our results concur with a previous study showing insufficient reference to previous research in the planning of a new trial 19 . There appeared to be a general lack of consensus in most clinical settings regarding choice of appropriate outcomes. Problems associated with lack of consensus relate to lack of clarity regarding choice of outcome measures 20 , 21 , outcome reporting bias 14 and selection of outcomes that may not be meaningful to clinicians 22 or health service users 23 , 24 . Using standardised sets of outcomes to improve the standard of reporting and make it easier for the results of trials to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate is the focus of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative 25 , 26 .
Recruitment of participants into trials is critical for successful trial conduct. Not reaching the target sample size can mean that results are less reliable and so less useful in clinical practice. However, extending the timeframe for recruitment generally increases the costs of trials (the longer-term impact being that fewer trials can be conducted). However, recruiting participants to trials can be challenging 7 , 27 , 28 . Our findings are consistent with previous studies revealing problems with trial recruitment, potential participants’ preferences, over estimation of recruitment potential and recruiting clinicians not being in equipoise. Work by others 29 has revealed clinician barriers relating to time constraints (for example, time pressures from usual clinical practice as well as staffing and staff training), lack of research experience in clinicians, adverse effect on doctor-patient relationship, perceived conflict in their role as clinicians and researchers and perceived burden of trial for patients including travel distance and costs have all adversely affected recruitment to clinical trials.
Work has been carried out to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs 27 . Thirty-seven studies that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual trial or mock RCT were included. Strategies to increase participant awareness of the health problem under study, attendance at educational sessions, the addition of health questionnaires, or a video about the health condition, and monetary incentives were all found to improve recruitment. These findings lend further support to feasibility assessments and pilot trials being a potential solution to this problem.
Conversely, the motivation of clinicians to participate in clinical trials in the UK has also been qualitatively studied 30 . This work reports clinicians consider having an interest in the research question, intellectual curiosity and potential benefits to patients (including access to treatments or drugs, and closer monitoring) as opposed to payment for involvement are the most important factors 30 .
High-quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials 31 . However, our results confirm that the quality of trial protocols can be substandard. We found wide variation in the completeness of protocols, especially in relation to the study rationale, the proposed methods and trial organisation, and ethical considerations. There was also variation in the precise definition and scope of trial protocols; 16 of our trialists could not provide a completed comprehensive document that included important information relating to study design. It is now widely acknowledged that every clinical trial requires a complete and transparent protocol to facilitate sound trial conduct 32 . However, previous work has confirmed the widespread deficiency in protocol content 33 - 35 . In response to these shortcomings the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) international initiative was developed 31 , 36 . This initiative aims to improve the quality of clinical trial protocols by providing a minimum set of scientific, ethical, and administrative elements that should be addressed in a clinical trial protocol. The mechanism of journals requesting protocols to be submitted alongside the manuscript is one way of allowing a comparison of what was planned and what was actually done.
Our trialists considered the prestige and impact factors of academic journals to be the most important criteria for selecting those to which they would submit manuscripts. This confirms work by others where the constituency of the readership, whether the journal usually published articles on the topic, and the likelihood of manuscript acceptance were also considered key criteria 37 .
Peer reviewed publication is the final, essential step in any research project, providing legitimisation and credit for the work that has been done 38 . We found there was a perception that journals were more or less interested in studies depending on the direction of the findings and the presence/absence of a so-called ‘negative’ result. In addition, several trialists experienced difficulties when writing up and getting their manuscripts published because of word limit restrictions for paper journals. Electronic journals allow authors to exceed the usual paper journal word limits. In addition, open access allows researchers to read and build on the findings of others without restriction. The NIHR HTA programme has a high publication rate and is the world’s first health research funder to publish comprehensive accounts of all of its research. The launch of the NIHR Journals Library follows the success of the HTA journal and aims at ensuring other participating NIHR programmes publish their research. All results are reported, whether they are positive, negative or neutral, minimising publication bias and maximises the usefulness of data in subsequent studies 39 . Open access also means that teachers and their students have access to the latest research findings throughout the world, so acting as an important educational tool 40 .
Further difficulties associated with the editorial process were connected to peer review. There was evidence from the trialists’ accounts that competing interests amongst peer reviewers was a potential issue. Conflicts of interest by peer reviewers need to be taken more seriously by all 41 . Reviewers need to declare all conflicts of interest, since competitive issues or personal relationships can lead to important and less obvious bias.
Some of our trialists recognised the two principal functions in medical journal publishing as: to select reports for publication that meet scientific quality standards; and to improve presentation of research during the process of revision 42 . Several investigators have studied changes to manuscripts during the editorial process and its impact on manuscript selection, these being mostly related to changes in readability 43 , and the adequacy of statistical reporting 44 . Our trialists confirmed that the peer review process had ensured their final published manuscript was a balanced account of the work performed. For example, it has been reported that authors often overemphasise study findings in an attempt to impress the journal with their importance 3 and the trialists in this study acknowledged that the peer review process allowed for the recommendation that the findings were publishable if overstated conclusions were toned down.
A substantial number of trialists disclosed that there had been occasions when they had not published previous research findings. Reasons provided included negative study findings (sometimes related to not achieving the sample size), or lack of time and resources. Our qualitative work is consistent with previous quantitative findings 14 revealing that not reporting a study based on the strength and “direction” of its results - termed publication bias - is common. Trial results should be published whatever the outcome of the trial. However, it was apparent from trialists’ accounts that they were often genuinely unaware of the potential problems their decisions not to publish could cause. Importantly, we found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the trialists, but rather scientific naivety. Moreover, it appeared that the process through which trialists are required to journey is one of negotiating hurdles and responding to challenges that often cannot often be anticipated. Trialists sometimes have to adapt their research plans, in order to make their way through the complex research process, and may do so with little in-depth knowledge or formal training in research methodology.
