For this project you can collaborate with fellow students and you can hand in a common report. This project (together with projects 3 and 4) counts 1/3 of the final mark.
The aim of this project is to use the Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method to evaluate the ground state energy, the relative distance between two electrons and expectation values of the kinetic and potential energies of a quantum dots with \( N=2 \) electrons in three dimensions. It can be seen as a continuation of project 2, but instead of using eigenvalue solvers we will use a stochastic approach.
The systems we will focus on is thus a three-dimensional one, with two electrons confined to move in harmonic oscillator like traps. As in project 2, we have analytical results for the energy for specific frequencies, see Taut's article in the reference list below. Furthermore, for other frequencies, we have our results from project 2 which can be used to test our Monte Carlo results.
These systems are called quantum dots and constitute a lively research area in condensed matter physics and materials science, with applications spanning from the contruction of quantum circuits to applications to solar cells and nano-medicine. Although most studies are done for electrons in two dimensions, we will limit ourselves to the three-dimensional case since it allows us to compare our variational Monte Carlo (VMC) results with what we did in project 2.
Our aim here is to use the variational Monte Carlo method to study such systems, with an emphasis on understanding correlations due to the repulsive interaction between electrons. The advantage of the VMC approach is that we can carry out our calculations using cartesian coordinates.
The relevant background material can be found in chapter 14 of the lecture notes.
We consider a system of electrons confined in a pure three-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator potential, with an idealized total Hamiltonian given by $$ \begin{equation} \label{eq:finalH} \hat{H}=\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( -\frac{1}{2} \nabla_i^2 + \frac{1}{2} \omega^2r_i^2 \right)+\sum_{i < j}\frac{1}{r_{ij}}, \end{equation} $$ where natural units (\( \hbar=c=e=m_e=1 \)) are used and all energies are in so-called atomic units a.u. It means that all distances \( r_i \) and \( r_{ij} \) are dimensionless.
We will study various trial wave functions for two electrons (\( N=2 \)) as functions of the oscillator frequency \( \omega \) using the above Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian includes a standard harmonic oscillator part $$ \begin{equation*} \hat{H}_0=\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( -\frac{1}{2} \nabla_i^2 + \frac{1}{2} \omega^2r_i^2 \right), \end{equation*} $$ and the repulsive interaction between two electrons given by $$ \begin{equation*} \hat{H}_1=\sum_{i < j}\frac{1}{r_{ij}}, \end{equation*} $$ with the distance between electrons given by \( r_{ij}=\sqrt{\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2} \). We define the modulus of the positions of the electrons (for a given electron \( i \)) as \( r_i = \sqrt{x_i^2+y_i^2+z_i^2} \).
For this project you can collaborate with fellow students and you can hand in a common report. This project (together with projects 3 and 4) counts 1/3 of the final mark.
The unperturbed wave function for the ground state of the two-electron system is given by $$ \begin{equation*} \Phi(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2) = C\exp{\left(-\omega(r_1^2+r_2^2)/2\right)}, \end{equation*} $$ with \( C \) being a normalization constant and \( r_i = \sqrt{x_i^2+y_i^2+z_i^2} \). Note that the vector \( \mathbf{r}_i \) refers to the \( x \), \( y \) and \( z \) coordinates for a given particle. What is the total spin of this wave function? Find arguments for why the ground state should have this specific total spin.
Find closed form expressions for the local energy (see below) for the two trial wave functions presented here and explain shortly if these trial functions satisfy the so-called cusp condition when \( r_{12}\rightarrow 0 \). The first wave function $$ \Psi_{T1}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2) = C\exp{\left(-\alpha\omega(r_1^2+r_2^2)/2\right)}, $$ while the second trial function is $$ \Psi_{T2}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2) = C\exp{\left(-\alpha\omega(r_1^2+r_2^2)/2\right)} \exp{\left(\frac{r_{12}}{2(1+\beta r_{12})}\right)}, $$ where \( \alpha \) and \( \beta \) are variational parameters. Show that the first trial function gives an analytical expression for the local energy given by gives a closed-form expression $$ E_{L1} = \frac{1}{2}\omega^2\left( r_1^2+r_2^2\right)\left(1-\alpha^2\right) +3\alpha\omega. $$ Use this expression when developing your program. For the first trial function it will give you the exact analytical result when you exclude the Coulomb interaction. The exact result for the ground state is then \( 3\omega \). Adding the repulsive Coulomb interaction gives us then $$ E_{L1} = \frac{1}{2}\omega^2\left( r_1^2+r_2^2\right)\left(1-\alpha^2\right) +3\alpha\omega+\frac{1}{r_{12}}. $$ When you study the final energy for the first trial function, this is the result you should compare the second trial function with. The analytical expression for the second trial wave function (with \( E_{L1} \) now including the Coulomb repulsion) $$ E_{L2} = E_{L1}+\frac{1}{2(1+\beta r_{12})^2}\left\{\alpha\omega r_{12}-\frac{1}{2(1+\beta r_{12})^2}-\frac{2}{r_{12}}+\frac{2\beta}{1+\beta r_{12}}\right\} $$ The exact ground state energy for \( \omega =1 \) is \( 3.558 \) a.u. Check this result against your results from project 2 and remember to add the contribution from the center-of-mass energy, which is 1.5 a.u.
You will need to program both equations when computing the expectation value of the energy and the energy variance.
Plot the energy as a function of the variational parameter \( \alpha \) and discuss your results. Plot the variance as well and find the energy and variance minima as functions of \( \alpha \). Discuss your results.
Compute also the expectation value of the mean distance at the energy minimun \( r_{12}=\sqrt{\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2} \) between the two electrons for the optimal set of the variational parameters using \( \omega=0.01 \), \( \omega=0.5 \) and \( \omega=1.0 \). Comment your results. You will find it convenient to object orient your code.
Use thereafter the optimal value for \( \alpha \) as a starting point for computing the ground state energy of the two-electron quantum dot using the trial wave functions \( \psi_{T2}({\bf r_1},{\bf r_2}, {\bf r_{12}}) \). Use the analytical expression for the local energy. In this case you need to vary both \( \alpha \) and \( \beta \). The strategy here is to use \( \alpha \) from the previous exercise, [5c)] and then vary \( \beta \) in order to find the lowest energy as function of \( \beta \). Thereafter you change \( \alpha \) in order to see whether you find an even lower energy and so forth.
With the optimal parameters for the ground state wave function, compute the expectation values of the energy and the variance using \( \omega=0.01 \), \( \omega=0.5 \) and \( \omega=1.0 \). How important are the correlations introduced by the Jastrow factor? Comment your results. Compare the best VMC results wth those from project 2 for the same frequencies. Compute also the expectation value of the mean distance at the energy minimun \( r_{12}=\sqrt{\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2} \) between the two electrons for the optimal set of the variational parameters using \( \omega=0.01 \), \( \omega=0.5 \) and \( \omega=1.0 \). Comment your results and compare the results with and without the Jastrow factor.
The Hermite polynomials are the solutions of the following differential equation $$ \begin{equation} \frac{d^2H(x)}{dx^2}-2x\frac{dH(x)}{dx}+ (\lambda-1)H(x)=0. \label{eq:hermite} \end{equation} $$ The first few polynomials are $$ \begin{equation*} H_0(x)=1, \end{equation*} $$ $$ \begin{equation*} H_1(x)=2x, \end{equation*} $$ $$ \begin{equation*} H_2(x)=4x^2-2, \end{equation*} $$ $$ \begin{equation*} H_3(x)=8x^3-12x, \end{equation*} $$ and $$ \begin{equation*} H_4(x)=16x^4-48x^2+12. \end{equation*} $$ They fulfil the orthogonality relation $$ \begin{equation*} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-x^2}H_n(x)^2dx=2^nn!\sqrt{\pi}, \end{equation*} $$ and the recursion relation $$ \begin{equation*} H_{n+1}(x)=2xH_{n}(x)-2nH_{n-1}(x). \end{equation*} $$
Here follows a brief recipe and recommendation on how to write a report for each project.
The preferred format for the report is a PDF file. You can also use DOC or postscript formats or as an ipython notebook file. As programming language we prefer that you choose between C/C++, Fortran2008 or Python. The following prescription should be followed when preparing the report:


Codepedia.info is a programming blog. Tutorials focused on Programming ASP.Net, C#, jQuery, AngularJs, Gridview, MVC, Ajax, Javascript, XML, MS SQL-Server, NodeJs, Web Design, Software
html2canvas script allows you to take "screenshots" of webpages or parts of it, directly on the users browser. The screenshot is based on the DOM and as such may not be 100% accurate to the real representation as it does not make an actual screenshot, but builds the screenshot based on the information available on the page.


