My friends and I were looking for something to do on a boring June night, so we decided to call up someone for shrooms. After about 20 mins of trying to contact him, we finally got through. We all decided to eat 2 grams each, there were 4 of us, including me. All of them have tripped before from shrooms. This was my second time, but the first time I only did 1 gram and felt a mild body high.
We get back to my friends house, let's call him S, and from there we eat the fungus. The taste was subtle, tasted nearly like regular mushrooms. We all washed it down with a glass of water and sat watching TV and my friend play video games on his computer.
20 - 30 minutes in, I noticed I felt a little strange, not quite normal. I knew the effects were kicking in. We decided to walk around, didnt know where, but we had to get out of the house and move around. You could say we were ansi, but didnt quite know what for. We ended up walking to a nearby school. We continued to walk over the field, it was just about black, but still a little bit of light. Looking down at the field, I noticed the crazy textures of the grass and sand. It felt like I was a giant overlooking a mini-eco system. My friend and I both took notice to this.
I felt calm and cool, and everything seemed to flow nicely. No real hallucinations yet, just the grass and sand looking a little off, but very cool. After about 10 minutes of walking, we arrived at a local gas station, we all got slurpees and went out around back of the building. I looked at the wall, and noticed the texture and pattern of the bricks. Everyone else thought it looked really cool too. Cars passing by looked trippy as well, the brake/head lights had an aura and looked starry.
We decided to walk back near my friends house again, but this took quite the while. We kept finding ourselves stopping and sitting at bus stops.  We eventually got back near the school again and walked over to the field where a bench was next to the baseball diamond. We sat down and started talking about things, random things, anything. I found myself laughing a lot. Shrooms definatley boost your mood. My hands started feeling almost numb-like, but not quite. I dropped my slurpee and I thought to myself 'fuck it, I dont even really need this to enjoy the trip.' So I just left it on the ground.
After about an hour and a half into the trip, we walked to another nearby sports field and sat down, pondering life and all its wonder. I felt my ego slowly slip away... I let it slip away, knowing that I would feel more at peace doing so. My hands became very very odd. One of my friends said 'look at your hands guys.' It's almost like having an alien tool attached to your arm, but the feeling was more funny than anything. I found myself looking at the wood panel in front of me on the next bench level. The wood grains started taking on shapes, 3 distinct ones turned into some type of cat, a tiger, a lion, and a jaguar. At this point I knew I was officialy seeing full fledged hallucinations. The fence in front of me was slowly melting downwards. My friend was wearing pijama pants that had a plaid like design on it, I started to trip out looking at the swirling shapes on his pants, so did everyone else.
After about 3 hours of talking and thinking that we kept seeing a cop car drive by on a street to our left, we decided to walk back to our friends house and see what was up there. Stepping on grass on the walk back felt odd. I could feel the grass under my feet, even tho I was wearing shoes. It was unique feeling. Almost near my friends house, my buddy decides to pull out his cell and call someone for no reason, he takes it out, and walks away trying to punch in the numbers.  We were all completley trippin' hard at this point. I remember thinking to myself 'this is the plateau' and right after that my friend says out loud 'this is definatley the plateau.' I stood there just staring at everything. Everything was flowing, fluid and in-sync. Cracks in the road were flowing, leaves were moving at the same time flowing with all the other bushes and trees.
After my friend finally came back, we went inside, and I decided that I should go home and try and sleep, because I had an interview the next day. The walk home was about 20 minutes away, and I was still trippin' hard. I felt at one with everything, very, very calm. And in wonder. I brushed my hand through a bush near my street and it felt wonderful. Like touching it for the first time. I saw my cat near the front door when I was approaching my house. All I can say is animals seem like they are doing the rightest thing possible. Hard to explain, but what they do just seems so right when I compared it to what humans do. Petting it felt great, so fluffy and soft. It felt very different then petting it not on shrooms.
I went inside, everything seemed new and shiny, very future like. I was very tempted to walk into the living room and tell my parents what I just took. I felt so at peace I didnt even care. I ended up deciding against it anyways. I played computer games for about 30 minutes and decided I was going in and out of focus, so I just decided to try and go to sleep instead. I layed there for a good 3 hours, then finally my mind slowly got back from warpspeed.
I woke up feeling refreshed with a new outlook on life. Im glad I took them and will probably take them again to see what else this magical drug can teach me.
Experience Reports are the writings and opinions of the individual authors who submit them.
Some of the activities described are dangerous and/or illegal and none are recommended by Erowid.


I am a UI developer. I started building websites in 2013 and from then I am keep on improving my skills. My main skills are Angular2+, TypeScript, JavaScript, HTML, CSS, Bootstrap
Created new Angular5 components, HTML, CSS and TypeScript. Customization of third party library. Worked in Agile Scrum Methodology.
Responsible for developing the UI pages using HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, AngularJS Bootstrap, JSON, jQuery, Ajax. Communicate with other members in the team to better understand the functional requirements and transfer them into technical requires. Used Ajax effectively to create pagination and with client side events like quick search. Written Ajax driven JSON consuming JavaScript functions to save User selections such as radio button, drop-down menu selections into a cookie
Used Ajax effectively to create pagination and with client side events like quick search. Written Ajax driven JSON consuming JavaScript functions to save User selections such as radio button, drop-down menu selections into a cookie
GPA: 3.8
Below are my own/group projects


Estimation, lag selection, diagnostic testing, forecasting, causality analysis, forecast error variance decomposition and impulse response functions of VAR models and estimation of SVAR and SVEC models.
| Version: | 1.5-3 |
| Depends: | R (≥ 2.0.0), MASS, strucchange, urca (≥ 1.1-6), lmtest (≥ 0.9-26), sandwich (≥ 2.2-4) |
| Published: | 2018-08-06 |
| Author: | Bernhard Pfaff [aut, cre], Matthieu Stigler [ctb] |
| Maintainer: | Bernhard Pfaff <bernhard at pfaffikus.de> |
| License: | GPL-2 | GPL-3 [expanded from: GPL (≥ 2)] |
| URL: | http://www.pfaffikus.de |
| NeedsCompilation: | no |
| Citation: | vars citation info |
| Materials: | ChangeLog |
| In views: | Econometrics, Finance, TimeSeries |
| CRAN checks: | vars results |
| Reference manual: | vars.pdf |
| Vignettes: |
VAR, SVAR and SVEC models |
| Package source: | vars_1.5-3.tar.gz |
| Windows binaries: | r-devel: vars_1.5-3.zip, r-release: vars_1.5-3.zip, r-oldrel: vars_1.5-3.zip |
| OS X binaries: | r-release: vars_1.5-3.tgz, r-oldrel: vars_1.5-3.tgz |
| Old sources: | vars archive |
| Reverse depends: | frequencyConnectedness, het.test, RMAWGEN, svars |
| Reverse imports: | autovarCore, nowcasting, tsDyn, TSPred, tvReg |
| Reverse suggests: | AER, fpp2, ftsa, ggfortify, portes, RTransferEntropy |
Please use the canonical form https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vars to link to this page.


We created an example CSV file for you with all the correct formatting. Download it, fill it out with your contacts' information, save it, and upload it.