The strength of our study lies with its use of qualitative interviews to provide real insights into the lived experience of doing research across its natural history, from the perspective of the investigator. Our study adds to the evidence base on how trials are designed and conducted in practice 45 - 47 . Our findings are in accord with the issue of trial management being inherently complex. To review the literature, develop a protocol, apply for funding and design case report forms requires lengthy consultations and a considered approach 7 . Studies such as ours exploring all phases of clinical research offer transparency about the process which, in turn, may help to identify aspects where procedures or education will help to reduce bias, improve credibility of results and cultivate the efficient management of trials.
We have presented the experiences of only those who agreed to be interviewed and who, perhaps, represent researchers with a particular interest in adhering to sound research procedures. As noted earlier, a significant proportion of those declining participation were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which may itself represent a source of bias. Nonetheless, our trialist participants did come from a wide range of clinical specialties, research experience and countries, supporting the generalisability of our findings. In addition, we acknowledge the low acceptance rates from both sources of recruitment (21% from Cochrane reviews selected for the ORBIT project and 25% from randomly selected published trials indexed on PubMed). A number of trialists declined our offer of interview without giving a reason, which may mean that the true picture is worse than described; in addition there were those who were unable to locate the trial protocol - itself suggestive of poor research practice 17 .
Our work has identified that aspects of clinical research can be inherently challenging, in particular with regard to establishing appropriate and relevant outcomes to measure, the use of and adherence to study protocols, recruitment of study participants and the reporting and publishing of the study findings. To ensure clinical relevance and minimise questionable research practices, it is crucial that measures are taken to optimise the reliability of studies that are conducted. Potential solutions to the problems associated with poor trial design, conduct and substandard reporting practices include: the development of systems to support and train researchers in trial methodology and processes, such as those being provided by the UK Clinical Research Network 48 , and the development of research ‘toolkits’ such as The Clinical Trial Toolkit 49 and The Guide to Efficient Trial Management 50 . Additional means to improve trial conduct includes support from the UKCRC Registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs). Since 2007, all UK National Health Service trials are strongly encouraged by funders to involve CTU expertise. The CTUs have the capability for centrally coordinating multicentre clinical trials, as well as for trial design, data management, and analysis 51 . Improving the reporting quality of trials should include: registering clinical trials at their inception in a publicly accessible database 52 , 53 ; the adoption of evidence-based reporting guidelines, such as the CONSORT statement 54 and the PRISMA statement 55 ; an evidence-based minimum set of reporting items in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in addition to research ethics committees having a clear remit to ensure the responsible conduct of research; and insistence by journal editors on the submission of a trial protocol alongside the manuscript 56 . Implementation of such strategies to support trial management will not only benefit trialists and the broader research community, but also the end-users of trials, namely the patients they seek to serve.
CTU: clinical trial unit
RCT: randomised controlled trial
All authors declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The ORBIT (Outcome Reporting Bias In Trials) project was funded by the Medical Research Council (grant number G0500952). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript. DGA is supported by Cancer Research UK.
This qualitative study was conceived by AJ, PRW, DGA and CG. AJ, PRW, DGA, CG, and RMDS designed the study protocol. RMDS contacted the trialists to conduct the interviews. Interviews were performed by RMDS. Analysis was performed by RMDS with input and supervision from AJ and PRW. RMDS prepared the initial manuscript; AJ, PRW, DGA, and CG were involved in revisions of this manuscript. All authors commented on the final manuscript before submission. PRW is the guarantor for the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors are grateful to the trialists who gave their time generously to make this study possible. In addition, we thank our funders, the Medical Research Council (grant number G0500952).
The scandal of poor medical research
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes
Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals
The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed
Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review
Managing clinical trials
Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study
Specific barriers to the conduct of randomized trials
How to conduct a randomized trial
Underreporting research is scientific misconduct
Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results
Publication bias and clinical trials
Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias
Lead editorial: trials - using the opportunities of electronic publishing to improve the reporting of randomised trials
The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews
Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists
Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research
The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials
Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews
Outcome measurement in clinical trials for Ulcerative Colitis: towards standardisation
OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology
A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children
Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people
Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trias: systematic review
Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials
Developing a survey of barriers and facilitators to recruitment in randomised controlled trials
Paying clinicians to join clinical trials: a review of guidelines and interview study with trialists
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study
Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory
Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet
SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials
Authors’ criteria for selecting journals
Better reporting, better research: guidelines and guidance in PLoS Medicine
The PLoS Medicine Editors
Best tests for candidates
Editorial
Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper
Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine
What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion
Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials
Does it matter if clinicians recruiting for a trial don’t understand what the trial is really about? Qualitative study of surgeons’ experiences of participation in a pragmatic multi-centre RCT
The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research
Registering clinical trials
Compulsory registration of clinical trials
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Trial protocols at the BMJ