public class VirtualFileSystem
extends java.lang.Object
implements java.io.Serializable
| Modifier and Type | Field and Description |
|---|---|
static int |
BlockSize
the size of a Block of data on the virtual disk
|
static int |
DataSizeInBlock
the space reserved to data in a block
|
static long |
firstBlockPosition
position of the first byte of the first data block on a virtual disk file
|
private boolean[] |
freeBlocks
array of boolean to keep track of the status (free/occupied) of a data block
|
private long |
freeSpace
free space on the virtual disk
|
static java.lang.String |
HFSSeparator
the separator string of the host file system
|
int |
id
id of the virutal disk
|
static int |
intSize
size of an integer value (4 bytes)
|
static int |
longSize
size of a long value (8 bytes)
|
static long |
MaxSizeAllowed
maximum size of a virtual disk
|
java.lang.String |
name
name of the virtual file system
|
private long |
objectDataPosition
position of the first byte that will contain object serialized data on the virtual disk file
|
private long |
occupiedSpace
occupied space on the virtual disk
|
Directory |
rootDirectory
root directory
|
static java.lang.String |
rootPath
the root path of the virtual file system
|
static java.lang.String |
separator
path separator of the virtual file system
|
private static long |
serialVersionUID |
long |
totalSpace
total space on the virtual disk
|
static java.lang.String |
VDFileExtension
virtual disk file extension
|
java.lang.String |
VDFileName
path to the file where the virtual disk will be serialized on the host file system
|
static int |
VirtualDiskIDs
virtual disks ids
|
private Directory |
workingDirectory
current working directory
|
| Constructor and Description |
|---|
VirtualFileSystem(long space)
creates a virtual file system with default name.
|
VirtualFileSystem(java.lang.String fileName)
loads an already existing virtual file system from the host file system
|
VirtualFileSystem(java.lang.String name,
long space)
creates a virtual file system.
|
| Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
|---|---|
Directory |
createDirectory(java.lang.String pathName)
creates a new directory at the specified pathName
|
File |
createFile(java.lang.String pathName,
long size)
creates a new file at the specified pathName
|
void |
delete()
deletes the virtual disk file from the host file system.
|
boolean |
equals(java.lang.Object o) |
java.util.List<VNode> |
find(java.lang.String name)
search for flies/directories linked to the current working directory
|
void |
format()
formats the virtual disk file.
|
VNode |
get(java.lang.String pathName)
returns the VNode corresponding to the path name given as arguement
|
private static int |
getBlockIdx(long blockPosition)
returns the index of the data block corresponding to the position, on the virtual disk file, given as argument
|
private static long |
getBlockPositionOnFile(int blockIdx)
returns the long value containing the position of the first byte, on the virtual disk file, corresponding to the data block index given as arguement
|
long |
getFreeSpace()
returns the number of bytes that are free on the virtual disk
|
static long |
getHFSDirectorySize(java.io.File directory)
returns the total size of a directory on the host file system
|
long |
getNextFreeBlockPosition()
returns the next free block position on the virtual disk file
|
long |
getOccupiedSpace()
returns the number of bytes that are occupied on the virtual disk
|
static java.lang.String |
getSimplifiedSize(long value) |
java.lang.String |
getSpaceOccupationBar()
returns a string containing an occupation bar of the virtual disk
example: ####___ (59% occupied | 41% free)
|
java.lang.String |
getTree()
returns a String containing all the content of virtual disk formatted in a tree structure.
|
Directory |
getWorkingDirectory()
returns the current working directory of the virtual file system
|
VNode |
importFromHostFileSystem(java.lang.String importPathName)
imports a file/directory from the host file system to the current working directory of the virtual file system
|
VNode |
importFromHostFileSystem(java.lang.String importPathName,
java.lang.String pathName)
imports a file/directory from the host file system to the virtual file system
|
boolean |
isFreeBlock(long position)
checks if a data block is free
|
void |
navigate(java.lang.String pathName)
navigate through the virtual file system. it changes the current working directory.
|
void |
save()
serializes the virtual file system at the end of the virtual disk file.
|
void |
setFreeBlock(long position)
sets the data block, which position is given in the argument, as free and changes the occupied/free space of the virtual disk.
|
void |
setOccupiedBlock(long position)
sets the data block, which position is given in the argument, as occupied and changes the occupied/free space of the virtual disk.
|
java.lang.String |
toString() |
private static final long serialVersionUID
public static final long MaxSizeAllowed
public static final java.lang.String separator
public static final java.lang.String rootPath
public static final java.lang.String HFSSeparator
public static final java.lang.String VDFileExtension
public static final int BlockSize
public static final int longSize
public static final int intSize
public static final int DataSizeInBlock
public static final long firstBlockPosition
public final java.lang.String name
private long freeSpace
private long occupiedSpace
public final long totalSpace
private boolean[] freeBlocks
public final java.lang.String VDFileName
public final int id
private final long objectDataPosition
public static int VirtualDiskIDs
public final Directory rootDirectory
private Directory workingDirectory
public VirtualFileSystem(java.lang.String name, long space)
name
- name of the virtual file systemspace
- dimension (in bytes) of the virtual file systemexceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if formatting operation failsexceptions.SizeNotAllowedException
- if space dimension is too bigpublic VirtualFileSystem(long space)
space
- dimension (in bytes) of the virtual file systemexceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if formatting operation failsexceptions.SizeNotAllowedException
- if space dimension is too bigpublic VirtualFileSystem(java.lang.String fileName)
fileName
- path name of the virtual file system already existing on the host file systemexceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if virtual disk file is not found or not formatted correctlypublic void format()
exceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if operation fails.public Directory getWorkingDirectory()
public long getFreeSpace()
public long getOccupiedSpace()
public long getNextFreeBlockPosition()
public boolean isFreeBlock(long position)
position
- the position of the block on the virtual disk fileprivate static long getBlockPositionOnFile(int blockIdx)
blockIdx
- index of a data block on the virtual file systemprivate static int getBlockIdx(long blockPosition)
blockPosition
- the position, on the virtual disk file, of the corresponding data blockpublic void setOccupiedBlock(long position)
position
- position of the data block on the virtual disk filepublic void setFreeBlock(long position)
position
- position of the data block on the virtual disk filepublic void save()
exceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if the operation fails.public void delete()
exceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if operation fails.public VNode get(java.lang.String pathName)
pathName
- path name of the VNode in the virtual file system. It can be absolute or relative to working directory.exceptions.NoSuchFileOrDirectoryException
- if no VNode foundpublic void navigate(java.lang.String pathName)
pathName
- the navigation target path name. It can be an absolute path or a relative path to the current working directory.exceptions.NoSuchFileOrDirectoryException
- if path is not validpublic java.util.List<VNode> find(java.lang.String name)
name
- of the file/directory to search forexceptions.NoSuchFileOrDirectoryException
- if no VNode foundpublic Directory createDirectory(java.lang.String pathName)
pathName
- path + name of the new directoryexceptions.NoSuchFileOrDirectoryException
- if path name is not validexceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if saving operation failspublic File createFile(java.lang.String pathName, long size)
pathName
- path + name of the new filesize
- size in bytes of the new fileexceptions.NoSuchFileOrDirectoryException
- if path name is not validexceptions.NoFreeSpaceLeftException
- if virtual disk does not have enough spaceexceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if operation failspublic VNode importFromHostFileSystem(java.lang.String importPathName, java.lang.String pathName)
importPathName
- path + name of the file/directory to importpathName
- path name of the directory where to import on the virtual file systemexceptions.NoSuchFileOrDirectoryException
- if path name is not validexceptions.NoFreeSpaceLeftException
- if virtual disk does not have enough spaceexceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if operation failspublic VNode importFromHostFileSystem(java.lang.String importPathName)
importPathName
- path + name of the file/directory to importexceptions.NoFreeSpaceLeftException
- if virtual disk does not have enough spaceexceptions.VFSOperationFailException
- if operation failspublic java.lang.String getSpaceOccupationBar()
public static long getHFSDirectorySize(java.io.File directory)
directory
- on the host file systempublic java.lang.String getTree()
public static java.lang.String getSimplifiedSize(long value)
public java.lang.String toString()
toString
in class java.lang.Object
public boolean equals(java.lang.Object o)
equals
in class java.lang.Object


Jeremy Corbyn pledges to make 27 million homes greener to cut winter deaths
EXCLUSIVE Residents would be offered state of the art energy savers to upgrade their homes, creating 450,000 jobs
by Nigel Nelson, https://www.mirror.co.uk/authors/nigel-nelson/Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is planning the biggest programme of home improvement since the post-war housing boom.
It would see all 27 million homes in the land offered upgrading with state-of-the-art energy savers.
Labour ’s Warm Homes For All scheme to be unveiled on Sunday will create 450,000 construction jobs to fit the loft insulation, solar power and double glazing needed.
The plan is to prevent 1,500 winter deaths and 565,000 cases of asthma as homes are made healthier by 2030.
And installing low carbon high-tec will cut emissions by 10 per cent, the equivalent of taking seven in ten cars off the road.
Low income households will stump no money up front but gradually pay back some of what they owe from the £417 a year projected savings in energy bills.
Wealthier households will be offered interest free loans to improve their homes.
Mr Corbyn said: “If we don’t radically change course we face the threat of a hostile and dying planet.
“We can either take action to protect future generations, or allow the Tories to help fuel our planet’s destruction.”
Labour estimates a cost of £250 billion to upgrade homes nationwide and the state will contribute £60billion of that.
The remainder will come from the energy savings generated.


This website template has been designed by Free Website Templates for you, for free. You can replace all this text with your own text. You can remove any link to our website from this website template...
Read MoreThis website template has been designed by Free Website Templates for you, for free. You can replace all this text with your own text. You can remove any link to our website from this website template...
Read More


Everyone is welcome to contribute code to Steemit, Inc. projects. We have a Code of Conduct; we ask that you please follow it in all your interactions with our team and your fellow contributors.
Please note that this contributing guide only applies to our development presence.
Repositories
There are currently two repositories that you can contribute to:
- Devportal https://github.com/steemit/devportal
- Javascript Tutorials https://github.com/steemit/devportal-tutorials-js
All of the repositories have a package.json file included with them with script helpers setup.
When contributing to the DevPortal all code snippets must be added to the _includes/<tutorial name>
folder since this will be linted on commit. You can also wrap all your code in the tutorial in ```
tags which will force them to be highlighted in the portal.
How to contribute
- File an issue describing the problem you would like to solve or the feature you would like to add. It saves unnecessary work on your part, in case there’s a nontechnical reason we can’t accept a particular change. Please note that we can and will automatically close all pull requests that do not refer to an issue.
- Learn the conventions of the project you are submitting code to, even implicit ones, and follow them. In case you have a question about a project’s conventions, please ask on the issue you filed. This includes writing tests, formatting code, and documentation.
- File a pull request against your Github issue and fill out the pull request template. Remember, you are agreeing to license your code and any intellectual property associated with your code under the same terms as the repository you are contributing to.
- If one of our teammates asks you to make changes, please make them. Our rule is that all requests for changes in code review are resolved in favor of the reviewer. Our teammates follow this rule too!
Code of Conduct
Again, please note that this Code of Conduct only applies to our development presence.
Our Pledge
We welcome your membership in our project and community under the rules that we have set below.
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers will work to make your participation in our project and community as fulfilling as possible.
Our Rules
All members of our project and community must:
- Show empathy toward other project and community members
- Use welcoming and inclusive language
- Respect differing viewpoints and experiences
- Gracefully accept constructive criticism
All members of our project and community must not:
- Harm our project and community, or advocate harm to our project and community
- Insult or make derogatory comments about others
- Interact with others after they have withdrawn permission to do so
Our Responsibilities
We will use any and all lawful means at our disposal to enforce our rules. This includes but is not limited to:
- Rejecting contributions
- Removing comments, commits, code, wiki edits, and issues
- Banning abusers
We will clarify standards of acceptable behavior and we will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting us at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. We maintain strict confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Attribution
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4