My Name is Sanket
The Rock
VERSUS
Go Back
Invalid Page
Progress Incomplete
Please Restart the Game ...
Restart the game
Click here to restart


Nepali Named Entity Recognition (LSTM-based)
Examples
- म नेपाल मा बस्छु ।
I live in Nepal
- बाबु राम भट्टराई नेपाल का हुन् ।
Babu Ram Bhattarai is from Nepal
- पुष्प कमल दाहाल एमाओवादी का अद्यक्ष्य हुन्।
Pushpa Kamal Dahal is the president of CPN Maoist
{% for error in errors %}
{{ error }}
{% endfor %}
{% if results %}
Results
{% for (txt, res) in results %}
{{txt}} {{res}}
{% endfor %}
{% endif %}
Notes
- Only Nepali language is accepted as input
- Recognizes only three types of entities Person, Organization and Location
- PER = Person, ORG = Organization, LOC = Location
- B-Per = Beginning of Person, I-PER = Inside of Person


src.start_processor.
start_processor
the entry point to DSDPy
window –
threshold –
filedir – file directory to the input file


CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 368-371 of 1999 Appeal (civil) 372 of 1999 Appeal (civil) 373 of 1999 PETITIONER: A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD II Vs. RESPONDENT: PROF.M.V. NAYUDU (RETD.)AND ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/12/2000 BENCH: M.J.Rao, M.B.Shah JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J M. JAGANNADHA RAO J.
On an earlier occasion, in this very case, this Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board (I) Vs. Prof. M.V.
Nayudu ( 1999(2) SCC 718) ( dated 27.1.1999) referred to the 'precautionary principle' and the new rule of 'burden of proof' in the matter of environmental pollution. This Court in that judgment emphasised the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of pollution to environment. The said approach of this Court was based upon contemporary trend in the adjudication of environmental matters in various countries and was not intended to restrict the powers of this Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to safeguard environment from pollution. Our efforts to get at the best scientific evidence on the issues involved in the case, have yielded satisfactory results in the sense that we have today greater confidence about the correctness of our conclusions and further that this is a fit case for affirming the orders of the appellant ( Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board) not to grant 'consent' to the seventh respondent ( M/s. Surana Oils & Derivatives (India) Ltd.) under the statute for establishing its industry. We are now more sure that, on facts, this is a pre-eminently fit case which requires grant of an injunction to prevent irreversible pollution to the drinking water reservoirs of Osman Sagar and Himayaat Sagar catering to the needs of over 50 lakhs people, in Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
Drinking water is of primary importance in any country. In fact, India is a party to the Resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference in 1977 as under:
"All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs."
Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens.
Adverting to the above right declared in the aforesaid Resolution, in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India ( 2000(7) Scale 34 ( at p.124), Kirpal J observed:
"Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India....." There is therefore need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them. Competing human rights to healthy environment and sustainable development:
There is building up, in various countries, a concept that right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to 'life'.
Our Supreme Court was one of the first Courts to develop the concept of right to 'healthy environment' as part of the right to "life" under Article 21 of our Constitution. [ See Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India ( 1984(3) SCC 161)]. This principle has now been adopted in various countries today. In today's emerging jurisprudence, environmental rights which encompass a group of collective rights are described as "third generation" rights. The "first generation" rights are generally political rights such as those found in the International Convention on Civil & Political Rights while "second generation" rights are social and economic rights as found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. "Right to Healthy Environment". (See Vol.25) 2000 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law by John Lee P.283, at pp.293-294 fn.29) The right to sustainable development has been declared by the UN General Assembly to be an inalienable human right ( Declaration on the Right to Development )(1986). The 1992 Rio Conference declared that Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. Human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. (Principle
1).
In order to achieve "sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of development process and cannot be considered in isolation of it". The 1997 Earth Summit meeting of 100 nations in New York reflected the above principles. The European Court of Justice, emphasised in Portugal Vs. E.C. Council, the need to promote sustainable development while taking into account the environment. (3 C.M.L.R.331)(1997) (ibid Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, p. 283) In Lopez Ostra Vs. Spain ( 303-C, Eur.Ct.H.R.(Ser.A) 1994), the European Court at Strasbourg has held that the result of environmental degradation might affect an individual's well being so as to deprive him of enjoyment of private and family life. Under Article 8 of the European Convention, everyone is guaranteed the right to respect for his private and family life. ( See also, Powell & Rayner Vs.
U.K. ( 172 Eur. Ct H.R.(Ser.A, p.5)(1990). The Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights has found a similar linkage (Yanomani Indians Vs. Brazil) ( Inter- Amer.C.H.R. 7615 OEA/Ser.L.V/II/66 Doc.10 rev. 1 (1985). The Commission found that Brazil had violated the Yanomani Indians' right to life by not taking measures to prevent the environmental damage. The Philippine Supreme Court dealt with the action against Government not to continue licensing agreements permitting deforestation so that the right to a 'balanced and healthful ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature' is not affected. ( Minors Opasa Vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( 33, I.L.M. 173)(1994). The judgment was based on 'intergenerational responsibility'. In Fundepublico Vs. Mayor of Bugalagrande & Ors. , the Constitutional Court of Columbia ( 17.6.1992) held in favour of the right to healthy environment as a fundamental human right and treated the right as part of customary international law. The Court permitted popular action mechanism. The Supreme Court of South Africa, in a recent case in Wildlife Society of Southern Africa & Ors. Vs. Minister of Environmental affairs and Tourism of the Republic of South Africa and Ors. ( Dt.27.6.1996)( 1996(9) BCLR 1221 (Tk); 1996 SACLR LEXIS
30) dealt with the right to healthy environment. About 60 nations since 1990 have recognised in their constitutions a right to a healthy environment as a corollary duty to defend the environment. ( Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, ibid PP.318-319). Thus, the concept of a healthy environment as a part of the fundamental right to life, developed by our Supreme Court, is finding acceptance in various countries side by side with the right to development. Events after 27.1.99 judgment: We shall now refer to the events subsequent to our order dated 27.1.99. They are as follows: The question is whether in the event of the seventh respondent being permitted to establish its industry within 10 Kms. of the lakes - notwithstanding the Government's policy to the contrary and the refusal of the appellant Board to grant NOC - there is likelihood of serious pollution to the drinking water in these lakes. This Court in its judgment dated 27.1.99 referred the said question to the National Environmental Appellate Authority ( constituted under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997) for its opinion. The said authority visited the site of the industry at Peddashpur village near Hyderabad and submitted a detailed and exhaustive report to this Court, after receiving oral and documentary evidence. The Report went against the seventh respondent industry.