This is the qualifying set. We picked the exercises in it to ramp developers up gradually into coding cryptography, but also to verify that we were working with people who were ready to write code.
This set is relatively easy. With one exception, most of these exercises should take only a couple minutes. But don't beat yourself up if it takes longer than that. It took Alex two weeks to get through the set!
If you've written any crypto code in the past, you're going to feel like skipping a lot of this. Don't skip them. At least two of them (we won't say which) are important stepping stones to later attacks.


General Settings
Options that affect Goodness itself.Filter Settings
Please separate items with semicolons. (;)Webpage titles that match phrases in this list will be blocked.
URLs (web addresses) that match phrases in this list will be blocked.
Phrases added here are blocked from webpage titles.
Phrases added here are blocked from URLs (web addresses).


Date of Table Update:<PHONE_NUMBER>15
| Discipline name (FNMOC id) {GRIB2 id} | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRIB2 Id | Category Name | Description | FNMOC Status1 | WMO Status2 |
| Meteorological products
(MET)
{0} |
||||
| 0 | Temperature | Includes temperature, dew point, lapse rate, potential temperatures, etc | current | operational |
| 1 | Moisture | Includes humidities, mixing ratio, vapor pressure, precipitation, etc | current | operational |
| 2 | Momentum | Includes wind speed and direction, stream functions, momentum flux, vorticity, divergence, etc | current | operational |
| 3 | Mass | Includes pressure, geopotential, altitudes, density, heights, etc | current | operational |
| 4 | Short wave radiation | Includes short wave radiation, brightness temperature, radiance, etc | current | operational |
| 5 | Long wave radiation | Includes infrared fluxes. | current | operational |
| 6 | Cloud | Includes cloud cover, cloud base, cloud top, ceiling, etc. | current | operational |
| 7 | Thermodynamic Stability Indices | Includes lifted indices, K index, inhibition, helicity, etc. | current | operational |
| 8 | Kinematic Stability Indices | current | operational | |
| 9 | Temperature Probabilities | deprecated | deprecated | |
| 10 | Moisture Probabilities | Includes ice and precipation probabilities. | deprecated | deprecated |
| 11 | Momentum Probabilities | Includes wind frequencies etc. | deprecated | deprecated |
| 12 | Mass Probabilities | deprecated | deprecated | |
| 13 | Aerosols | Includes concentration, source, slant path, type, etc. | current | operational |
| 14 | Trace gases | Includes Ozone and CO2. | current | operational |
| 15 | Radar | Includes spectrum width, reflectivity, precipation, etc. | current | operational |
| 16 | Forecast radar imagery | Includes reflectivity factors, reflectivity, echo top, etc. | current | operational |
| 17 | Electrodynamics | current | operational | |
| 18 | Nuclear/radiology | Includes concentrations, ground depositions, etc. | current | operational |
| 19 | Physical atmospheric properties | Includes visibility, albedo, mixed layer depth, icing, turbulence, etc. | current | operational |
| 20 | Atmospheric chemical constituents | Includes asymmetry, extinction, mass density, mass fluxes, mixing ratios, scattering, etc. | current | operational |
| 21 | Reserved values 21 to 189 | Reserved for WMO use. | current | operational |
| 190 | CCITT IA5 string | current | operational | |
| 191 | Miscellaneous | current | operational | |
| 192 | Reserved values 192 to 254 | Reserved for local use. | current | operational |
| 255 | Missing | current | operational | |
| Hydrological products
(HYD)
{1} |
||||
| 0 | Hydrology Basic Products | Includes flash flood, snow cover, etc. | current | operational |
| 1 | Hydrology Probabilities | Includes precipitation fractile and probabilities, etc. | current | operational |
| 2 | Inland water and sediment properties | Includes water properties, sediment properties, ice properties, shape factors, etc. | current | operational |
| 3 | Reserved values 3 to 191 | Reserved for WMO use. | current | operational |
| 192 | Reserved values 192 to 254 | Reserved for local use. | current | operational |
| 255 | Missing | current | operational | |
| Land surface products
(LND)
{2} |
||||
| 0 | Vegetation/Biomass | Includes land cover, surface roughness, etc. | current | operational |
| 1 | Agri-/aquacultural special products | current | operational | |
| 2 | Transportation-related products | current | operational | |
| 3 | Soil products | Includes soil type, moisture, temperature, etc. | current | operational |
| 4 | Fire Weather Products | Includes risk areas, dry lightning areas, etc. | current | operational |
| 5 | Reserved values 5 to 191 | Reserved for WMO use. | current | operational |
| 192 | Reserved values 192 to 254 | Reserved for local use. | current | operational |
| 255 | Missing | current | operational | |
| Space products
(SPP)
{3} |
||||
| 0 | Image format products | Includes scaled albedo, scaled brightness temperature, cloud mask, fire detection indicator, etc. | current | operational |
| 1 | Quantitative products | Includes estimated precipitation, estimated wind u/v components, heights, quality indicators, solar zenith angle, etc. | current | operational |
| 2 | Reserved values 2 to 191 | Reserved for WMO use. | current | operational |
| 192 | Reserved values 192 to 254 | Reserved for local use. | current | operational |
| 255 | missing | current | operational | |
| Space weather products
(SPC)
{4} |
||||
| 0 | Temperature | Includes electron, proton, ion, parallel, perpendicular, etc. | listed | validation |
| 1 | Momentum | Includes velocity magnitude, and three vector components, etc. | listed | validation |
| 2 | Charged particle mass and number | Includes densities, absoprtion, absorption frequency, scintillation, etc. | listed | validation |
| 3 | Electric and magnetic fields | Includes field magnitude, three vector field components, etc. | listed | validation |
| 4 | Energetic particles | Includes fluxes for proton/electron/heavy ion/cosmic ray neutron, etc. | listed | validation |
| 5 | Waves | none | listed | validation |
| 6 | Solar electomagnetic emissions | Includes irradiance, x-ray flux, radio emissions, etc. | listed | validation |
| 7 | Terrestrial electomagnetic emissions | Includes limb intensity, disk intensity, etc. | listed | validation |
| 8 | Imagery | Includes radiances for x-ray, EUV, H-alpha, white light, CaII-K, and more; thematic mask, etc. | listed | validation |
| 9 | Ion-neutral coupling | Includes conductivities of Pedersen, Hall, and Parallel; etc. | listed | validation |
| 10 | Reserved values 10 to 191 | Reserved for WMO use. | listed | validation |
| 192 | Reserved values 192 to 254 | Reserved for local use. | listed | validation |
| 255 | missing | listed | validation | |
| Reserved values 5 to 9
(5)
{5} |
||||
| Oceanographic products
(OCN)
{10} |
||||
| 0 | Waves | Includes spectra, heights, direction, primary, etc. | current | operational |
| 1 | Currents | Includes direction, speed, etc. | current | operational |
| 2 | Ice | Includes cover, thickness, drift, growth, divergence, etc. | current | operational |
| 3 | Surface properties | Includes temperature, sea level deviation from mean, etc. | current | operational |
| 4 | Sub-surface properties | Includes thermocline, salinity, etc. | current | operational |
| 5 | Reserved values 5 to 190 | Reserved for use by WMO. | current | operational |
| 191 | Miscellaneous | Includes stream functions | current | operational |
| 192 | Reserved 192 to 254 for Local Use | Reserved for use by WMO. | current | operational |
| 255 | Missing | current | operational | |
| Reserved values 11 to 191
(11)
{11} |
||||
| Reserved values 192 to 254 for local use
(192)
{192} |
||||
| Missing
(255)
{255} |
Date of Table Creation:<PHONE_NUMBER>49
Date of Table Update:<PHONE_NUMBER>15
Authority: Data Standard Control Board
References:
| title: | Product Name Standard Document |
|---|---|
| version: | 2.2 |
| docId: | P-3146-2.2 |
| dtg: | May 2012 |
| organization: | Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center |
| infoUsed: | Category by Discipline table |
|
|
|
| title: | GRIB 2 |
| version: | 12.0.0 |
| docId: | FM 92-XII |
| organization: | World Meteorological Organization |
| infoUsed: | GRIB2 Category of parameters by Product Discipline, table 4.1 |
|
|
Footnotes:
| value | definition |
|---|---|
| available | Entry was used in the past, is not in production now, and could be used again. |
| current | Entry is currently in production and available to customers. |
| deprecated | Entry is no longer to be used. May or may not be in production. |
| listed | Entry is listed in WMO documentation. Not in production with no plans to be produced. |
| obsolete | Entry is not to be used and is not in production, if it ever was. |
| pending | Entry is being prepared for production. |
| planned | Entry is being looked at for possible production. |
| value | definition |
|---|---|
| deprecated | Entry is no longer used. |
| experimental | Entry is not recommended for use outside of bi-lateral previously agreed tests. |
| operational | Entry is available for use. |
| validation | Entry is in the approval process. |