There is no information available on clearance procedures for private yachts.
Last updated August 2015.
All nationalities must obtain visas before arrival. In the proximity of Somalia, visas can be obtained from Nairobi at International House, Marma Ngina St. A letter may be required from one's own embassy. The Italian embassy in Dar es Salaam also issues Somali visas and there is also a Somali embassy in Djibouti.
Firearms will be retained.
Yellow fever and cholera vaccination is essential. Malaria prophylaxis is also recommended. A yellow fever vaccination certificate must be shown on entry, otherwise the vaccination will be done on the spot and not under very hygienic conditions.
There are very high harbour charges.
A permit is needed if a camera is taken ashore. Permits are issued by the National Censorship Office in Mogadishu.
Animals must be declared to Customs on arrival


Simple, Friendly, and Effective
Get started on your first lesson now!
Start learning to code, not learning how to user Syntax. Our platform is designed to make learning how to code simple, friendly, and effective.
Start learning to code, not learning how to user Syntax. Our platform is designed to make learning how to code simple, friendly, and effective.


Lama 007
Manu the Beast was born recently and grew up well protected, surrounded by high quality
plastic and strong technology. This has laid the foundation to transform from a young
innocent boy to become the four-wheel beast he is today. It's rare that he's seen on his explorations
to new horizons. The ones who do have memories of Manu describe him as a cautions and friendly explorer, yet
ruthless when it get's tough out there.


Important Information!
Your poll id is the id that you can distribute to other people so that they can see and answer your
poll.
A person can also see the results of the poll by using this id.

You should NOT share this with people as it is what allows you to lock, unlock and delete your
poll. Both the poll ID and the poll master key are required for unlocking, locking,
and deleting
Locking a poll means responses are no longer accepted. Unlocking a poll allows responses once again.
Polls are unlocked by default on creation.
Deleting a poll will delete the poll completely as well as all of
the responses and prevent people from viewing or answering the poll or the responses.
A master key cannot be regenerated so be CAREFUL with it.


:: com :: sun :: star :: awt ::
|
| unpublished |
interface XDockableWindowListener |
|
|
- Base Interfaces
XDockableWindowListener
┗ ::com::sun::star::lang::XEventListener
| ::com::sun::star::lang::XEventListener |
- (referenced interface's summary:)
- base interface for all event listeners interfaces.
|
|
- Usage Restrictions
- not published
- Description
- makes it possible to receive docking events.
|
| Methods' Summary |
| startDocking |
is invoked when the docking procedure starts.
|
| docking |
is invoked during the docking procedure when the window has been moved.
on return the DockingData must contain either the old tracking rectangle
or a changed rectangle if required, additionally it must indicate if
the window should be docked or floating
Note: the tracking rectangle indicates to the user where the window would
be placed if he releases the mouse.
|
| endDocking |
is invoked when the docking procedure ends.
aWindowRect contains the new position and size of the window
|
| prepareToggleFloatingMode |
is invoked when the floating mode is about to be changed between
floating and docked or vice versa
if returned FALSE the floating mode will not be changed
|
| toggleFloatingMode |
is invoked when the floating mode is changed between
floating and docked or vice versa
|
| closed |
is invoked when the window was actively closed
|
| endPopupMode |
is invoked when the window currently is in popupmode and wants to be undocked
or closed
|
| Methods' Details |
startDocking
- Description
- is invoked when the docking procedure starts.
|
|
docking
- Description
- is invoked during the docking procedure when the window has been moved.
on return the DockingData must contain either the old tracking rectangle
or a changed rectangle if required, additionally it must indicate if
the window should be docked or floating
Note: the tracking rectangle indicates to the user where the window would
be placed if he releases the mouse.
|
|
endDocking
- Description
- is invoked when the docking procedure ends.
aWindowRect contains the new position and size of the window
|
|
prepareToggleFloatingMode
| boolean |
| prepareToggleFloatingMode( |
[in] ::com::sun::star::lang::EventObject |
e ); |
- Description
- is invoked when the floating mode is about to be changed between
floating and docked or vice versa
if returned FALSE the floating mode will not be changed
|
|
toggleFloatingMode
- Description
- is invoked when the floating mode is changed between
floating and docked or vice versa
|
|
closed
- Description
- is invoked when the window was actively closed
|
|
endPopupMode
- Description
- is invoked when the window currently is in popupmode and wants to be undocked
or closed
|
|
Top of Page
Copyright © 2013, The Apache Software Foundation, Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. Apache, the Apache feather logo, Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org are trademarks of The Apache Software Foundation. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.