The industry filed objections to the said Report. When the matter was thereafter heard, the seventh respondent industry relied upon an order passed by the appellant-Board on 16.7.97, suggesting that if certain safeguards were provided by the industry to prevent pollution, NOC could be granted. The said order had to be passed at one stage by the Board because of the direction of the Government of Andhra Andhra contained in an order granting exemption from the 10 KM rule. Before this Court heard arguments on the merits on the question of validity of the exemption granted by the Government, this Court wanted to first ascertain - without prejudice to the contentions of the parties - whether the precautions which were suggested by the appellant Board on 16.7.97 pursuant to the directive of the State Government would be adequate and whether any further precautions were to be taken. The limited question relating to adequacy or otherwise of the "safeguards" as stated above was then referred to another expert body, namely, the University Department of Chemical Technology, ( Autonomous), Matunga, Bombay, headed by Prof. D.N. Bhowmick. It was stated in the said order of this Court that Prof. Bhowmick could take the assistance of the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad (hereinafter called the 'NGRI'). Thereafter, Dr. Bhowmick submitted his Report dated 16.8.2000 together with a report of June 2000 furnished by the NGRI, Hyderabad. In as much as the Reports - particularly, that of NGRI- had gone against the 7th respondent - industry, it again filed objections thereto.
We then finally heard learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri R.N. Trivedi for the appellant Board and of Sri P.S. Narasimha for the writ petitioner (respondent 1) who supported the appellant and Sri A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 7th respondent- industry. Thus, we have now the Report of the National Environmental Appellate Authority, the Report of Dr. Bhowmick, ( Bombay) and the Report of the National Geophysical Research Institute, (NGRI) Hyderabad. Basic facts leading to the grant of exemption: We may now refer to certain basic facts. The Ministry of Forests and Environment, Union of India issued a Notification dated 27.9.88 listing various industries as hazardous and included them in a 'Red' list. Item 37 of the said list of hazardous industries is the industry which produces 'Vegetable oils including solvent extracted oils'. The above notification was expressly stated to be issued by the Government of India in exercise of its powers vested under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act 1977 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, directing that whenever any industry sought consent from the Pollution Control Boards, the said Boards, "while processing the consent application, should decide, keeping in view the pollution - causing potential of the industry, as to which category the industry belongs." Consequent to the directive of the Union Government the State of Andhra Pradesh initially issued notification in GO 192 dated 31.3.94 (Municipal Administration). Therein, the State Government relied upon the interim report of an Expert Committee of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, called HMWSSB), and prohibited industries being located within 10 K.M. of the two reservoirs. In spite of the prohibition contained in GO 192 dated 31.3.94 prohibiting industries within 10 KM. of the reservoirs, the seventh respondent industry purchased land of 12 acres on 26.9.95 in Peddashpur village situated on the outskirts of Hyderabad, within 10 KM of the reservoirs. Initially, the industry applied for consent from the appellant Board in November 1995, through the Industries Department of the State Government. The State of Andhra Pradesh, by letter dated 28.11.95, wrote to the Government of India on 28.11.95, recommending grant of letter of intent in relaxation of 10 K.M. rule, subject to the industry obtaining NOC from the appellant Board. On 9.1.96, Government of India gave letter of intent but required the industry to obtain No Objection Certificate from the environmental authority of the State.
At that stage, the Government re-affirmed the 10 K.M. prohibition in GO 111 dated 8.3.96, after obtaining the second interim report of the HMWSSB. Consequent thereto, in the pre-scrutiny by the Single Window Clearance Committee Meeting of the Pollution Control Board held on 24.5.96, the application of the industry stood rejected because of the 10 K.M. prohibition.
Undeterred, the industry proceeded to obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat on 31.5.96 for establishing a 'factory'. Even though, on 31.5.96 the Commissioner of Industries, specifically informed the industry that it should better select an alternative site, instead of heeding to the said advice, the industry obtained permission of the District Collector on 7.9.96 for change of land use from agricultural to non-agricultural use. It then proceeded to execute various civil works in spite of the 10 k.m. prohibition rule.
Thereafter, the Industry proceeded further with construction of civil works and then applied to the appellant Board on 7.4.97 under Section 25 of the Water Act for permission to establish the factory. One of the bye-products mentioned in the said application was: "Glycerine, spent bleaching earth and carbon and spent nickel catalysts".
On 1.6.97, the appellant Board wrote to the Commissioner of Industries that the industry would be generating 'nickel' catalyst and other pollutants which could find their way to the lakes either directly or indirectly. Even the solid waste such as activated carbon bleaching earth and sodium sulphate might find entry during rainy season from the storage yard resulting in polluting to lakes. In spite of the said opinion of the appellant Board, the Commissioner of industries, in his letter dated 6.6.97 stated that there would be no liquid effluent or acidic fumes and that the limited aqueous effluent was totally bio-degradable and the solid wastes were disposable.
On 25.6.97, the appellant Board once again rejected the application of the industry inasmuch as the said industry was in the 'Red' list annexed to the Notification dated 1.2.89 of the Ministry of Forests & Environment, Government of India. Confronted with the above problems, the industry approached the State Government on 24.6.96 seeking exemption from the 10 k.m. rule contained in GO.111 dated 8.3.96 on the ground that it had invested huge amounts to establish the industry and that it had almost completed the civil works, and had purchased machinery and installed the same. The State Government, in spite of the prohibitory directions issued by it earlier, issued GO. 153 dated 3.7.97 granting exemption from GO 111 dated 8.3.96 on the ground that the Government of India had issued letter of intent on 9.1.96, that the Commissioner of Industries, in his letter dated 6.6.97 opined that there would be no liquid effluents and that the solid wastes would be disposable. Government then granted exemption stating as follows: "The Government had considered the matter in its entirety and feel that if proper control over treatment of aqueous and solid wastes is exercised, then there can be no objection to setting up of the industry under reference at the proposed site".
The Government then directed the Board to prescribe conditions for treatment/disposal of aqueous/solid waste.
Compelled by the above direction, the appellant Board passed an order on 16.7.97 requiring various precautions to be taken by the industry. (In fact, after 8.3.96, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued GO 181 dated 7.8.1997 modifying GO 153 dated 3.7.97 and clarifying that the exemption granted did not relate to para (1) of GO 111 but related only to para 3(f)), that para being the one which related to the 10 K.m. prohibition.
Meanwhile, the Society for Preservation of Environment and Quality Life ( SPEQL) filed W.P. 16969/97 for quashing the exemption order in GO 153 dated 3.7.97 and obtained stay on 25.7.97. The appellant-Board stuck to its decision to refuse NOC. On 30.7.97, it finally rejected the application for NOC relying upon GO 111 dated 8.3.96 and also upon the Government of India's notification dated 1.2.89 which showed this type of industry in its 'Red' list. The Board stated that it was not desirable to locate such an industry in the catchment area in view of GO. 111 dated 8.3.96. It also referred to the fact that earlier the Board had already rejected the NOC on 24.5.96 at the pre-scrutiny level. Aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 30.7.97 of the appellant Board, the seventh-respondent industry filed appeal under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974 before the appellate authority. For the first time, in the said appeal, it filed an affidavit of Prof. M. Santappa, ( a former Vice Chancellor) who was the then Scientific Officer of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The said opinion was in favour of the industry.
By order dated 5.1.98, the appellate authority (presided over by a retired Judge of the A.P. High Court) allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Board. It held that the categorisation into 'Red' as made by the Government of India on 1.2.89 was applicable only to the industries set up in the Doon valley. It relied on the affidavit of Prof.M.Shantappa to the affect that the industry had adopted the latest technology which was eco-friendly and that the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the industry was Dr.Siddhu, formerly Director General of CSIR, that the technology was obtained by the industry from the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad (IICT) which issued a certificate that the industry will not discharge any acidic effluents and solid wastes, and that they could be collected in M.S.Drums mechanically. The appellate authority referred to Dr. Santappa's report which stated that none of the bye products would fall on ground and that the conditions laid down by the Technical Committee of the appellant Board on 16.7.97 would be fulfilled. There would be no liquid effluents or acidic fumes as certified by IICT. The nearest spread would be 8.5 Kms.