WQMY
Zero | Gas Trimmer
Dec 18, 2012. B&S Agway -11hp B&S Craftsman RE2000 -10hp Tecumseh Murray Select . Good: Swisher (66?) 28 HP Zero Turn Lawn Mower ZT2866 .
http://www.gas-trimmer.com/tag/zero/
| renting a handcap accessible van/swimming costume size 20/ gruber kristin m md |
|
|---|---|
| ernest deininger in philadelphia | Williamsport |
| Branding | MyNetworkTV 11hp agway lawn mower |
| la graciosa lanzarote photos | 3 wheel from china: 29 (roika tarangire tented lodge) & trace adkins sunday morning coming down-DT 45.3 (UHF) |
| national bowling stadium in nevada | see article |
| Owner | New Age Media, LLC Agway lawn tractor (Hood scoop) - YouTube |
| First air date | December 30, 1988 |
| ssi and living wage | MYNetworkTV |
| three monitor video cards | WOLF-TV, paula deen ultimate coffee cake |
| paper punch hole size chart | WILF (1988-2006) |
| Former channel number(s) | Used Snowblowers For Sale | Want Ad Digest Classifieds |
| lease apartment bordeaux france | ford power stroke gas mileage (1988-1998) winnipeg free press birth announcements / least odor cigarette smoke compare (1998-2006) |
| web page file tree | 50 star products ratchet wrench 420 kW (WOLF-DT3) |
| 2001 honda accord oil type | 243 m 488 m (WOLF-DT3) |
| home | 52075 73375 (WOLF-DT3) |
| Transmitter coordinates | girls leopard print high heels electric specialty vehicles for disablities (WOLF-DT3) |
Lawn & Garden Tractors Information - SSB Tractor Forum
Toro LX425 lawn tractor bucks when going down hill · Ranch King . Craftsman lawn tractor 11hp 36" deck 944 605110 Manual . Agway lawn tractor .
http://www.ssbtractor.com/wwwboard/messages8/
MTD lawn tractor built for Cenex - YouTube
Aug 15, 2010 . Just got this little MTD tractor and the Craftsman cart for free. . This one is the 11hp Briggs / 5 speed combination and for as old as it is it still runs, drives and cuts . Agway Lawn Tractor.aviby Tom Rosell 1,166 views; 4:27 .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nWYvOBRwlA
Contents |
[naman's catering mobile al] History
Mowers | Gas Trimmer
Mar 25, 2013 . Today Mowers Direct announced the best lawn mowers. . Gilson -12hp B&S Agway -11hp B&S Craftsman RE2000 -10hp Tecumseh Murray .
http://www.gas-trimmer.com/tag/mowers/
MASSEY-HARRIS Less than 40 HP Tractors For Sale - MarketBook.ca
1948 MASSEY-HARRIS PONY, 11 hp; 2WD Drive; Good shed kept tractor with plow and cultivator, runs great. will seperate; (Price entered as 2,550 USD); .
http://www.marketbook.ca/list/list.aspx?catid=1111&Manu=MASSEY-HARRIS&LP=TH
MTD Lawn mower Parts, MTD riding mower and - Outdoor Distributors
MTD builds lawn mowers and lawn and garden equipment for brands such as: ACE Hardware, Agway, Bolens, Brute, Columbia, Craftsman / Sears, Cub Cadet .
http://www.outdoordistributors.com/mtddoor.htm
Free Lawn Mower User Manuals | ManualsOnline.com
Lawn Mower manuals and owners instruction guides. Find free Lawn Mower user manuals, product support, and pdf information at ManualsOnline.com.
http://www.manualsonline.com/manuals/device/lawn_mower.html
Austin's (11 hp) Dragster Lawnmower - YouTube
Sep 2, 2009 . Austin's (11 hp) Dragster Lawnmower. Kent2433·631 videos . Start and drive my Agwayby Zach Brown 4,150 views · 2:44. Watch Later .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVf9D-tq7Jo
SNAPPER Riding Lawn Mowers Other - TractorHouse.com
SNAPPER Riding Lawn Mowers Other Equipment For Sale. Number of Matches: 59. This Page: 1 . 11 hp; REAR ENGINE, 30'', 11.5 HP;. Jaycox Implement Inc.
http://www.tractorhouse.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=1170&Manu=SNAPPER
Few of my projects - Tractor Forum
I came down with the tractor collecting bug back in the 90's - my wife . 1990's GT6000 craftsman made into a true 4x4 lawntractor - itll be . Decided about my agway , thats going back to stock - setting up a 11HP briggs on it .
http://www.tractorforum.com/f209/few-my-projects-15419/
Ellington Agway Power Equipment - Blog
Mar 2, 2013 . Ariens snowblowers ST28 Deluxe 11HP 28 width $1169.00 . Would you like your lawn mower serviced with the comfort of it being at your own .
http://www.ellingtonagwaypowerequip.com/blog.html
Agway Lawn Tractor.avi - YouTube
May 22, 2010 . my new Agway lawn tractor traded a junk craftsman for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSmneah5_Ak
Agway 11/38
. what the equivilant MTD of this thing is, early to mid 80s, 11HP Briggs IC. . I hate to do it with my good tractor because its so dusty and messy. . I know the big lawn took about 2 hrs to do over there since it was so long and .
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/mtd/225538-agway-11-38-a.html
OLD MTD Agway - YouTube
May 24, 2009 . MTD lawn tractor built for Cenex by 19bigdaddy65 1,405 views . First start/Cold start 1980 11hp Briggs & Strattonby clonesandbriggs 2,047 .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iianumg6TIU
[business and debt consolidation loan] Digital channels
| Channel | Name | lease apartment bordeaux france | business and debt consolidation loan | Programming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53.1 | 11hp agway lawn mower DT | saint clair county high school | illinois board of education provider | Main 11hp agway lawn mower programming / MyNetworkTV |
| 53.2 | WOLF DT | banana republic french army hat | mann blinded by the light | Simulcast of boy haircut styles for 2008 |
| 53.3 | WSWB DT | 480i | 4:3 | Simulcast of how do you spell chaos |
Tractor land status June 2012 - YouTube
Jun 11, 2012 . Not a whole lot has changed in tractor land, but have a look at what the . with it and how much for the toro that is next to the agway 11hp? . How to: Make A Riding Lawn Mower FAST!by Fearlessfront 171,977 views · 11:12 .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5a6ueagXA
[journal of communication interpersonal] References
[eco innovation new zealand] External links
- principios de derecho constitucional
- gecko house st john
- free u of michigan wallpaper
- philips dvd player uk
- where i'm bound words and chords
- vision of massage therapists
|
|