Carter concludes that the 1948 deletion of feloniously was merely a stylistic change, and that Congress had no intention, in deleting that word, to drop the requirement that the defendant feloniously take the propertythat is, with intent to steal. 9 Such reasoning, however, misunderstands our approach to statutory interpretation. In analyzing a statute, we begin by examining the text, see, e.g., Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 475 (1992) , not by psychoanalyzing those who enacted it, Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co., 516 U. S. 264, 279 (1996) ( Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). While feloniously no doubt would be sufficient to convey a specific intent requirement akin to the one spelled out in subsection (b), the word simply does not appear in subsection (a).
Contrary to the dissents suggestion, post, at 911, this reading is not a fanciful one. The absence of a specific intent requirement from subsection (a), for example, permits the statute to reach cases like Lewis , see supra, at 11, where an ex-convict robs a bank because he wants to be apprehended and returned to prison. (The Government represents that indictments on this same fact pattern (which invariably plead out and hence do not result in reported decisions) are brought as often as every year, Brief for United States 22, n. 13.) It can hardly be said, therefore, that it would have been absurd to delete feloniously in order to reach such defendants. And once we have made that determination, our inquiry into legislative motivation is at an end. Cf. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S., at 510511. 10
B
Turning to the second element in dispute, it will be recalled that, whereas subsection (b) requires that the defendant tak[e] and carr[y] away the property, subsection (a) requires only that the defendant tak[e] the property. Carter contends that the takes in subsection (a) is equivalent to takes and carries away in subsection (b). While Carter seems to acknowledge that the argument is at war with the text of the statute, he urges that text should not be dispositive here because nothing in the evolution of §2113(a) suggests that Congress sought to discard the asportation requirement from that subsection.
But, again, our inquiry focuses on an analysis of the textual product of Congress efforts, not on speculation as to the internal thought processes of its Members. Congress is certainly free to outlaw bank theft that does not involve asportation, and it hardly would have been absurd for Congress to do so, since the taking-without-asportation scenario is no imagined hypothetical. See, e.g., State v. Boyle, 970 S. W. 2d 835, 836, 838839 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (construing state statutory codification of common-law robbery to apply to defendant who, after taking money by threat of force, dropped the money on the spot). Indeed, a leading treatise applauds the deletion of the asportation requirement from the elements of robbery. See 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §8.11, p. 439. No doubt the common laws decision to require asportation also has its virtues. But Congress adopted a different view in §2113(a), and it is not for us to question that choice.
C
There remains the requirement in §2113(b)s first paragraph that the property taken have a value exceeding $1,000a requirement notably absent from §2113(a). Carter, shifting gears from his previous arguments, concedes the textual point but claims that the valuation requirement does not affect the Schmuck elements analysis because it is a sentencing factor , not an element. We disagree. The structure of subsection (b) strongly suggests that its two paragraphsthe first of which requires that the property taken have value exceeding $1,000, the second of which refers to property of value not exceeding $1,000describe distinct offenses. Each begins with the word [w]hoever, proceeds to describe identically (apart from the differing valuation requirements) the elements of the offense, and concludes by stating the prescribed punishment. That these provisions stand on their own grammatical feet strongly suggests that Congress intended the valuation requirement to be an element of each paragraphs offense, rather than a sentencing factor of some base §2113(b) offense. Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 234 (1999) . Even aside from the statutes structure, the steeply higher penaltiesan enhancement from a 1-year to a 10-year maximum penalty on proof of valuation exceeding $1,000leads us to conclude that the valuation requirement is an element of the first paragraph of subsection (b). See Castillo v. United States, ante, at __ (slip op., at 7); Jones, 526 U. S. , at 233. Finally, the constitutional questions that would be raised by interpreting the valuation requirement to be a sentencing factor persuade us to adopt the view that the valuation requirement is an element. See id., at 239252.
The dissent agrees that the valuation requirement of subsection (b)s first paragraph is an element, but nonetheless would hold that subsection (b) is a lesser included offense of subsection (a). Post, at 1416. The dissent reasons that the value not exceeding $1,000 component of §2113(b)s second paragraph is not an element of the offense described in that paragraph. Hence, the matter of value does not prevent §2113(b)s second paragraph from being a lesser included offense of §2113(a). And if a defendant wishes to receive an instruction on the first paragraph of §2113(b)which entails more severe penalties than the second paragraph, but is a more realistic option from the jurys standpoint in a case such as this one where the value of the property clearly exceeds $1,000the dissent sees no reason to bar him from making that election, even though the value exceeding $1,000 element of §2113(b)s first paragraph is clearly absent from §2113(a).
This novel maneuver creates a problem, however. Since subsection (a) contains no valuation requirement, a defendant indicted for violating that subsection who requests an instruction under subsection (b)s first paragraph would effectively waive … his [ Fifth Amendment] right to notice by indictment of the value exceeding $1,000 element. Post, at 16. But this same course would not be available to the prosecutor who seeks the insurance policy of a lesser included offense instruction under that same paragraph after determining that his case may have fallen short of proving the elements of subsection (a). For, whatever authority defense counsel may possess to waive a defendants constitutional rights, see generally New York v. Hill, 528 U. S. ___ (2000), a prosecutor has no such power. Thus, the prosecutor would be disabled from obtaining a lesser included offense instruction under Rule 31(c), a result plainly contrary to Schmuck , in which we explicitly rejected an interpretive approach to the Rule that would have permitted the defendant, by in effect waiving his right to notice, … [to] obtain a lesser [included] offense instruction in circumstances where the constitutional restraint of notice to the defendant would prevent the prosecutor from seeking an identical instruction, 489 U. S., at 718.
* * *
We hold that §2113(b) is not a lesser included offense of §2113(a), and therefore that petitioner is not entitled to a jury instruction on §2113(b). The judgment of the Third Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
1 We granted certiorari in Mosley to address the issue that we resolve today, Mosley v. United States, 523 U. S. 1019 (1997) , but dismissed the petition in that case upon the death of the petitioner, 525 U. S. 120 (1998) (per curiam).
2 By lesser offense, Schmuck meant lesser in terms of magnitude of punishment. When the elements of such a lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense, the lesser offense attains the status of a lesser included offense.
3 A defendant must also satisfy the independent prerequisite … that the evidence at trial … be such that a jury could rationally find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense, yet acquit him of the greater. Schmuck, 489 U. S., at 716, n. 8 (citing Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205, 208 (1973) ). In light of our holding that petitioner fails to satisfy the elements test, we need not address the latter requirement in this case.
4 The dissent claims that our decision in United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482 (1997) , is not in point because we went on in Wells to discuss the evolution of the statute (specifically, a recodification of numerous sections), which revealed Congress apparent care in retaining a materiality requirement in certain sections while omitting it in others, such as the one before us in Wells. According to the dissent, a similar statutory evolution is not present here. See post, at 13. But, even assuming the dissent is correct in this latter regard, the holding in Wells simply cannot be deemed to rest on our discussion of the statutes evolution. Rather, we characterized that discussion as supporting a result we had already reached on textual grounds. See 519 U. S., at 492 (Statutory history confirms the natural reading).
5 Congress could have simply punished robbery or larceny as some States have done (and as Congress itself has done elsewhere, see, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §§2112), thereby leaving the definition of these terms to the common law, but Congress instead followed the more prevalent legislative practice of spelling out elements of these crimes. See 2 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §8.11, p. 438, n. 6 (1986).
6 This interpretive principle exists quite apart from the canon on imputing common-law meaning. See, e.g., X-Citement Video, 513 U. S., at 70 (applying presumption in favor of scienter to statute proscribing the shipping or receiving of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, without first inquiring as to the existence of a common-law antecedent to this offense); Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994) (similar).
7 The dissent claims that the Lewis Court determined that the jury could have found specific intent to steal on the facts presented, and thus disputes our characterization of the case as illustrating a situation where a defendant acts only with general intent. Post, at 10 (citing Lewis, 628 F. 2d, at 1279). The dissent fails to acknowledge, however, that the Lewis court made this determination only because some evidence suggested that, if the defendant had not been arrested, he would have kept the stolen money. Ibid. The Lewis court, implicitly acknowledging the possibility that some defendant (if not Lewis) might unconditionally intend to turn himself in after completing a bank theft, proceeded to hold, in the alternative, that §2113(a) covers a defendant who acts only with general intent. See ibid.
8 Numerous Courts of Appeals agree. While holding that §2113(a)s version of bank robbery is not a specific intent crime, these courts have construed the statute to contain a general intent requirement. See United States v. Gonyea, 140 F. 3d 649, 653654, and n. 10 (CA6 1998) (collecting cases).
9 Relatedly, Carter argues that, even if a sensible Congress might have deleted feloniously, the 1948 Congress did not adequately explain an intention to do so in the legislative history to the 1948 Act. He points to the House Report, which states that Congress intended only to make changes in phraseology. H. R. Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A135 (1947). Carter further suggests that the phraseology concern with feloniously was that Congress in the 1948 codification generally desired to delete references to felonies and misdemeanors in view of the statutory definition of those terms in the former 18 U. S. C. §1. Carter fails, however, to acknowledge that the House Report does not give that reason for the deletion of feloniously from §2113, even though it explicitly does so in connection with the simultaneous elimination of similar language from other sections. See, e.g., H. R. Rep. No. 304, supra, at A67 (References to offenses as felonies or misdemeanors were omitted in view of definitive section 1 of this title) (explaining revisions to 18 U. S. C. §751). As is often the case, the legislative history, even if it is relevant, supports conflicting inferences and provides scant illumination.
10 Carter claims further support in Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322 (1957) , for his view that §2113(a) implicitly requires a specific intent to steal. But Prince did not discuss the elements of that subsection, let alone compare them to the elements of subsection (b).
Opinion
FLOYD J. CARTER, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Schmuck v. United States, 489 U. S. 705 (1989) , we held that a defendant who requests a jury instruction on a lesser offense under Rule 31(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must demonstrate that the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. Id., at 716. This case requires us to apply this elements test to the offenses described by 18 U. S. C. §§2113(a) and (b) (1994 ed. and Supp. IV). The former punishes [w]hoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes … from the person or presence of another … any … thing of value belonging to, or in the … possession of, any bank … . The latter, which entails less severe penalties, punishes, inter alia, [w]hoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any … thing of value exceeding $1,000 belonging to, or in the … possession of, any bank … . We hold that §2113(b) requires an element not required by §2113(a)three in factand therefore is not a lesser included offense of §2113(a). Petitioner is accordingly prohibited as a matter of law from obtaining a lesser included offense instruction on the offense described by §2113(b).
I
On September 9, 1997, petitioner Floyd J. Carter donned a ski mask and entered the Collective Federal Savings Bank in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. Carter confronted a customer who was exiting the bank and pushed her back inside. She screamed, startling others in the bank. Undeterred, Carter ran into the bank and leaped over the customer service counter and through one of the teller windows. One of the tellers rushed into the managers office. Meanwhile, Carter opened several teller drawers and emptied the money into a bag. After having removed almost $16,000 in currency, Carter jumped back over the counter and fled from the scene. Later that day, the police apprehended him.
A grand jury indicted Carter, charging him with violating §2113(a). While not contesting the basic facts of the episode, Carter pleaded not guilty on the theory that he had not taken the banks money by force and violence, or by intimidation, as §2113(a) requires. Before trial, Carter moved that the court instruct the jury on the offense described by §2113(b) as a lesser included offense of the offense described by §2113(a). The District Court, relying on United States v. Mosley, 126 F. 3d 200 (CA3 1997), 1 denied the motion in a preliminary ruling. At the close of the Governments case, the District Court denied Carters motion for a judgment of acquittal and indicated that the preliminary ruling denying the lesser included offense instruction would stand. The jury, instructed on §2113(a) alone, returned a guilty verdict, and the District Court entered judgment pursuant to that verdict.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion, relying on its earlier decision in Mosley . Judgment order reported at 185 F. 3d 863 (1999). While the Ninth Circuit agrees with the Third that a lesser offense instruction is precluded in this context, see United States v. Gregory, 891 F. 2d 732, 734 (CA9 1989), other Circuits have held to the contrary, see United States v. Walker, 75 F. 3d 178, 180 (CA4 1996); United States v. Brittain, 41 F. 3d 1409, 1410 (CA10 1994). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 528 U. S. 1060 (1999) , and now affirm.
II
In Schmuck, supra, we were called upon to interpret Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(c)s provision that [t]he defendant may be found guilty of an offense necessarily included in the offense charged. We held that this provision requires application of an elements test, under which one offense is not necessarily included in another unless the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. 489 U. S., at 716. 2 The elements test requires a textual comparison of criminal statutes, an approach that, we explained, lends itself to certain and predictable outcomes. Id., at 720. 3
Applying the test, we held that the offense of tampering with an odometer, 15 U. S. C. §§1984 and 1990c(a) (1982 ed.), is not a lesser included offense of mail fraud, 18 U. S. C. §1341. We explained that mail fraud requires two elements(1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to execute, the scheme (or specified fraudulent acts). The lesser offense of odometer tampering, however, requires the element of knowingly and willfully causing an odometer to be altered, an element that is absent from the offense of mail fraud. Accordingly, the elements of odometer tampering are not a subset of the elements of mail fraud, and a defendant charged with the latter is not entitled to an instruction on the former under Rule 31(c). Schmuck, supra, at 721722.
Turning to the instant case, the Government contends that three elements required by §2113(b)s first paragraph are not required by §2113(a): (1) specific intent to steal; (2) asportation; and (3) valuation exceeding $1,000. The statute provides:
§2113. Bank robbery and incidental crimes
(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association …
. . . . .
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of value exceeding $1,000 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; or
Whoever takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money or any other thing of value not exceeding $1,000 belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
A textual comparison of the elements of these offenses suggests that the Government is correct. First, whereas subsection (b) requires that the defendant act with intent to steal or purloin, subsection (a) contains no similar requirement. Second, whereas subsection (b) requires that the defendant tak[e] and carr[y] away the property, subsection (a) only requires that the defendant tak[e] the property. Third, whereas the first paragraph of subsection (b) requires that the property have a value exceeding $1,000, subsection (a) contains no valuation requirement. These extra clauses in subsection (b) cannot be regarded as mere surplusage; [they] mea[n] something. Potter v. United States, 155 U. S. 438, 446 (1894) .
Carter urges that the foregoing application of Schmuck s elements test is too rigid and submits that ordinary principles of statutory interpretation are relevant to the Schmuck inquiry. We do not dispute the latter proposition. The Schmuck test, after all, requires an exercise in statutory interpretation before the comparison of elements may be made, and it is only sensible that normal principles of statutory construction apply. We disagree, however, with petitioners conclusion that such principles counsel a departure in this case from what is indicated by a straightforward reading of the text.
III
We begin with the arguments pertinent to the general relationship between §§2113(a) and (b). Carter first contends that the structure of §2113 supports the view that subsection (b) is a lesser included offense of subsection (a). He points to subsection (c) of §2113, which imposes criminal liability on a person who knowingly receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of, any property or money or other thing of value which has been taken or stolen from a bank … in violation of subsection (b) . (Emphasis added.) It would be anomalous, posits Carter, for subsection (c) to applyas its text plainly providesonly to the fence who receives property from a violator of subsection (b) but not to the fence who receives property from a violator of subsection (a). The anomaly disappears, he concludes, only if subsection (b) is always violated when subsection (a) is violated i.e., only if subsection (b) is a lesser included offense of subsection (a).
But Carters anomalyeven if it truly existsis only an anomaly. Petitioner does not claim, and we tend to doubt, that it rises to the level of absurdity. Cf. Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S. 504, 509511 (1989) ; id., at 527 ( Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). For example, it may be that violators of subsection (a) generally act alone, while violators of subsection (b) are commonly assisted by fences. In such a state of affairs, a sensible Congress may have thought it necessary to punish only the fences of property taken in violation of subsection (b). Or Congress may have thought that a defendant who violates subsection (a) usuallyif not inevitablyalso violates subsection (b), so that the fence may be punished by reference to that latter violation. In any event, nothing in subsection (c) purports to redefine the elements required by the text of subsections (a) and (b).
Carters second argument is more substantial. He submits that, insofar as subsections (a) and (b) are similar to the common-law crimes of robbery and larceny, we must assume that subsections (a) and (b) require the same elements as their common-law predecessors, at least absent Congress affirmative indication (whether in text or legislative history) of an intent to displace the common-law scheme. While we (and the Government) agree that the statutory crimes at issue here bear a close resemblance to the common-law crimes of robbery and larceny, see Brief for United States 29 (citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *229, *232); accord, post, at 46, that observation is beside the point. The canon on imputing common-law meaning applies only when Congress makes use of a statutory term with established meaning at common law, and Carter does not point to any such term in the text of the statute.