There was no possibility of seepage into the reservoirs.
The appellate authority also held that principle of 'promissory estoppel' applied inasmuch as permission for change of land-use was given and permission to erect factory was also given. It was brought to the notice of the said appellate authority that under the Water Act, long before the State Government issued the prohibiting notification, there was an earlier categorisation dated 27.9.88 made by the Government of India showing 'Vanaspati Hydegenerated vegetable oils for industrial purposes' in the red category. Even so, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the 7th respondent filed under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974 and directed NOC to be issued by the appellant.
Writ petition 2215/98 was a PIL case filed for quashing the order dated 5.1.98 of the appellate authority. The said writ petition and the writ petition of SPEQL ( WP. 16969/97 already referred to) and the W.P. 11803/98 filed by the respondent-industry seeking mandamus against the appellant Board for grant of NOC, were all disposed of by the High Court on 1.5.98, upholding the orders of the appellate authority and directing grant of NOC by the appellant. The present appeals have arisen out of the said judgment. We first rendered the judgment dated 27.1.99 as stated earlier. We have already set out the subsequent facts relating to the reference made by this Court to the National Environmental Appellate Authority on the main point relating to pollution and also to its report dated 25.6.99. Further, we have said that this Court then made a further reference by order dated 5.5.2000 to the University-Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay and the latter submitted its Report dated 16.8.2000 together with Report of National Geophysical Researach Institute, Hyderabad of June, 2000.
The following points arise for consideration:- (1) Whether, in view of Sub-section 2(b), 3(2) and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the notification issued by the Central Government on 27.9.88 and the further notification issued by the State Government on 31.3.94 and 8.3.96 as delegate of the Central Government, totally prohibiting location of following industries in an 'area', it was permissible for the State Government to issue an exemption on 3.7.97 for an individual hazardous industry within the area, even if it be by way of asking the industry to provide safeguards?
(2) Whether, in view of Sub-sections 2(e), 2(k), 17, 18 and 19 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, if the State Government had issued notification totally prohibiting polluting industries in the area, and if the State Pollution Board had rejected the request for location of a polluting industry within the area, it was permissible for the Government to grant exemption for a single industry within the prohibited area?
(3) Whether in the light of the Reports of (a) the National Environment Appellate Authority, New Delhi,
(b) the University Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay and (c) the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, the 7th respondent industry could claim exemption from the 10 KM. prohibition and whether such an exemption could have been granted? (4) Whether in spite of the prohibition contained in Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution ) Act, 1974 that industries should not be established without consent of the appellant-Board, the seventh respondent could have proceeded with establishing the industry and could plead equities or rely on the principle of promissory estoppel? (5) On the question of establishment of 'Environmental Courts', to what extent, the States and Union Territories have taken steps to have environmental scientists/experts in the various environmental tribunal or appellate bodies, as directed in the earlier judgment?
(6) To what relief?
Points 1 and 2:
It is necessary first to refer to the following provision of the Environment (Protection)Act, 1986. Under Section 2(b), 'environmental pollution' means any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment. Section 2(e) defines 'hazardous substance' as any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or physio-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human being, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment. Section 3 refers to the extensive process of the Central Government to take measures to protect and improve environment. Sub-clause (2) permits measures to be taken ( see clause (v)) by imposing "restriction of areas in which industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards."
Section 5 deals with the power of the Central Government, to issue directions to any person, officer or any authority and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with such conditions. Explanation to Section 5 clarifies that the said power to issue directions includes the power to direct:
"(a) the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process; or
(b) stoppage or regulation of the supply of electricity or water or any other service."
The notification of the Central Government dated 27.9.1988 (Ministry of Forests and Environment) was issued expressly in exercise of powers of the Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It stated that industries were being classified in lists 'Red, Orange and Green' and that "when an industry seeks consent from the Pollution Control Board, as required by the above Acts, the Board which processing the consent application should decide, keeping in view the pollution causing potential of the industry, as to which category, the 'environmental safeguards' should be determined". This is a general notification. Item 37 in the red list refers to an industry producing 'vegetable oils including solvent extracted oil'. No doubt, the subsequent notification dated 1.2.1989 as pointed by the appellate authority under Section 28 related to red category industries for the Doon Valley and was issued under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 for the purpose of restricting industrial units in Doon Valley.
Even assuming that notification dated 1.2.99 did not apply to Andhra Pradesh, the notification dated 27.9.88 and the State Government's notification in GO 111 dated 8.3.96 are sufficient for the present purposes. As pointed out in para 2(c) of the Rejoinder affidavit of the appellant-Board, the power to issue directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and its Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 were amended in 1988 (S.O. 152-E) were delegated to the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1988 in S.O.
152-E. The said notification reads as follows: "S.O.No.152(E) dated 10.2.1988: In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 the Central Government hereby delegates the powers vested in it under Section 5 of the act to the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Tamil Nadu subject to the condition that the Central Government may revoke such delegation of powers in respect of all or any one or more of the State Government or may itself invoke the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, if in the opinion of the Central Government such a course of action is necessary in public interest."
The State of Andhra Pradesh could therefore issue orders in GO 111 dated 8.3.96 prohibiting the location of industries in specified areas.
In our view, GO 192 dated 31.3.1994 and GO 111 dated 8.3.1996 are therefore referable to the said delegated authority permitting the State Government to impose "total prohibition" of polluting industries to be located within 10 Kms. of the two reservoirs. The notification dated 31.3.1994 prohibited any polluting industries, Major Hotels, residential colonies or other establishments that generate pollution in the catchment areas of these two lakes within 10 Kms radius from the full tank level. The appellant Board and the MD of the Hyderabad Water Supply and Sewage Board, the HUDA and the Collector of three Districts, Mehboobnagar, Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad were directed to scrupulously protect the water in the two lakes from imminent danger of pollution. GO 111 dated 8.3.1996 (Municipal Administration and urban Development Department) issued in modification of GO 192 dated 31.3.1994 re-iterated the same prohibition as follows in clause 3(f). It stated:
"3(i): To prohibit polluting industries, major hotels, residential colonies or other establishments that generate pollution in the catchment of the lakes up to 10 Kms., from full tank level of the lakes as per list in Annexure I.
3(e): To prohibit pollution industries within 10 Kms., radius (in both on upstream and down stream side of the lakes to prevent acidification of lakes due to air pollution.
3(f): There shall be total prohibition of location of industries in the prohibited zone."
The above notification was issued after approval by the Chief Secretary or the Chief Minister. Item 38 thereof refers to Peddashpur Village, which is within 10 KM of these two reservoirs.
As stated earlier, on 3.7.1997, the State Government (Industries and Commerce) Department issued notification granting "exemption" from the 10 KM rule mentioned in GO 111 dated 8.3.96 later amended by GO 181 dated 7.8.1997 as exempting para 3(f) of GO 111 and directed A.P.Pollution Control Board: " to prescribe conditions for treatment/ disposal of aqueous/solid wastes."