rand48
, drand48
, erand48
, lrand48
, nrand48
, mrand48
, jrand48
, srand48
, seed48
, lcong48
—pseudo-random number generators and initialization routines#include <stdlib.h> double drand48(void); double erand48(unsigned short xseed[3]); long lrand48(void); long nrand48(unsigned short xseed[3]); long mrand48(void); long jrand48(unsigned short xseed[3]); void srand48(long seed); unsigned short *seed48(unsigned short xseed[3]); void lcong48(unsigned short p[7]);
Description
The rand48
family of functions generates pseudo-random numbers
using a linear congruential algorithm working on integers 48 bits in size.
The particular formula employed is
r(n+1) = (a * r(n) + c) mod m
where the default values are
for the multiplicand a = 0xfdeece66d =<PHONE_NUMBER>7 and
the addend c = 0xb = 11. The modulo is always fixed at m = 2 ** 48.
r(n) is called the seed of the random number generator.
For all the six generator routines described next, the first computational step is to perform a single iteration of the algorithm.
drand48
and erand48
return values of type double. The full 48 bits of r(n+1) are
loaded into the mantissa of the returned value, with the exponent set
such that the values produced lie in the interval [0.0, 1.0].
lrand48
and nrand48
return values of type long in the range
[0, 2**31-1]. The high-order (31) bits of
r(n+1) are loaded into the lower bits of the returned value, with
the topmost (sign) bit set to zero.
mrand48
and jrand48
return values of type long in the range
[-2**31, 2**31-1]. The high-order (32) bits of
r(n+1) are loaded into the returned value.
drand48
, lrand48
, and mrand48
use an internal buffer to store r(n). For these functions
the initial value of r(0) = 0x1234abcd330e =<PHONE_NUMBER>1246.
On the other hand, erand48
, nrand48
, and jrand48
use a user-supplied buffer to store the seed r(n),
which consists of an array of 3 shorts, where the zeroth member
holds the least significant bits.
All functions share the same multiplicand and addend.
srand48
is used to initialize the internal buffer r(n) of
drand48
, lrand48
, and mrand48
such that the 32 bits of the seed value are copied into the upper 32 bits
of r(n), with the lower 16 bits of r(n) arbitrarily being set to 0x330e.
Additionally, the constant multiplicand and addend of the algorithm are
reset to the default values given above.
seed48
also initializes the internal buffer r(n) of
drand48
, lrand48
, and mrand48
,
but here all 48 bits of the seed can be specified in an array of 3 shorts,
where the zeroth member specifies the lowest bits. Again,
the constant multiplicand and addend of the algorithm are
reset to the default values given above.
seed48
returns a pointer to an array of 3 shorts which contains
the old seed.
This array is statically allocated, thus its contents are lost after
each new call to seed48
.
Finally, lcong48
allows full control over the multiplicand and
addend used in drand48
, erand48
, lrand48
, nrand48
,
mrand48
, and jrand48
,
and the seed used in drand48
, lrand48
, and mrand48
.
An array of 7 shorts is passed as parameter; the first three shorts are
used to initialize the seed; the second three are used to initialize the
multiplicand; and the last short is used to initialize the addend.
It is thus not possible to use values greater than 0xffff as the addend.
Note that all three methods of seeding the random number generator always also set the multiplicand and addend for any of the six generator calls.
For a more powerful random number generator, see random
.
Portability
No supporting OS subroutines are required.


Generic Data Repository
Lookup GFBio ABCD archives
Log in to use custom vector data from e.g. CSV files
Add and use custom vector features like CSV
Display the GFBio Search Results
Query data from GBIF
Draw features on the map
Select Country Borders


Please Enter your Login Credentials to avail Offers and Hussle free shopping
Bangalore Online Shopping


Tricky combinaisons:
backslash with -- two dashes
backslash with > greater than
[test](not a link)
*no emphasis*


WITNESS LIST Appropriations Committee (Subcommittee on Public Safety, Criminal Justice, & Judic) February 4, 1997-8:00A Budget Overview/Criminal Justice For: Krampitz,Tom (TX District & Cty Attny) On: Camarillo, Leslee (Comptroller, Judiciary) Carruth, James (Travis Cty Atty) Corley, Diane (LBB) Dawson-Brown, Claire (Travis Cty Atty) Demos, Chuck (Comptroller, Judiciary) Earle, Ronnie (Travis Cty Atty) Flowers, Robert (Commission on Judicial) Goode, Megan (LBB) Harle, Sid (Crt Reporters Cert Bd) Liedtke, Peg (Crt Reporters Cert Bd) McCleery, Stephen (Travis Cty Atty) Newton, John (LBB) Paul, Matthew (Office of St Pros Attny) Schlueter, Kay (State Law Library)


|
| template<typename Key > |
| const internal::TableAccessorPath< const Reference &, Key > | access (Key &&key) const |
| | Identical to operator[].
|
| |
| template<typename Type , typename Key > |
| Type | get (Key &&key) const |
| | Retrieve the value of a field.
|
| |
| template<typename Key > |
| bool | has (Key &&key) const |
| | Check if the value associated with a key is not nil .
|
| |
| template<typename Key > |
| const internal::TableAccessorPath< const Reference &, Key > | operator[] (Key &&key) const |
| | Create an accessor to a field of the table.
|
| |
| template<typename Type , typename Key > |
| void | set (Key &&key, Type &&value) const |
| | Update a field.
|
| |
| | Table (const Reference &ref) |
| | Create from reference.
|
| |
| | Table (State *state) |
| | Create a new table.
|
| |
| | Table (State *state, const MemberMap &fields) |
| | Create a new table with the given fields.
|
| |
| | Table (State *state, int index) |
| | Create from table on the stack. This will retain a reference to the table.
|
| |
| void | update (const MemberMap &fields) const |
| | Update the table using the given map of members.
|
| |
Allows you to inspect and modify Lua tables.