This limited scope of the canon on imputing common-law meaning has long been understood. In Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246 (1952) , for example, we articulated the canon in this way:
[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such case, absence of contrary direction may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as a departure from them. Id., at 263 (emphasis added).
In other words, a cluster of ideas from the common law should be imported into statutory text only when Congress employs a common-law term , and not when, as here, Congress simply describes an offense analogous to a common-law crime without using common-law terms.
We made this clear in United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482 (1997) . At issue was whether 18 U. S. C. §1014which punishes a person who knowingly makes any false statement or report … for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured bank upon any application, advance, … commitment, or loanrequires proof of the materiality of the false statement. The defendants contended that since materiality was a required element of false statement-type offenses at common law, it must also be required by §1014. Although Justice Stevens in dissent thought the argument to be meritorious, we rejected it:
[F]undamentally, we disagree with our colleagues apparent view that any term that is an element of a common-law crime carries with it every other aspect of that common-law crime when the term is used in a statute. Justice Stevens seems to assume that because false statement is an element of perjury, and perjury criminalizes only material statements, a statute criminalizing false statements covers only material statements. By a parity of reasoning, because common-law perjury involved statements under oath, a statute criminalizing a false statement would reach only statements under oath. It is impossible to believe that Congress intended to impose such restrictions sub silentio , however, and so our rule on imputing common-law meaning to statutory terms does not sweep so broadly. 519 U. S., at 492, n. 10 (emphasis added; citation omitted). 4
Similarly, in United States v. Turley, 352 U. S. 407 (1957) , we declined to look to the analogous common-law crime because the statutory term at issuestolenhad no meaning at common law. See id., at 411412 ([W]hile stolen is constantly identified with larceny, the term was never at common law equated or exclusively dedicated to larceny (internal quotation marks omitted)).
By contrast, we have not hesitated to turn to the common law for guidance when the relevant statutory text does contain a term with an established meaning at common law. In Neder v. United States, 527 U. S. 1 (1999) , for example, we addressed whether materiality is required by federal statutes punishing a scheme or artifice to defraud. Id., at 20, and 2021, nn. 34 (citing 18 U. S. C. §§1341). Unlike the statute in Wells , which contained no common-law term, these statutes did include a common-law termdefraud. 527 U. S., at 22. Because common-law fraud required proof of materiality, we applied the canon to hold that these federal statutes implicitly contain a materiality requirement as well. Id., at 23. Similarly, in Evans v. United States, 504 U. S. 255, 261264 (1992) , we observed that extortion in 18 U. S. C. §1951 was a common-law term, and proceeded to interpret this term by reference to its meaning at common law.
Here, it is undisputed that robbery and larceny are terms with established meanings at common law. But neither term appears in the text of §2113(a) or §2113(b). 5 While the term robbery does appear in §2113s title, the title of a statute [is] of use only when [it] shed[s] light on some ambiguous word or phrase in the statute itself. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U. S. 206, 212 (1998) (quoting Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 331 U. S. 519, 528529 (1947) (modifications in original)). And Carter does not claim that this title illuminates any such ambiguous language. Accordingly, the canon on imputing common-law meaning has no bearing on this case.
IV
We turn now to Carters more specific arguments concerning the extra elements of §2113(b). While conceding the absence of three of §2113(b)s requirements from the text of §2113(a)(1) intent to steal or purloin; (2) takes and carries away , i.e., asportation; and (3) value exceeding $1,000 (first paragraph)Carter claims that the first two should be deemed implicit in §2113(a), and that the third is not an element at all.
A
As to intent to steal or purloin, it will be recalled that the text of subsection (b) requires a specific intent to steal or purloin, whereas subsection (a) contains no explicit mens rea requirement of any kind. Carter nevertheless argues that such a specific intent requirement must be deemed implicitly present in §2113(a) by virtue of our cases interpreting criminal statutes to include broadly applicable scienter requirements, even where the statute by its terms does not contain them. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U. S. 64, 70 (1994) . 6 Properly applied to §2113, however, the presumption in favor of scienter demands only that we read subsection (a) as requiring proof of general intent that is, that the defendant possessed knowledge with respect to the actus reus of the crime (here, the taking of property of another by force and violence or intimidation).
Before explaining why this is so under our cases, an example, United States v. Lewis, 628 F. 2d 1276, 1279 (CA10 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 924 (1981) , will help to make the distinction between general and specific intent less esoteric. In Lewis, a person entered a bank and took money from a teller at gunpoint, but deliberately failed to make a quick getaway from the bank in the hope of being arrested so that he would be returned to prison and treated for alcoholism. Though this defendant knowingly engaged in the acts of using force and taking money (satisfying general intent), he did not intend permanently to deprive the bank of its possession of the money (failing to satisfy specific intent). 7 See generally 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §3.5, p. 315 (1986) (distinguishing general from specific intent).
The presumption in favor of scienter requires a court to read into a statute only that mens rea which is necessary to separate wrongful conduct from otherwise innocent conduct. X-Citement Video, supra, at 72. In Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994) , for example, to avoid criminalizing the innocent activity of gun ownership, we interpreted a federal firearms statute to require proof that the defendant knew that the weapon he possessed had the characteristics bringing it within the scope of the statute. Id., at 611612. See also, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419, 426 (1985) ; Morissette, 342 U. S., at 270271. By contrast, some situations may call for implying a specific intent requirement into statutory text. Suppose, for example, a statute identical to §2113(b) but without the words intent to steal or purloin. Such a statute would run the risk of punishing seemingly innocent conduct in the case of a defendant who peaceably takes money believing it to be his. Reading the statute to require that the defendant possess general intent with respect to the actus reus i.e., that he know that he is physically taking the moneywould fail to protect the innocent actor. The statute therefore would need to be read to require not only general intent, but also specific intent i.e., that the defendant take the money with intent to steal or purloin.
In this case, as in Staples, a general intent requirement suffices to separate wrongful from otherwise innocent conduct. Section 2113(a) certainly should not be interpreted to apply to the hypothetical person who engages in forceful taking of money while sleepwalking (innocent, if aberrant activity), but this result is accomplished simply by requiring, as Staples did, general intent i.e., proof of knowledge with respect to the actus reus of the crime. And once this mental state and actus reus are shown, the concerns underlying the presumption in favor of scienter are fully satisfied, for a forceful takingeven by a defendant who takes under a good-faith claim of rightfalls outside the realm of the otherwise innocent. Thus, the presumption in favor of scienter does not justify reading a specific intent requirementintent to steal or purloininto §2113(a). 8
Independent of his reliance upon the presumption in favor of scienter, Carter argues that the legislative history of §2113 supports the notion that an intent to steal requirement should be read into §2113(a). Carter points out that, in 1934, Congress enacted what is now §2113(a), but with the adverb feloniously (which all agree is equivalent to intent to steal) modifying the verb takes. Act of May 18, 1934, ch. 304, §2(a), 48Stat. 783. In 1937, Congress added what is now §2113(b). Act of Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 747, 50Stat. 749. Finally, in 1948, Congress made two changes to §2113, deleting feloniously from what is now §2113(a) and dividing the robbery and larceny offenses into their own separate subsections. 62Stat. 796.
Carter concludes that the 1948 deletion of feloniously was merely a stylistic change, and that Congress had no intention, in deleting that word, to drop the requirement that the defendant feloniously take the propertythat is, with intent to steal. 9 Such reasoning, however, misunderstands our approach to statutory interpretation. In analyzing a statute, we begin by examining the text, see, e.g., Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 475 (1992) , not by psychoanalyzing those who enacted it, Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co., 516 U. S. 264, 279 (1996) ( Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). While feloniously no doubt would be sufficient to convey a specific intent requirement akin to the one spelled out in subsection (b), the word simply does not appear in subsection (a).
Contrary to the dissents suggestion, post, at 911, this reading is not a fanciful one. The absence of a specific intent requirement from subsection (a), for example, permits the statute to reach cases like Lewis , see supra, at 11, where an ex-convict robs a bank because he wants to be apprehended and returned to prison. (The Government represents that indictments on this same fact pattern (which invariably plead out and hence do not result in reported decisions) are brought as often as every year, Brief for United States 22, n. 13.) It can hardly be said, therefore, that it would have been absurd to delete feloniously in order to reach such defendants. And once we have made that determination, our inquiry into legislative motivation is at an end. Cf. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S., at 510511. 10
B
Turning to the second element in dispute, it will be recalled that, whereas subsection (b) requires that the defendant tak[e] and carr[y] away the property, subsection (a) requires only that the defendant tak[e] the property. Carter contends that the takes in subsection (a) is equivalent to takes and carries away in subsection (b). While Carter seems to acknowledge that the argument is at war with the text of the statute, he urges that text should not be dispositive here because nothing in the evolution of §2113(a) suggests that Congress sought to discard the asportation requirement from that subsection.
But, again, our inquiry focuses on an analysis of the textual product of Congress efforts, not on speculation as to the internal thought processes of its Members. Congress is certainly free to outlaw bank theft that does not involve asportation, and it hardly would have been absurd for Congress to do so, since the taking-without-asportation scenario is no imagined hypothetical. See, e.g., State v. Boyle, 970 S. W. 2d 835, 836, 838839 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (construing state statutory codification of common-law robbery to apply to defendant who, after taking money by threat of force, dropped the money on the spot). Indeed, a leading treatise applauds the deletion of the asportation requirement from the elements of robbery. See 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §8.11, p. 439. No doubt the common laws decision to require asportation also has its virtues. But Congress adopted a different view in §2113(a), and it is not for us to question that choice.
C
There remains the requirement in §2113(b)s first paragraph that the property taken have a value exceeding $1,000a requirement notably absent from §2113(a). Carter, shifting gears from his previous arguments, concedes the textual point but claims that the valuation requirement does not affect the Schmuck elements analysis because it is a sentencing factor , not an element. We disagree. The structure of subsection (b) strongly suggests that its two paragraphsthe first of which requires that the property taken have value exceeding $1,000, the second of which refers to property of value not exceeding $1,000describe distinct offenses. Each begins with the word [w]hoever, proceeds to describe identically (apart from the differing valuation requirements) the elements of the offense, and concludes by stating the prescribed punishment. That these provisions stand on their own grammatical feet strongly suggests that Congress intended the valuation requirement to be an element of each paragraphs offense, rather than a sentencing factor of some base §2113(b) offense. Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 234 (1999) . Even aside from the statutes structure, the steeply higher penaltiesan enhancement from a 1-year to a 10-year maximum penalty on proof of valuation exceeding $1,000leads us to conclude that the valuation requirement is an element of the first paragraph of subsection (b). See Castillo v. United States, ante, at __ (slip op., at 7); Jones, 526 U. S. , at 233. Finally, the constitutional questions that would be raised by interpreting the valuation requirement to be a sentencing factor persuade us to adopt the view that the valuation requirement is an element. See id., at 239252.
The dissent agrees that the valuation requirement of subsection (b)s first paragraph is an element, but nonetheless would hold that subsection (b) is a lesser included offense of subsection (a). Post, at 1416. The dissent reasons that the value not exceeding $1,000 component of §2113(b)s second paragraph is not an element of the offense described in that paragraph. Hence, the matter of value does not prevent §2113(b)s second paragraph from being a lesser included offense of §2113(a). And if a defendant wishes to receive an instruction on the first paragraph of §2113(b)which entails more severe penalties than the second paragraph, but is a more realistic option from the jurys standpoint in a case such as this one where the value of the property clearly exceeds $1,000the dissent sees no reason to bar him from making that election, even though the value exceeding $1,000 element of §2113(b)s first paragraph is clearly absent from §2113(a).
This novel maneuver creates a problem, however. Since subsection (a) contains no valuation requirement, a defendant indicted for violating that subsection who requests an instruction under subsection (b)s first paragraph would effectively waive … his [ Fifth Amendment] right to notice by indictment of the value exceeding $1,000 element. Post, at 16. But this same course would not be available to the prosecutor who seeks the insurance policy of a lesser included offense instruction under that same paragraph after determining that his case may have fallen short of proving the elements of subsection (a). For, whatever authority defense counsel may possess to waive a defendants constitutional rights, see generally New York v. Hill, 528 U. S. ___ (2000), a prosecutor has no such power. Thus, the prosecutor would be disabled from obtaining a lesser included offense instruction under Rule 31(c), a result plainly contrary to Schmuck , in which we explicitly rejected an interpretive approach to the Rule that would have permitted the defendant, by in effect waiving his right to notice, … [to] obtain a lesser [included] offense instruction in circumstances where the constitutional restraint of notice to the defendant would prevent the prosecutor from seeking an identical instruction, 489 U. S., at 718.
* * *
We hold that §2113(b) is not a lesser included offense of §2113(a), and therefore that petitioner is not entitled to a jury instruction on §2113(b). The judgment of the Third Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
1 We granted certiorari in Mosley to address the issue that we resolve today, Mosley v. United States, 523 U. S. 1019 (1997) , but dismissed the petition in that case upon the death of the petitioner, 525 U. S. 120 (1998) (per curiam).
2 By lesser offense, Schmuck meant lesser in terms of magnitude of punishment. When the elements of such a lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense, the lesser offense attains the status of a lesser included offense.
3 A defendant must also satisfy the independent prerequisite … that the evidence at trial … be such that a jury could rationally find the defendant guilty of the lesser offense, yet acquit him of the greater. Schmuck, 489 U. S., at 716, n. 8 (citing Keeble v. United States, 412 U. S. 205, 208 (1973) ). In light of our holding that petitioner fails to satisfy the elements test, we need not address the latter requirement in this case.
4 The dissent claims that our decision in United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482 (1997) , is not in point because we went on in Wells to discuss the evolution of the statute (specifically, a recodification of numerous sections), which revealed Congress apparent care in retaining a materiality requirement in certain sections while omitting it in others, such as the one before us in Wells. According to the dissent, a similar statutory evolution is not present here. See post, at 13. But, even assuming the dissent is correct in this latter regard, the holding in Wells simply cannot be deemed to rest on our discussion of the statutes evolution. Rather, we characterized that discussion as supporting a result we had already reached on textual grounds. See 519 U. S., at 492 (Statutory history confirms the natural reading).
5 Congress could have simply punished robbery or larceny as some States have done (and as Congress itself has done elsewhere, see, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §§2112), thereby leaving the definition of these terms to the common law, but Congress instead followed the more prevalent legislative practice of spelling out elements of these crimes. See 2 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §8.11, p. 438, n. 6 (1986).
6 This interpretive principle exists quite apart from the canon on imputing common-law meaning. See, e.g., X-Citement Video, 513 U. S., at 70 (applying presumption in favor of scienter to statute proscribing the shipping or receiving of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, without first inquiring as to the existence of a common-law antecedent to this offense); Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994) (similar).
7 The dissent claims that the Lewis Court determined that the jury could have found specific intent to steal on the facts presented, and thus disputes our characterization of the case as illustrating a situation where a defendant acts only with general intent. Post, at 10 (citing Lewis, 628 F. 2d, at 1279). The dissent fails to acknowledge, however, that the Lewis court made this determination only because some evidence suggested that, if the defendant had not been arrested, he would have kept the stolen money. Ibid. The Lewis court, implicitly acknowledging the possibility that some defendant (if not Lewis) might unconditionally intend to turn himself in after completing a bank theft, proceeded to hold, in the alternative, that §2113(a) covers a defendant who acts only with general intent. See ibid.
8 Numerous Courts of Appeals agree. While holding that §2113(a)s version of bank robbery is not a specific intent crime, these courts have construed the statute to contain a general intent requirement. See United States v. Gonyea, 140 F. 3d 649, 653654, and n. 10 (CA6 1998) (collecting cases).
9 Relatedly, Carter argues that, even if a sensible Congress might have deleted feloniously, the 1948 Congress did not adequately explain an intention to do so in the legislative history to the 1948 Act. He points to the House Report, which states that Congress intended only to make changes in phraseology. H. R. Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A135 (1947). Carter further suggests that the phraseology concern with feloniously was that Congress in the 1948 codification generally desired to delete references to felonies and misdemeanors in view of the statutory definition of those terms in the former 18 U. S. C. §1. Carter fails, however, to acknowledge that the House Report does not give that reason for the deletion of feloniously from §2113, even though it explicitly does so in connection with the simultaneous elimination of similar language from other sections. See, e.g., H. R. Rep. No. 304, supra, at A67 (References to offenses as felonies or misdemeanors were omitted in view of definitive section 1 of this title) (explaining revisions to 18 U. S. C. §751). As is often the case, the legislative history, even if it is relevant, supports conflicting inferences and provides scant illumination.
10 Carter claims further support in Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322 (1957) , for his view that §2113(a) implicitly requires a specific intent to steal. But Prince did not discuss the elements of that subsection, let alone compare them to the elements of subsection (b).