The result of exemption from the purview of para 3(f) of GO.111 dated 8.3.96 was that the seventh respondent industry could be located within 10 KM of the lakes.
The question is whether this exemption can be valid ? Under Section 3(2)(v) above extracted, the Central Government or the State Government as its delegate, could issue directions as permitted by Section 5. Now Section 3(2)(v) permits restriction specifying "areas" in which industrial operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. The notification issued by the State Government in GO 111 dated 8.3.96 falls within the first part i.e. where industries shall not be carried out. This is a total prohibition within 10 KM of the two reservoirs. When such a prohibition was in force, the State Government could not obviously grant any exemption to a specified industry like the seventh respondent, located within the 'area'. Nor was it permissible for the State to direct the appellant-Board to prescribe conditions for grant of NOC.
Coming to the provisions of the Water Act, 1974, it is clear that in view of Sub-sections 2(e), 2(k) read with Sections 17 and 18 of the Water Act, the fundamental objective of the statute is to provide clean drinking water to the citizens. Having laid down the policy prohibiting location of any industries within 10 Kms under GO 111 dated 8.3.1996, the State could not have granted exemption to the 7th respondent industry, nor to any other industry, from any part of the main GO 111 dated 8.3.96. Section 19 permitted the State to restrict the application of the Water Act, 1974 to particular area, if need be, but it did not enable the State to grant exemption to a particular industry within the area prohibited for location of polluting industries. Exercise of such a power in favour of a particular industry must be treated as arbitrary and contrary to public interest and in violation of the right to clean water under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The above reasoning given by us does not mean that exemption can be given to all industries within a particular radius of the reservoirs unmindful of the possible danger of pollution to the lakes. In fact, exemption granted even to a single major hazardous industry may itself be sufficient to make the water in the reservoirs totally unsafe for drinking water purposes. Government could not pass such orders of exemption having dangerous potential, unmindful of the fate of lakhs of citizens of the twin cities to whom drinking water is supplied from these lakes. Such an order of exemption carelessly passed, ignoring the 'precautionary principle', could be catastrophic. Therefore, the GO 153 dated 3.7.97 granting exemption must be held to be without statutory backing and also wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 21. Points 1 and 2 are decided against the 7th respondent. Point 3:
In our earlier judgment in A.P. Pollution Control Board (I) Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu and Ors. ( 1999(2) SCC
718), this Court had occasion to refer to the basis of the precautionary principle and to explain the basis and content of the very principle. This Court also explained the new principle of burden of proof. Therefore, it was for the 7th respondent industry to establish that there would be no danger of pollution to the two reservoirs even if the industry was established within 10 Km radius of the said reservoirs.
In the present proceedings, the 7th respondent has failed to discharge the said onus. Before the State Government, the industry produced no expert opinion except to say that it had got the new technology from the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad ( IICT) and it relied on a statement of Dr. Siddhu, Chairman of the 7th respondent and formerly Director General of CSIR. The affidavit of Dr. Santappa was produced only before the appellate authority under Section 28 of the Water Act, 1974. But, in the light of the subsequent reports now obtained by this Court, the position is quite clear. We shall now refer in some detail to the three exhaustive reports furnished by the National Environmental Appellate Authority, New Delhi (NEAA), Dr. Bhowmick of Bombay and the NGRI.
(A) Report of National Environmental Appellate Authority, New Delhi (NEAA):
The said authority was presided over by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Sri Justice N. Venkatachala.
The NEAA framed two points (a) and (b):
(a) (i) Is the respondent-industry a hazardous industry or?
(ii) What is the pollution potentiality of the respondent industry, taking into account, the nature of the products, its effluents and its location?
(iii) Whether the operation of the industry is likely to affect the sensitive catchment area resulting in pollution of the Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar lakes supplying drinking water to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad?
On point (a)(i), it noticed that the industry is to use, among 12 major items, - 70 Kgs. of nickel based catalyst ( Pellets) per day and that the raw material is to be stored atleast for 30 days. It observed that according to Chapter 8.0 of NFPA, Hazard classification, the raw materials used by the industry are serious health hazards, highly inflammable and re-active at elevated temperatures and pressures. Four items, Nickel, Ammonia, Methanol and Hydrochloric Acid are used in the process. After referring to the various plants and processes, the NEAA referred to the provisions of the Factories Act ( as amended in 1987) and Section 2 (cb) defining 'hazardous processes and Schedule I thereof in which item 25 refers to 'extraction of oils and fats from vegetable and animal sources" as hazardous processes. It referred to Rule 2(h) of the 'Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989' issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It referred to the provisions in the Environment (Protection) Act, Section 2(e), 2(f) and 2(d). It agreed that merely because an industry is hazardous does not by itself debar it but then Section 8 of that act would come into play. It answered question (i) in the affirmative that the industry is hazardous. On point a(ii), it referred to the definition of 'pollution' in section 2(c) of the Water Act, section 2(f) which defines 'sewage effluent' and section 2(k) which defines 'trade effluent' and observed that the 'pollution potential' of the industry was to be assessed. After referring to the effluents - Commercial Castor oil, Bleaching earth, Activated carbon, Nickel catalyst, Hyflo supercel, Sulphuric Acid, Caustic Soda, Methanol, Calcium Oxide, Alum - in all 1463 MTs per month and noticed that the monthly requirement of 3 Hydrogen was 76 500 NM. As the industry is coal based, large quantity coal is required. It would produce huge quantities of BSS, HCO, HSA, Methyl, Fatty acids, Epoxidise, Glyceren etc. Hydroxy Stearic Acid, methyl Hydroxy Stearic Acid and methanol are serious health hazardous. Items in part II list of Schedule I to the 'Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989' are the raw materials and RW2 ( Dr. G.S. Siddhu) in his evidence agreed that these are hazardous ( toxic) chemicals. The solid effluents generated every day are (i) spent bleaching earth 1250 Kgs, (ii) spent bleaching carbon 250 kgs, (iii) spent nickel catalyst 45 kgs. and (iv) sodium sulphate 3820 Kgs. (12-HSA) and 170 kgs. ( from CME). Monthly turn out of effluents will be 400 MT. Every day 55 kgs. of nickel is consumed. Every day, 27,830 litres of water are to be used and normally the effluent will carry all these hazardous substances, including nickel. 'As it is said that the water used could be re-used for cultivation of lands in the premises of the industry, the toxic chemicals which get lodged in the surface layers of the soil will flow down in storm run offs or percolate into the ground water, to ultimately reach the water body of the two reservoirs. The NEAA further stated that Dr.Santappa in his evidence as RW-1 made admissions regarding gaseous effluents - - fly ash, SO CO Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulphur and suspended particulate matter. The solid and liquid effluents could reach the lakes through seepage. The factory cannot be located in the catchment area because run-offs due to rain will carry hazardous material along surface and through seepage. The NEAA adverted to the 'Drainage Basic Analysis' by the Central Ground Water Board, to the effect that the Basin "has moderate run-off and moderately high permeability of the terrain. As such the amount of infiltration is considerably high". The said Report shows that rainfall in 796 mm ( heaviest being 1326 mm) and there is every likelihood of the solids being "transported down along the gradient". The said Report of Central Ground Water Board, referred to "dolerite dykes" in the vicinity and the possibility of flow even more. Having regard to the location of the dyke and the speed and angle, the polluted water could reach Himayat Sagar which is hardly 2 m bgl. since the dam height is 1763.50 feet. Satellite maps of NSRA were also examined and relied for this purpose. Among the substances stored are nickel, sulphuric acid, HCA, which are well-known 'hazardous' substances.