#assign manifest="active">
The ebean.mf
manifest file controls the enhancement. It controls:
It is typically located in src/main/resources/ebean.mf
.
With example 1 we are enhancing entity beans in the org.example.domain
package, we are also
enhancing @Transactional
methods but we are not using query bean enhancement.
With example 2 turns on profile-location
enhancement and query bean
enhancement.
When we use Kotlin query beans we only need to enhance the query beans themselves. That means the packages we specify in ebean.mf only need to cover the location of the query beans.
When we use Java query beans the enhancement needs to include code that calls the query beans. That means that
the querybean-packages
needs to include any code that calls and uses the query beans. Typically
for Java query beans we specify the querybean-packages to be the same as transactional-packages.
The ebean.mf file is read by all the tooling that performs enhancement. It is read by:


Articles
-
{% for post in site.categories.blogging_about %}
{% assign author = site.authors[post.author] %}
- {{ post.title }} {% endfor %}
Resources
-
{% for post in site.categories.resourced %}
- {{ post.title }} {% endfor %}
About
We think the best way to improve the design industry is to work in the open.
For more details, read The Open Source Design Manifesto, and Building this Site. If you'd like to help contribute to the project, checkout the GitHub Issues or hit us up on the #opensourcedesign channel (Freenode) in IRC


Testing
Overview
Based on Jsonnet jsonnet_to_json_test
container_test
container_test(name, daemon, env, error, files, golden, image, mem_limit, options, read_only, regex, test, tmpfs_directories, volume_files, volume_mounts)
Experimental container testing.
Does not work with sandboxing enabled.
Attributes
name |
A unique name for this rule. |
daemon |
Whether to run the container as a daemon or execute the test by running it as the container command. |
env |
Dictionary from environment variable names to their values when running
the container. |
error |
The expected error code. |
files |
Any files that the test script might require. |
golden |
The expected output. |
image |
The image to run tests on. |
mem_limit |
Memory limit to add to the container. |
options |
Additional options to pass to the container. |
read_only |
|
regex |
Set to 1 if |
test |
Test script to run. |
tmpfs_directories |
|
volume_files |
List of files to mount. |
volume_mounts |
List of mount points that match |
Examples
load("@bazel_rules_container//container:test.bzl", "container_test")
container_test(
name = "nodejs",
size = "small",
files = [
"project/index.js",
"project/package.json",
],
golden = "output.txt",
image = "//nodejs",
test = "test.sh",
)


The site of an epic battle associated with the end time prophecies of the Abrahamic religions. According to some premillennial Christian interpretations, the Messiah will return to earth and defeat the Antichrist (the "beast") in the battle of Armageddon. The time is upon us. A cyber-firestorm is set to engulf BITS-Pilani this March, as the best gamers from all over India will descend upon this village, leaving scorched earth in their wake. Who will reign supreme? Who will frag, kick and draft his way to glory? With workshops and lectures thrown into the midst of the action, this year's gaming festival is all set to be the destination of gamers and enthusiasts from all over the country.
For more info, contact
Shashank Kotharu
shashank.kotharu[at]gmail.com
+91-9694814889
Strategy and skill will both be needed as FIFA returns in its newest form. With a better game engine and improved gameplay, FIFA 2011 is the ideal arena for all you football fanatics out there to prove your mettle in the cyber world.
Registration – Rs.50 per head.
For more info, contact
Shivam Chauhan
shivamchauhan80[at]gmail.com
+91-7597586206
Mitul Chotia
mitulgoku[at]gmail.com
+91-9829312654
Modern Warfare is the fifth installment of the venerable CoD series, continuing the same storyline. With multiplayer game modes like Free-For-All, Search & Destroy, Demolition, Sabotage, Domination, Team Deathmatch, and Capture The Flag, it has been warmly received by players and crtics alike, and is all set to make a gore-strewn debut at Armageddon 2013. For all those who wanted a representative of the high end spectrum of FPS gaming, here is your answer. See you in the warzone.
Registration Fees –Rs.250 per clan.
For more info, contact
Naveen Choudhary
nav2een[at]gmail.com
+91-9166759267
The lanes of de_dust2 and de_inferno will be scouted again; the noobs crushed down, while the elite rule supreme. Last year's Ignition saw a combination of teams 3gp and Brutality rain down hell on their competition. Get out all those AKs and AWPs : Who will frag their way to the finals this time?
Registration Fees –Rs.250 per clan.
For more info, contact
Shashank Kotharu
shashank.kotharu[at]gmail.com
+91-9694814889
Abhishek Goel
91.abhishekgoel[at]gmail.com
+91-7891400207
AOE2, like its predecessor, revolves around empire building, army management and intense strategy. Focusing mainly on the medieval civilizations, players can choose from Vikings, Aztecs, Spanish and many more. New maps and terrain have been introduced to take the game to the next level. Challenge your peers in this intense, action packed and mind blowing RTS. Do you have what it takes to conquer them all? Let’s find out.
Registration fee – Rs.150 per clan.
For more info, contact
Aayush Ahuja
aayushahuja[at]gmail.com
+91-9602904775
Get your engines revving and shift into gear. There's nothing as sweet as the sound of your tyres screeching as you drift past your opponent just before the finish line. True carmageddon is waiting to be unleashed with the classic Need For Speed: Most Wanted as the game of choice.
Registration fees- Rs. 50 per head.
For more info, contact
Chandan Salaria
chandansalaria[at]gmail.com
+91-8058412261
Prathamesh Baheti
prathamesh.baheti[at]gmail.com
+91-8955958383
To gank or to get ganked, that, is the question. A game where strategy, skill, experience and teamwork all matter on the battlefield, Armageddon presents DotA: bigger and badder than ever. With many heroes to choose from, the stage is set for some imba action.
Registration Fees- Rs.250 per clan.
For more info, contact
Tumma Sai Abhishek
tummasaiabhishek[at]gmail.com
+91-7568804005