Anyone who says that money cannot buy happiness has clearly never spent their money on pizza.
No additional charge
$0.25 each for small and medium pizzas, $0.50 each for large and extra-large
$0.50 each for small and medium pizzas, $1.00 each for large and extra-large
Size:
Toppings:
Price: $


The IOS team was in essencial in helping with the production of the IOS App of Home Chore Tracker They build the UI for the app and made sure all of the models were written. Thanks to them, the app was not only looking good but was functional as well! They worked with the Backend Developer Joshua Shockley to have all of the servers connected and ready for use.
The Web UI developers made a Landing\Marketing page and the About page. They put together the color palette, with help from Ciara IOS Teamn the app side, as the theme of these pages and using HTML and LESS they designed the layouts of the pages.
Used React to connect the front end to the app backend. Set up Login/Signup Pages built and ready to handle the token being sent between backend end-points and front end. Made use of front end styling platforms such as Material UI, Reactstrap, and the like to maintain a consistent style across web and app.
Responsible for install and function of Node/Express and all required packages for things like CORS, Body-Parser, JWT installed, and User Login/Signup endpoints built out including the User Models Use JWT/Sessions strategies learned in Authentication React app and Backend App talking to one another. Focused on CORS issues, Data Migrations, and Seeds set up for mock data tests.
Project Lead for the Home Chore Tracker. Set daily goals for the each team to ensure that the project was done on time and fully functional.