The NEAA pointed out that the 'Engineering Package' provided by the IICT to the industry ( Ex.p.29) as found in the agreement with the IICT, "does not refer at all to the nature of pollutants to be generated in this industry or to the methods adopted to control them, as asserted by RW2". The NEAA pointed out that in fact clause 17(5) of Annexure IV to the agreement stated that 'the scope of supply (engineering package) does not include design of effluent treatment system'. On this ground the article in IICT Bulletin ( Ex.R 1) was rejected by the NEAA.
The NEAA also referred to the Report of the three man Technical Committee of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board consisting of Dr. J.M. Dave ( PW 3) and that "accidents and human failure are the most probable causes for spillage and it is unrealistic to give a 'zero spillage', and specially to their report on 'nickel' and held that the respondent industry has high pollution potentiality under issue a(ii). The NEAA, then took up issue (b) as to the likelihood of the industry affecting the sensitive catchment area. It referred to the Expert Committee Report of the HMWSSB and its recommendations which led to the issuance of the GO 192 dated 31.3.94 and GO 111 date d8/.3.96. The NEAA concluded that the "establishment of any chemical industry, carries with it, the imminent dangers of the chemicals or chemical effluents polluting the water of Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar.
Thus, the exhaustive Report of the NEAA has gone against the 7th respondent industry. (B)Report of Bombay University Department of Chemical Technology headed by Dr. Bhowmick:
The Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay University, in its Report dated 16.8.2000 have gone into the other aspects as to what should be the safeguards to be taken by the industry if the appellant-Board's letter dated 16.7.97 is to be applied. Dr. Bhowmick suggested that 'No nickel catalyst whether present in any solid waste or in any solution be allowed to spill on floor/ground. The process should not emit gaseous harmful vapours. Adequate and ready safety measures must be made available for accidental leakage/spillage situations. They then gave six suggestions - storage tanks to be surrounded by bunds; that it is not advisable to use hydrochloric acid but sulphuric acid may be used. Again, accidental leakage of ammonia will be catastrophic. Alternately, hydrogen gas may be brought in cylinders. He expressed doubts about plate and frame filter press or of leaf filters. Quantity of methanol stored should not exceed more than a week's requirement. The floor washing water should pass through oil traps and then properly treated in an effluent treatment plant. If salt and ionic impurities are not removed, it may produce ground water contamination. (C)Report of National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad Finally, the NGRI, Hyderabad has given a very detailed and exhaustive report about "IMPACT OF DYKE". They conducted (i) field investigations, (ii) Hydrogeological studies, (iii) Geophysical investigation, (iv) Electric Resistivity investigation
(v) Magnetic survey and (vi) Tracer studies. The Report is a voluminous one.
The final conclusion after an exhaustive analysis of various types of data "from results of multi- parameter investigations carried out in the area, is that hydraulic connectivity exists across the dolerite dyke located between Chouderguda and Sirsilmuktha facilitating the ground water movement.....In the post monsoon scenario, the groundwater tabel will go up and thereby may result in more groundwater flow across the dyke.
Our conclusion on the basis of these Reports: In the light of the above exhaustive scientific Reports of the National Environmental Appellate Authority, New Delhi the Department of Chemical Technology, Bombay University and the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad - it cannot be said that the two lakes will not be endangered. The package of the IICT - which did not deal with the elimination of effluent effects, the opinion of Dr. Santappa, the view of Director of Industries, and the view of the Government of Andhra Pradesh must be held to be base on insufficient data and not scientifically accurate.
It is no doubt stated by the 7th respondent that it is prepared to adopt the safety measures suggested by the appellant Board on 1.7.97 and also those suggested by Dr. Bhowmick, by trying to see that during storage of raw materials and after release of the hazardous liquids, they are put in containers and removed. In respect of these drinking water -reservoirs which cater to the needs of about 70 or 80 lakhs population, we cannot rely upon a bare assurance that care will be taken in the storage of serious hazardous materials. Nor can we rely on an assurance that these hazardous substances would be effectively removed without spillage. It is, in our view, not humanly possible for any department to keep track whether the pollutants are not spilled over. This is exactly where the 'precautionary principle' comes into play. The chance of an accident, within such close proximity of the reservoirs cannot be ruled out, as pointed out in the Reports. Thus, we are led to the inference that there is a very great risk that these highly hazardous material could seep into the earth and reach the tanks, after passing through the dolerite dykes, as pointed by the National Geophysical Research Institute. Our inference from facts and the reports is that of a reasonable person, as pointed out in the main judgment in A.P. Pollution Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu. On the basis of the scientific material now obtained by this Court from three highly reputed sources, this is certainly not a fit case for directing grant of NOC by the Pollution Control Board. It is not also possible to hold that the safeguards suggested by the appellant Board - pursuant to the direction of the Government dated 3.7.97, will be adequate, in the light of the Reports. We therefore hold that in the facts of this case, the Board could not be directed to suggest safeguards and there is every likelihood that safeguards could fail either due to accident, as stated in the report, or due to human error. We, therefore, hold on point 3 against the 7th respondent-industry. Point 4:
This point deals with the principle of promissory estoppel applied by the appellate authority, on the ground that once building permission and permission for change of land use were granted, the appellant Board could not refuse NOC. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri R.N. Trivedi referred to the amendment to Section 25(1) in this connection. Under Section 25 (1) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as it original stood, sub-section (1) thereof read as follows: "Section 25(1): Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or begin to make any new discharge of sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well".
By Central Act 53/1988, the sub-section was amended and reads as follows:
"Section 25(1): Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board - (a) establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land ( such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage) or (b) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage, or (c) bring to make any new discharge or sewage....."
After the amendment, the prohibition now extends even to 'establishment' of the industry of taking of steps for that process and therefore before consent of the Pollution Board is obtained, neither can the industry be established nor any steps can be taken to establish it.
The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri Trivedi is right in contending that the 7th respondent industry ought not to have taken steps to obtain approval of plans by the Gram Panchayat, nor for conversion of land use by the Collector, nor should it have proceeded with civil work in a installation of machinery. The action of the industry being contrary to the provisions of the Act, no equities can be claimed. The learned Appellate Authority erred in thinking that because of the approval of plan by the Panchayat, or conversion of land use by the Collector or grant of letter of intent by the Central Government, a case for applying principle of "promissory estoppel" applied to the facts of this case. There could be no estoppel against the statute. The industry could not therefore seek an NOC after violating the policy decision of the Government. Point 4 is decided against the 7th respondent accordingly.