--- layout: post title: 'Breaking Cell Phone Authentication: Vulnerabilities in AKA, IMS and Android' date: 2013-08-30 22:06:39.000000000 -07:00 categories: - Projects tags: - attacks - cellular systems - ims systems - networking - research - security status: publish type: post published: true meta: _wpas_skip_4503454: '1' _edit_last: '5759' author: ---
Last year, I worked on reverse engineering Android implementations of IMS, the next generation 4G IP based telephony suite of protocols, with Jethro Beekman at Berkeley.
In addition to our technical report on MITM vulnerabilities against T-Mobile's Wi-Fi Calling feature (due to unvalidated SSL certificates), we continued to look at IMS systems in general, and how T-Mobile and Android implemented them. We found that, amongst other things, Digest AKAv1, the authentication and key exchange protocol used in IMS, doesn't correctly require use of the generated secret keys, allowing a variety of attacks. Furthermore, generally accessible APIs in both core Android and in T-Mobile's customized ROMs allow apps with just the READ_PHONE_STATE permission to access the IMS authentication routines in the SIM card, making it possible for low-privilege malware on a phone to let a remote attacker authenticate as that phone.

Jethro presented our paper at USENIX WOOT (Workshop On Offensive Technologies) 2013 a couple weeks ago. The paper, slides, and video of the talk (thank you USENIX open access policies!) are available at https://www.usenix.org/conference/woot13/breaking-cell-phone-authentication-vulnerabilities-aka-ims-and-android.


---
name: grid
url: /grid
---
## The Grid
***
## The App Frame
For most apps, you'll want to contain all of your UI elements in the space of the window, and then make certain sections of the app scrollable. To achieve this, wrap your entire app in a grid frame:
```html
```
The app frame always takes up 100% of the width and 100% of the height of the user's browser window.
***
## The Basics: Grid Blocks
Blocks are the... *building blocks* of apps in Foundation for Apps. They're flexbox-powered elements that can be intelligently sized, re-oriented, and re-ordered. Blocks are most analagous to rows in Foundation 5, but there's much more to them than that.
***
### Automatic sizing
You're probably used to pairing grid classes with sizing classes, like `.small-12`, `.medium-6`, and so on. In Foundation for Apps, when grid blocks don't have sizing classes, they take up an even amount of space.
```html
```
```html
```
While these blocks *expand* to fill available space, it's also possible to have a block *shrink*, which means it only takes up as much space as its content needs. This is useful for title bars, tabs, or any other content that's secondary to the main content area.
```html
```
***
### Manual sizing
It's also possible to size the grid using column-based sizing classes. By default, the Foundation for Apps grid uses a 12-column grid, but you can change this by modifying the `$total-columns` variable in your settings file.
```html
```
***
### Parent-level sizing
Lastly, the sizing of blocks can be set on the parent, rather than individual children. Add the class `[size]-up-[n]` to a parent block to automatically size all children to be the same width. `[size]` is a breakpoint, like `small` or `medium`, and `n` is the number of items to fit on each row. By default, `n` only goes up to six, but this can be changed by modifying the `$block-grid-max-size` variable in your settings file.
```html
```
Note that this sizing method only works with horizontal grids.
***
## Content Blocks
If basic blocks are the *rows* of a Foundation for Apps layout, then content blocks are the *columns*. They can be sized and re-ordered just like normal blocks, but they're meant to house actual content, not just more blocks.
```html
```
In the above example, you can see that `grid-content` elements are the bottommost elements of the basic layout. Use `grid-block` when you intend to keep nesting more blocks for your layout, and use `grid-content` when you're filling the element with "normal" content, like lists, text, tabs, or menus.
***
## The Vertical Grid
By default, blocks in a grid are layed out horizontally. A grid can be reoriented to be vertical by adding the `vertical` class to a parent element.
```html
```
This behavior doesn't cascade down to child blocksâ€”they'll be horizontal by default also.
You can also reorient the grid at different screen sizes by using adding breakpoint names to the classes.
```html
```
***
## Other Options
There are many ways you can customize the grid, using either our grid classes or the grid mixins, which allow you to write cleaner, more semantic HTML.
***
### Wrapping items
By default, every block in a grid will try to fit on the same line—this is how Flexbox works. However, you can also force grid items to wrap when they take up too much space by adding the class `wrap` to the parent block. In the below example, the four child blocks will display on two rows, two per row:
```html
```
***
### Container
By default, all grids stretch the full width and height available. However, it's possible to wrap a grid's content in a container with a maximum width.
```html
```
The container aligns to the center of the block it's inside by default, but this can be changed by adding the class `contain-left` or `contain-right` to the container.
***
### Block Alignment
By default, all blocks in a grid align to the left of a grid, or the top if the grid is vertical. We can leverage the Flexbox `justify-content` property to easily re-align the blocks in a grid.
```html
```
In this example, our blocks only take up eight columns of space, leaving four columns worth of empty space. By adding the `align-right` class to the parent block, the empty space will appear on the left instead of the right.
Grids can be aligned in five ways:
- `align-left`: Blocks clump together on the left. This is the default.
- `align-right`: Blocks clump together on the right.
- `align-center`: Blocks clump together in the middle.
- `align-justify`: Blocks spread out so that the space *between* each one is the same.
- `align-spaced`: Blocks spread out so that the space *around* each one is the same.
(show examples here)
***
### Source Ordering
Blocks can be reordered to be different from the order they appear in the HTML. This is known as *source ordering*.
```html
```
In the above example, the first child block will actually appear *after* the second one, because it has a lower order number. Blocks with the highest order number appear first in the layout. If multiple blocks share an order, they're then grouped by their order in the HTML.
```html
```
The ordering classes also come in responsive flavors, allowing you to reorder grid blocks at different screen sizes. In the below example, the two blocks will switch places on medium screens and larger.
```html
```
***
### Offsets
The same offset classes from Foundation for Sites can be used in Foundation for Apps. To create a left-hand margin on a block, add the class `[size]-offset-[n]`, where `[size]` is a breakpoint name, and `[n]` is the number of columns to offset by. In the below example, the second column will be offset by 3, which is equal to 25% of the width of the entire container.
```html
```
Offset classes allow you to fine-tune the spacing of blocks at different screen sizes. However, many common spacing options can also be achieved with the grid alignment classes described above.