{% extends 'base.html' %} {% block body %}
People have courage to change the system, We have courage to bring revolution make the world better, easy and healthy


All output is sent to the console. In Firefox, use firebug for this, in Safari/Chrome you can use the developer tools.


You can launch the Blockaudit DAPP as a quest by clicking here.
You can also contribute to source code by clicking here.


Home
Trees
Indices
Help
ivy-python: a python library for the Ivy software bus
[
hide private
]
[
frames
] |
no frames
]
Identifier Index
[
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J K L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X Y Z
_
]
A
ADD_REGEXP
(in
ivy.ivy
)
agent_id
(in
IvyClient
)
ARG_END
(in
ivy.ivy
)
add_regexp()
(in
IvyClient
)
agent_name
(in
IvyClient
)
ARG_START
(in
ivy.ivy
)
B
bind_direct_msg()
(in
IvyServer
)
bind_regexp_change()
(in
IvyServer
)
bind_msg()
(in
IvyServer
)
BYE
(in
ivy.ivy
)
D
decode_ivybus()
(in
ivy.ivy
)
DEFAULT_TTL
(in
ivy.ivy
)
DIRECT_MSG
(in
ivy.ivy
)
decode_msg()
(in
ivy.ivy
)
DEL_REGEXP
(in
ivy.ivy
)
DEFAULT_IVYBUS
(in
ivy.ivy
)
DIE
(in
ivy.ivy
)
E
encode_message()
(in
ivy.ivy
)
end_init()
(in
IvyClient
)
ERROR
(in
ivy.ivy
)
END_INIT
(in
ivy.ivy
)
END_REGEXP
(in
ivy.ivy
)
G
get_client_with_name()
(in
IvyServer
)
get_regexps()
(in
IvyClient
)
get_clients()
(in
IvyServer
)
get_subscriptions()
(in
IvyServer
)
H
handle()
(in
IvyHandler
)
handle_direct_msg()
(in
IvyServer
)
handle_new_client()
(in
IvyServer
)
handle_die_message()
(in
IvyServer
)
handle_msg()
(in
IvyServer
)
handle_regexp_change()
(in
IvyServer
)
I
INITIALIZATION_IN_PROGRESS
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyGetApplication()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvySendDieMsg()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
INITIALIZED
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyGetApplicationHost()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvySendDirectMsg()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
is_multicast()
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyGetApplicationList()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvySendError()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
ivy
IvyGetApplicationMessages()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvySendMsg()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
ivy
(in
ivy
)
IvyGetApplicationName()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyServer
(in
ivy.ivy
)
ivy_logformatter
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyHandler
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyStart()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
ivy_loghdlr
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyIllegalStateError
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyStop()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IVY_SHOULD_NOT_DIE
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyInit()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyTimer
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyApplicationConnected
(in
ivy.ivy
)
ivylogger
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyTimerModify()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyApplicationDisconnected
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyMainLoop()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyTimerRemove()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyBindDirectMsg()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyMalformedMessage
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyTimerRepeatAfter()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyBindMsg()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyProtocolError
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyUnBindMsg()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyBindRegexpChange()
(in
ivy.std_api
)
IvyRegexpAdded
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyClient
(in
ivy.ivy
)
IvyRegexpRemoved
(in
ivy.ivy
)
M
MSG
(in
ivy.ivy
)
N
NOT_INITIALIZED
(in
ivy.ivy
)
P
port
(in
IvyClient
)
process_ivymessage()
(in
IvyHandler
)
PROTOCOL_VERSION
(in
ivy.ivy
)
R
remove_client()
(in
IvyServer
)
remove_subscription()
(in
IvyClient
)
remove_regexp()
(in
IvyClient
)
run()
(in
IvyTimer
)
S
send_die_message()
(in
IvyClient
)
send_new_subscription()
(in
IvyClient
)
start_init()
(in
IvyClient
)
send_direct_message()
(in
IvyClient
)
send_ready_message()
(in
IvyServer
)
START_REGEXP
(in
ivy.ivy
)
send_direct_message()
(in
IvyServer
)
serve_forever()
(in
IvyServer
)
std_api
(in
ivy
)
send_error()
(in
IvyClient
)
socket
(in
IvyClient
)
stop()
(in
IvyServer
)
send_msg()
(in
IvyClient
)
start()
(in
IvyServer
)
send_msg()
(in
IvyServer
)
START_INIT
(in
ivy.ivy
)
T
trace()
(in
ivy.ivy
)
U
UDP_init_and_listen()
(in
ivy.ivy
)
unbind_msg()
(in
IvyServer
)
V
void_function()
(in
ivy.ivy
)
W
wave_bye()
(in
IvyClient
)
_
__eq__()
(in
IvyClient
)
__repr__()
(in
IvyClient
)
_IvyServer
(in
ivy.std_api
)
__hash__()
(in
IvyClient
)
__str__()
(in
IvyClient
)
_remove_subscription()
(in
IvyServer
)
__init__()
(in
IvyClient
)
_add_subscription()
(in
IvyServer
)
_send()
(in
IvyClient
)
__init__()
(in
IvyServer
)
_get_client()
(in
IvyServer
)
_timers
(in
ivy.std_api
)
__init__()
(in
IvyTimer
)
_get_fct_for_subscription()
(in
IvyServer
)
Home
Trees
Indices
Help
ivy-python: a python library for the Ivy software bus
Generated by Epydoc 3.0.1 on Tue Jun 10 18:21:20 2008
http://epydoc.sourceforge.net


A crappy clicker/incremental game for the PaymoneyWubby community.
Subscribe to PaymoneyWubby
Join the Discord server


Chapter 3 of 'Search Inside Yourself' - What did you learn from your 'mindfulness conversation'? How did the other person find it?
I have actually done this in the past when I was travelling in India, but it was good to do it again. It is obviously disconcerting initially - being (verbally at least) in a one way conversation - but it is actually very good listening practice. Both my partner and I enjoyed it, and we plan to do it again. You really do take in everything that the other person is saying when you are consciously listening, and not thinking about interjecting.
Which of the three suggested techniques will you use to sustain your practice?
I'm a big believer in the importance of breath. Taking one in the morning, to reassert that you are indeed alive and present, is a very good habit to get into. Ideally I would like to check in with this technique throughout the day - just stopping and focussing on breath - especially when a situation arises that is problematic. Creating a proper habit of checking in on my breathing is something that I want to persist with. Building this habit will lead to better results, and a calmer state of mind!


Irix Pro brings precise control over every pixel with over 50 Global and Localised Adjustments. Or enjoy the Autopilot, with Irix's 32 delicately crafted Quicksets to give your workflow a quick-start or headstart for a quicker-finish. If that wasn't good enough, edit every element of the individual Quickset adjustment to enjoy that originality.
Global Adjustments
Irix Pro at your command..! Reach every pixel in the image with tremendous Global adjustments or Qicksets, and enjoy live preview of your work in the histogram, tone-curves, the filmstrip.
Localize your Edits.
Fine-tune to please the artist in you, use Irix's Radial and Gradient tools to hit the bullseye!
Radial Tool
Irix Pro ships with Radial filter for applying localized edits to specific locations of your image.
Gradient Tools
Irix Pro ships with Gradient Filter for applying global adjustments like gradients to your images.
Speed is of the essence
Performance by Design.
Irix Pro processes the edits in real time. Thanks to incredible power of the Pixtream Graphics Engine, Irix Pro is as quick as your shadow. Irix Pro is designed to keep you creating at the pace you want.
Pixell Graphics Engine
The Pixell engine takes full advantage of Apple's Metal architecture and is designed to get the best performance out of your Mac.
Uncapped Performance
Irix Pro edits images at uncapped framerate. So whether you are using a 60Hz or a 240Hz monitor, Irix Pro has the muscles to keep up with your pace.
Your work brought to life
Images that express you.
Edit images naturally. Experience your workflow from start to finish with Infinite History support. And your heart sank... we've got you covered, all edits are non destructive and fully recoverable.
Maximise your creative potential
Editing Superpowers.
Irix Pro gives you unique superpowers with industry leading features such as 16-bit and 32-bit images, individual RGB channel editing, multiple color modes, developed to get the most out of your machine and especially, your workflow.
32-bit editing
The Pixell graphics engine uses both CPU and GPU to give you the most amount of power out of your machine.
Color Models
Irix Pro Photo Editor automatically detects the color space of your image and chooses from RGB, RGB Hex, LAB, CMYK and Grayscale color models.
RAW potential
Non-destructive RAW Processing.
Irix Pro Photo Editor uses a proprietary technique to preserve every edit you make. Even for RAW images. So you can travel back in time to if you have a change of mind, any time.
Exclusivity unleashed
Made for Mac.
Irix Pro Photo Editor is designed from the ground-up, exclusively for MacOS. Irix Pro can use all native features of the operating system such as external GPU, frameworks such as Metal and Accelerate, DCI-P3 gamut support and so much more.