Point 5:
In this Court's earlier judgment dated 27.1.99, this Court referred to the need for constituting environmental Courts, tribunals, or appellate bodies comprising of environmental scientists/experts as members. We had then referred to the need to constitute Environmental Courts as done in New South Wales in Australia. In this Court's earlier judgment, responses of various States and Universities were called for in this behalf. Some States & Union Territories have responded but several have not responded. We may in this connection refer to the recent report entitled 'Environmental Court Project' published on 18.2.2000 by a Research team at the Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, UK, headed by Prof. Malcoum Grant. (See Journal of Planning and Environment, May, 2000 p.453 titled 'The use for Environmental Courts'). The aim of the team was to explore the concept of an Environmental Court in the light of the experience in other jurisdictions and in Australia and New Zealand in particular. The concepts referred to in the Report are
(a) a specialist and exclusive jurisdiction;
(b) a power to determine merits appeals;
(c) vertical and horizontal integration, by this is meant a wide environmental jurisdiction which integrates both subject matter and different types of legal proceedings;
(d) hall marks of a Court or tribunal;
(e) dispute resolution powers, it is pointed out that this Court extend to disputes over the formu- lation of policy as well as more traditional adjudication;
(f) expertise, the members would be specialist in environmental matters;
(g) access, there would be broad rights of access to the Court;
(h) informality of procedures - such as the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures;
(i) costs - this is linked to the need for access and involves means of overcoming the problem of high costs crihibifing access; or
(j) capacity for innovation.
The Report puts forward a proposal for a two-tier Environmental Court. The Court would have jurisdiction and powers including judicial review and civil procedure powers while dealing with environmental matters. Inasmuch as most of the statutes dealing with Environment are by Parliament, we would think that the Law Commission could kindly consider the question of review of the environmental laws and the need for constitution of Environmental Courts with experts in environmental law, in addition to judicial members, in the light of experience in other countries. Point 5 is decided accordingly.
Point 6:
Learned counsel for the seventh respondent referred to the existence of several other industries within the 10 k.m. radius of the two reservoirs, which have been granted permission earlier. According to him, these industries are also polluting industries. In our view, the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 have enough provision applicable not only to new industries proposed to be established but also to existing industries. The State of Andhra Pradesh is therefore directed hereby to identify these industries located within 10 K.M. radius of these two lakes and to take action in consultation with the A.P.Pollution Control Board to prevent pollution to the drinking water in these two reservoirs. The State and the Board shall not permit any polluting industries within the 10 k.m radius. A report shall be submitted to this Court by the State of Andhra Pradesh in this behalf within four months from today, in regard to the pollution or pollution potential of industries, if any, existing within 10 K.M. of the lakes. After the Report is received, the matter may be listed. Point 6 is decided accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court and the order of the appellate authority under section 28 of the Water Act, 1974 are set aside and the order of the appellant Board refusing permission to the seventh respondent under section 25 of the Water Act is restored. Before parting with the case, we acknowledge the excellent Reports submitted to this Court by the three expert bodies on the basis of scientific/technological research of a very high order. The amount of hard work done by these three bodies is commendable. But for these expert reports it would have been very difficult for this Court to resolve the complicated scientific issues involved in this case, with confidence. It will be open to the three expert bodies (1) National Environmental Appellate Authority, New Delhi (2) The University Department of Chemical Technology (Autonomous), Matunga, Bombay headed by Dr. Bhowmick and (3) The National Geophysical Research Institute, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, to submit their list of expenses or fee, if any, to the State of Andhra Pradesh, through the appellant Board. If any claims for monies are made, the same shall be paid by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Appeals are allowed as stated above. No costs. List the matter after 4 months, after the Report of the State of Andhra Pradesh as directed above, is received.


Exodus 25:9
According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.


facebook
Email or Phone
Password
Log in
Forgot your Password?
Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.
Create an account
It's Free and always will be.


Waiting for players
{{card.toString()}}
??
Name
Cash
Chips
Bet
{{player.name}}
${{player.score}}
${{player.money}}
${{player.committedBet}}
Name
Split
Cards
Hand
Hand
{{player.name}}
${{player.money}} + ${{player.recentWinnings}}
{{player.hand.toString()}}
{{player.finalHand.toString()}}
{{player.finalHand.getHandTypeString()}}


@import net.atos.tenderingportal.domain.model.User @(user: User, baseUrl: String)
Dear @user.getFirstName
A request to reset the password has been made for this email. If this was you, please click the link below to reset your password
If you did not make such a request, please ignore this email. This link will invalidate after 2 hours.
This automatic notification was sent by the Atos Tendering Portal. Please do not reply to this e-mail.


Examples using javasript
Multiple functions on a single plot
A parametric equation $$x = \sin(2t)\\ y = \sin(3t)$$.
Some love
Examples using html tag
A cartesian equation with asymptote at \( x=\pi \): $$y=\frac{1}{x-\pi}$$ with \(x \in [-3, 6]\) and \(y \in [-15, 15] \)
A cartesian equation \(y=\arctan(x)\). The y axis is automatically scaled.
A parametric equation $$x = \sin(2t)\\ y = \sin(3t)$$ with \(t \in [0, 2 \pi] \)
A polar equation \(\sin(\theta/\pi)\) with \(\theta \in [0, 19] \)
A polar equation \(\sin(\theta)+\sin^3(\frac{5\theta}{2})\) with \(\theta \in [0, 4\pi] \)


Package com.google.cloud.speech.v1beta1 (2.0.0)
Classes
AsyncRecognizeMetadata
Describes the progress of a long-running AsyncRecognize
call. It is
included in the metadata
field of the Operation
returned by the
GetOperation
call of the google::longrunning::Operations
service.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeMetadata
AsyncRecognizeMetadata.Builder
Describes the progress of a long-running AsyncRecognize
call. It is
included in the metadata
field of the Operation
returned by the
GetOperation
call of the google::longrunning::Operations
service.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeMetadata
AsyncRecognizeRequest
The top-level message sent by the client for the AsyncRecognize
method.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeRequest
AsyncRecognizeRequest.Builder
The top-level message sent by the client for the AsyncRecognize
method.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeRequest
AsyncRecognizeResponse
The only message returned to the client by AsyncRecognize
. It contains the
result as zero or more sequential SpeechRecognitionResult
messages. It is
included in the result.response
field of the Operation
returned by the
GetOperation
call of the google::longrunning::Operations
service.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeResponse
AsyncRecognizeResponse.Builder
The only message returned to the client by AsyncRecognize
. It contains the
result as zero or more sequential SpeechRecognitionResult
messages. It is
included in the result.response
field of the Operation
returned by the
GetOperation
call of the google::longrunning::Operations
service.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.AsyncRecognizeResponse
RecognitionAudio
Contains audio data in the encoding specified in the RecognitionConfig
.
Either content
or uri
must be supplied. Supplying both or neither
returns google.rpc.Code.INVALID_ARGUMENT. See
audio limits.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.RecognitionAudio
RecognitionAudio.Builder
Contains audio data in the encoding specified in the RecognitionConfig
.