A CIVIL ACTION (Touchstone) Starring: John Travolta, Robert Duvall, William H. Macy, Tony Shalhoub, Zeljko Ivanek, Bruce Norris, John Lithgow, Kathleen Quinlan. Screenplay: Steven Zaillian, based on the book by Jonathan Harr. Producers: Scott Rudin, Robert Redford and Rachel Pfeffer. Director: Steven Zaillian. MPAA Rating: PG-13 (adult themes, profanity) Running Time: 118 minutes. Reviewed by Scott Renshaw.
For those unfamiliar with the American legal system -- and count it among your blessings if you are one of them -- it is not generally the stuff of which great drama is made. It is a thing of motions, pleadings, depositions and causes of action, of hundreds of hours spent reading thousands of incoming documents, or redacting thousands of outgoing documents. It is a war of attrition played out in conference rooms, only rarely involving tense attorney-witness confrontations or even-more-tense waits for a verdict. Cinematic law is a satisfying fiction; real law is, for the most part, a laborious game of chicken before an out-of-court settlement.
A CIVIL ACTION's dubious merit involves the extent to which it effectively captures real law. It's based on a real case, recounted in Jonathan Harr's non-fiction best-seller about Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta), a Boston personal injury lawyer with a gift for turning the "s" in "suffering" into a dollar sign. He sees no such dollar signs in a case brought in by his partner Kevin Conway (Tony Shalhoub), a case involving a statistically significant cluster of children dying of leukemia in the town of Woburn...that is, until he discovers that the toxic chemicals in the area just may be spilling out of the deep pockets of R.W. Grace Corp. and Beatrice Foods. Schlichtmann smells a killing, and the Woburn case comes to consume everything he has and everything he is.
There was every reason to believe that, if anyone could lend a spark to slogging through the legal mire, it would be Steven Zaillian. This was, after all, the director who made chess both kinetic and poetic in SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER. Indeed, there are several scenes in which Zaillian nails the harsh truths of tort law: Schlichtmann coldly ticking off the relative cash values of women vs. men or black vs. white in wrongful death cases; a hilarious courtroom moment in which a corporate defense attorney realizes he's lost the jury's sympathy before he's even begun; an effective montage showing the mounting costs of research and expert witnesses. A CIVIL ACTION pulls few punches when it comes to underlining a process that's always about money, and only accidentally about justice.
Unfortunately, it pulls all its punches when it comes to giving the story an emotional hook. Schlichtmann's conversion from shark to softy is supposed to anchor the film, except that it's far too subtle. In fact, Travolta often plays Schlichtmann as though his concern is always still about the money, his frustration less about letting his clients down than about letting the big one slip away -- which, frankly, is a more interesting choice. Those clients, meanwhile, remain stoic, heroic abstractions, the working class American equivalent of the struggling non-white characters who serve as background color in stories of a wealthy white character's awakening to social conscience (like SEVEN YEARS IN TIBET). As the film slowly becomes the story of how the Woburn case drains all the cash out of Schlichtmann and his firm, it slowly drains what little narrative and visual energy it had.
Certainly much of that energy was supposed to be provided by Robert Duvall as Jerry Facher, Beatrice's eccentric veteran attorney. I suppose the idea is that he's wily because he passes himself off as such a goof, but the character's tics -- taping up an ancient briefcase covered in Snagglepuss decals; absently bouncing a ball during a phone conversation; obsessing over the Red Sox -- are more often distracting than they are entertaining. At least Duvall's fussy colorfulness, along with William H. Macy's less-mannered breakdown as Schlichtmann's nervous accountant, give you something to watch. Too often A CIVIL ACTION feels like the sort of lecture in legal maneuvering we see Facher give to students at Harvard Law. It runs out of gas when it runs out of things to tell us, since it lacks characters to engage us. Real law makes the appeal of John Grisham-esque courtroom melodrama make a lot more sense.
On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 punitive damages: 5.
Visit Scott Renshaw's MoviePage http://www.inconnect.com/~renshaw/ *** Subscribe to receive new reviews directly by email! See the MoviePage for details, or reply to this message with subject line "Subscribe".
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


Home
About
Contact
Home
Contact Us
Contact Us
Location Information
Our Address
Room No.- 15, 2nd floor
CSE Department
Tezpur University
: +852 1234 5678
: +852 8765 4321
:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Map of our Location
Call
Email
Suggestions are invited
First Name
Last Name
Contact Tel.
Email
May we contact you?
Tel.
Email
Your Suggestion
Send Suggestion


pythonistr brings over a few ideas from the python language into R.
Python has a great context management system that closes file connections when they fall out of scope:
with open('file.csv', 'r') as f:
for line in f:
print(line)
Pythonistr adds a with
method to connections which mirrors this behaviour:
file_conn <- file("file.csv", "r")
with(file_conn, {
while (TRUE) {
line <- readLines(file_conn, n = 1)
if (length(line) == 0) {
break
}
print(line)
}
})
isOpen(file_conn) # FALSE (well, error)
Even better, there’s some support for line-by-line processing. In Python you might write:
with open('log.txt', 'r') as l:
for line in l:
print line
if 'stop' in line:
break
With pythonistr, you could write this as:
log <- file('log.txt', 'r')
with(log,
by_line(log,
print, # function to apply to each line
function(l) grepl("stop", l) # stop when true
)
)
In python, to instantiate a list of strings with minimal typing you could use:
l = 'i want a list of words'.split()
pythonistr adds separate
(or s
for short):
l <- s("saves you typing and matching quotes")
l
#> [1] "saves" "you" "typing" "and" "matching" "quotes"
If you regularly switch between R and Python you might be used to getting tripped up by length
vs. len
but this isn’t the only example. For example: which language prefers reversed
over rev
? Which implements sorted
as well as sort
?
pythonistr includes a few shortcuts to lower the context switching overhead, though it’s probably a bad idea to rely on these in normal R programming.