We're sorry but vue-oj doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.


Examples: "smile", "whale", "santa", "panda_face", "dog", "truck" ...
For a complete list, please check Emoji Cheat Sheet.
Examples: "cloud", "flag", "car", "truck", "heart", "dollar" ...
For a complete list, please check Font Awesome Icons.
Examples: "beer", "key", "locked", "location", "plane", "ios-eye" ...
For a complete list, please check Ionicons Website.
Show toolbar:
Editor : Preview
Editor theme:
Editor font size:
Key binding:
Gantt diagram axis format:
Time formatting reference
Custom CSS files:
(You need to restart the editor to apply the CSS files)
Markdown Plus themes
Custom JS files:
(You need to restart the editor to apply the JS files)
Markdown Plus plugins
Markdown editor with extra features.
Copyright © 2016 Tylingsoft.
Home page: http://tylingsoft.com/markdown-plus/.


Facebook.
Full-stack UX Design
for FBIDE team
- UX Design
- Product Strategy
- UI Development
Contracted as a UI Specialist to research the current FBIDE product and identify pain points and areas to enhance the UI to enhance the overall user experience by QAing the current incarnation of the product, increase discoverability of features as they became available, and creating visual design assets to create a look and feel synonomous with the fidelity that a Facebook product deserves, syntax and UI themes, and finally implementation.
The problem you are trying to solve — What can’t they do now or can’t do well that your design is meant to address?
FBIDE was popular in Facebook Engineering Bootcamp the twelve week springboard to joining an Engineering at the Facebook and where development skills were honed for the rigors of producing products that were touching in some respects over a billion users and counting.
After bootcamp many people left the product. Why? This is what I set out to learn about and produce measurable results as we produced solutions based on evidence-based research: "the use of prior research in a systematic and transparent way to inform a new study so that it is answering questions that matter in a valid, efficient and accessible manner".
To begin we ensured that we have places to document internally and correspond with our users. This came in the internal FB WIKI and through Secret Groups targeting our users.
Users — [Facebook Engineers and Data Scientists. Eventually the public, open-source community, web developers, designers, data scientists, kids learning to code.]
After setting up our sandbox for correspondance and documentation I tasked myself to reach out to the users and created personas identifying people by name, job title, team, responsibilities, etc. All of my initial users were Facebook engineers and data scientists. As this project grew in scope to the point of open sourcing we looked at potential users from designers who used code to young students and hoobyists.
To identify the users to query I used SCUBA to deep dive into Facebook data to determine who were the most active users and then ran queries over the last twelve months to determine who had been an active user that was no longer using FBIDE to determine where we were failing and how we could win them back.
From there I set up web chats with users from various engineering teams and data scientists with varying usage over the last year some were power users and some left it for dead when they left boot camp. I organized a Facebook group and began correspondances.
To announce my presence and what we were doing I created flyers and placed them in common areas and even in the bathrooms with the urinals. I was the Bathroom DJ and I played the music to lessen the burder of the bodily noises that were expressed -- but that's another story.
I began to hang out with the engineers and was using a myriad of IDEs that they enjoyed using began learning to write tests and understand the why behind how engineers are working. It was not only insightful, it was enlightening. I developed a deep appreciation and respect, a camaraderie so-to-speak with engineers across the globe. I was even shouted out on Facebook Video by engineers who were in some respects idols and rocks star developer advocates within the company. People were really excited about what we were working on, Engineers like Kent Beck who people studied about in CompSci classes was on staff and praised my advances by name in one such video. It was humbling as more and more Facebook employees began to know David Puerto as friend of the developers and their advocated their best interests from the Design Lens.
Some of the unexpected findings were that there were a lot of features already in development that were buried or just had not been released during the beta releases of the IDE that were demoed in early bootcamps where they tried to get some more developer interest and participation to create the best cloud-based IDE in the wild.
Bringing the users back was as simple as showing them what was possible and turning them onto the sleek new interface that allowed for their workflow to remain consistent and not impeeded by a UI. Many developers are straight up typing magic. They know it as well as anyone knows any language. It is amazing to watch them work.
I noticed a lot of time was
spent
jumping back and forth between
terminal tabs, build systems,
IDEs,
terminals Gitub, Phabricator,
all sorts of ticketing and
management
systems and of course Facebook
because who needs Slack when you
have
Facebook Gold? These
observations culiminated in
feature requests that we spec'd
as a team in charge of our own
destiny and be began to assemble
the ground work that was led by
Design that influenced the
engineering tools. I had some
Product Designers joshing that
I was designing the DevTool but
they were seeing the results and
witnessing the coolness coming
out of our team as well as the
response from the developers
internally and on the team that
we were moving by leaps and
bounds in the right direction. I
even had the company rocking the
cool t-shirt. We were buzzing
from Seattle to Tel Aviv and not
just off the secret in the
globe.
I decided to build in-line commenting into the Diff View where engineers view differences between code to see what changed between one commit and another. Super powerful feature as is... but now we decided to pivot, because, what if you were slacking off in Facebook and you committed some code that botched the MobilePerformance in the labratory and 16 of the 300 devices that your code was running on slowed performance? What if we could automate the review process and your manager or whoever the code reviewer was received a Facebook Alert that someone's code blew up something somewhere? What if they recevied that alert in their own Facebook, could click that alert, jump into the code right in facebook, see the DiffView, compare the code in question identify an area for refactor, and then could inline comment in Facebook fashion to: "Slow down and fix your shit!" Then the developer who needed to redo their work would receive an update on their end, could jump back into their code, fix it and commit it and push it for a pull request all in the same work flow in the same window? After we implemented this and began to measure how long it took on average for people to complete these tasks we were able to show how this process improvement alone was saving on average 6 hours of developer time each week. Times thousands of developers. Times the amount of money each one is being paid per hour. You do the math. It's in the millions that feature was saving alone.
Another problem our cloud-based zero-install IDE sought to solve was remotely debugging other people's sandboxes. This was accomplished and implemented and still is one of the best features for this product... RIP.
We were developing themes and we had a listener to inform us of what people were using for their preferred themes and were able to narrow it down to four themes. Then I created our own Light and Dark theme to really enhance our UI because, well, that's a place I enjoy geeking out on. I'm a visual Designer too.
This was an incredibly fun project to begin as FBIDE has ~1000 active users who are internally using the cloud-based IDE to develop and debug code on the HHVM in Hack and best of all languages are supported. FBIDE is demoed to boot campers and interns alike. I found that many people when I started the project had tried it out and switched back to their preferred methods of programming. Upon inquiry I learned that many VIM and eMacs users were going to be hard to convert... unless of course we have VIM and VIM-style key mapping!! So we entered that as a task and delivered! Observing the entire Facebook developer life cycle I was able to extract the basis from which move developers begin and enter and continue and finish programs and their overall workflow including expected feedback loops. Having an active user base and users who were active in our internal Facebook group made for an amazing UX experience querying users and responding to comments. When I started to implement some of the changes literally hundreds of posts were made with such excitement for the enhanced UI experience. I've never been on a project where the users were currently dogfooding the product and it definitely enhanced the outcome by ensuring that every step we made was in the right direction with our users Q&Aing the product for us so we could establish what was working and what was not.
The work from Lyric is now being ported over to another open-source IDE and being co-developed internally with another group called `Nuclide` that I am currently on contract with. We are contributing directly to the GitHub Atom core. Today the entire experience is serving as a living prototype that the users are still using while we put the polish on Nuclide being demoed at F8.
Update. After contributing to GitHub's Atom Core, GitHub's Atom won open-source product of the year. Nuclide is now retired, however, FBIDE was essentially rebirthed in a hackathon at Facebook called "Atom in Orbit." As much as I have kept my finger on the pulse of this product, I really wish that I loved all products that I have become a part of to the same level as this one. This is exactly what I want to work on. There's a GitHub Atom, a CodePen, REPL.io... There are options for cloud-based IDEs, but I think a company like Facebook is needed to bring it to the public. There is still so much we can do here.


 Creating your secure email account takes less than 2 minutes.
This is used to recover your account if you get locked out or forget your password.
Email invalid
Recovery email invalid


I have recently finished my Computer Science degree (expecting 1st/2:1) at the University of Chester, with a keen area of interest in mobile application development and programming. I am still relatively new to programming, I started it for the first time in University, but I see this as an opportunity as I am hungry to progress my knowledge and skills, and with the right guidance can become a talented developer. Mobile application development interests me as I like the idea of making a program that someone will use everyday on the device they use the most. Upon graduating I hope to start a graduate programming job and build my career in the industry.
I have always been into sports, I started playing football almost as soon as I could walk, so it's no surprise its my favourite sport, with my favourite team being Leeds United. I also enjoy other sports such as basketball and rugby, which I used to play in secondary school.
I started going to the gym when I was 16, for general health benefits. Since then I have developed a huge passion for strength training, and becoming as fit and healthy as possible. Going to the gym also keeps my mind healthy, it can be a good relief from other things in life.
Online gaming has been a hobby of mine for a long time.Currently my favourite game is Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. As well as playing games I also have a passion for watching Esports.
A relatively new, but rapidly growing interest in developing started when I began University and took on my first programming module. I still have a lot of learning ahead of me but I am eager to further my skills as a programmer. Since I started owning my own devices my interest in new technology blossomed and I became fascinated with owning and playing with new tech


Thank you for choosing to invest with VFD Bridge. We are pleased to have the opportunity to offer our services to you. Kindly provide ALL your details below (as applicable) to aid the processing of your placement.


There is no authentication requirement for this page, however the "TODOS" page should require auth.
This is content from home.html. It is being displayed within the default layout. The following message comes from home controller:
{{model.message}}