Either content
or uri
must be supplied. Supplying both or neither
returns google.rpc.Code.INVALID_ARGUMENT. See
audio limits.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.RecognitionAudio
RecognitionConfig
Provides information to the recognizer that specifies how to process the request.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.RecognitionConfig
RecognitionConfig.Builder
Provides information to the recognizer that specifies how to process the request.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.RecognitionConfig
SpeechContext
Provides "hints" to the speech recognizer to favor specific words and phrases in the results.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SpeechContext
SpeechContext.Builder
Provides "hints" to the speech recognizer to favor specific words and phrases in the results.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SpeechContext
SpeechGrpc
Service that implements Google Cloud Speech API.
SpeechGrpc.SpeechBlockingStub
Service that implements Google Cloud Speech API.
SpeechGrpc.SpeechFutureStub
Service that implements Google Cloud Speech API.
SpeechGrpc.SpeechImplBase
Service that implements Google Cloud Speech API.
SpeechGrpc.SpeechStub
Service that implements Google Cloud Speech API.
SpeechProto
SpeechRecognitionAlternative
Alternative hypotheses (a.k.a. n-best list).
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SpeechRecognitionAlternative
SpeechRecognitionAlternative.Builder
Alternative hypotheses (a.k.a. n-best list).
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SpeechRecognitionAlternative
SpeechRecognitionResult
A speech recognition result corresponding to a portion of the audio.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SpeechRecognitionResult
SpeechRecognitionResult.Builder
A speech recognition result corresponding to a portion of the audio.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SpeechRecognitionResult
StreamingRecognitionConfig
Provides information to the recognizer that specifies how to process the request.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognitionConfig
StreamingRecognitionConfig.Builder
Provides information to the recognizer that specifies how to process the request.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognitionConfig
StreamingRecognitionResult
A streaming speech recognition result corresponding to a portion of the audio that is currently being processed.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognitionResult
StreamingRecognitionResult.Builder
A streaming speech recognition result corresponding to a portion of the audio that is currently being processed.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognitionResult
StreamingRecognizeRequest
The top-level message sent by the client for the StreamingRecognize
method.
Multiple StreamingRecognizeRequest
messages are sent. The first message
must contain a streaming_config
message and must not contain audio
data.
All subsequent messages must contain audio
data and must not contain a
streaming_config
message.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognizeRequest
StreamingRecognizeRequest.Builder
The top-level message sent by the client for the StreamingRecognize
method.
Multiple StreamingRecognizeRequest
messages are sent. The first message
must contain a streaming_config
message and must not contain audio
data.
All subsequent messages must contain audio
data and must not contain a
streaming_config
message.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognizeRequest
StreamingRecognizeResponse
StreamingRecognizeResponse
is the only message returned to the client by
StreamingRecognize
. A series of one or more StreamingRecognizeResponse
messages are streamed back to the client.
Here's an example of a series of ten StreamingRecognizeResponse
s that might
be returned while processing audio:
- endpointer_type: START_OF_SPEECH
- results { alternatives { transcript: "tube" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: "to be a" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: "to be" } stability: 0.9 } results { alternatives { transcript: " or not to be" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: "to be or not to be" confidence: 0.92 } alternatives { transcript: "to bee or not to bee" } is_final: true } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: " that's" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 1
- results { alternatives { transcript: " that is" } stability: 0.9 } results { alternatives { transcript: " the question" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 1
- endpointer_type: END_OF_SPEECH
- results { alternatives { transcript: " that is the question" confidence: 0.98 } alternatives { transcript: " that was the question" } is_final: true } result_index: 1
- endpointer_type: END_OF_AUDIO Notes:
- Only two of the above responses #5 and #9 contain final results, they are
indicated by
is_final: true
. Concatenating these together generates the full transcript: "to be or not to be that is the question". - The others contain interim
results
. #4 and #7 contain two interimresults
, the first portion has a high stability and is less likely to change, the second portion has a low stability and is very likely to change. A UI designer might choose to show only high stabilityresults
. - The specific
stability
andconfidence
values shown above are only for illustrative purposes. Actual values may vary. - The
result_index
indicates the portion of audio that has had final results returned, and is no longer being processed. For example, theresults
in #6 and later correspond to the portion of audio after "to be or not to be".
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognizeResponse
StreamingRecognizeResponse.Builder
StreamingRecognizeResponse
is the only message returned to the client by
StreamingRecognize
. A series of one or more StreamingRecognizeResponse
messages are streamed back to the client.
Here's an example of a series of ten StreamingRecognizeResponse
s that might
be returned while processing audio:
- endpointer_type: START_OF_SPEECH
- results { alternatives { transcript: "tube" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: "to be a" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: "to be" } stability: 0.9 } results { alternatives { transcript: " or not to be" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: "to be or not to be" confidence: 0.92 } alternatives { transcript: "to bee or not to bee" } is_final: true } result_index: 0
- results { alternatives { transcript: " that's" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 1
- results { alternatives { transcript: " that is" } stability: 0.9 } results { alternatives { transcript: " the question" } stability: 0.01 } result_index: 1
- endpointer_type: END_OF_SPEECH
- results { alternatives { transcript: " that is the question" confidence: 0.98 } alternatives { transcript: " that was the question" } is_final: true } result_index: 1
- endpointer_type: END_OF_AUDIO Notes:
- Only two of the above responses #5 and #9 contain final results, they are
indicated by
is_final: true
. Concatenating these together generates the full transcript: "to be or not to be that is the question". - The others contain interim
results
. #4 and #7 contain two interimresults
, the first portion has a high stability and is less likely to change, the second portion has a low stability and is very likely to change. A UI designer might choose to show only high stabilityresults
. - The specific
stability
andconfidence
values shown above are only for illustrative purposes. Actual values may vary. - The
result_index
indicates the portion of audio that has had final results returned, and is no longer being processed. For example, theresults
in #6 and later correspond to the portion of audio after "to be or not to be".
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognizeResponse
SyncRecognizeRequest
The top-level message sent by the client for the SyncRecognize
method.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SyncRecognizeRequest
SyncRecognizeRequest.Builder
The top-level message sent by the client for the SyncRecognize
method.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SyncRecognizeRequest
SyncRecognizeResponse
The only message returned to the client by SyncRecognize
. method. It
contains the result as zero or more sequential SpeechRecognitionResult
messages.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SyncRecognizeResponse
SyncRecognizeResponse.Builder
The only message returned to the client by SyncRecognize
. method. It
contains the result as zero or more sequential SpeechRecognitionResult
messages.
Protobuf type google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.SyncRecognizeResponse
Interfaces
AsyncRecognizeMetadataOrBuilder
AsyncRecognizeRequestOrBuilder
AsyncRecognizeResponseOrBuilder
RecognitionAudioOrBuilder
RecognitionConfigOrBuilder
SpeechContextOrBuilder
SpeechRecognitionAlternativeOrBuilder
SpeechRecognitionResultOrBuilder
StreamingRecognitionConfigOrBuilder
StreamingRecognitionResultOrBuilder
StreamingRecognizeRequestOrBuilder
StreamingRecognizeResponseOrBuilder
SyncRecognizeRequestOrBuilder
SyncRecognizeResponseOrBuilder
Enums
RecognitionAudio.AudioSourceCase
RecognitionConfig.AudioEncoding
Audio encoding of the data sent in the audio message. All encodings support
only 1 channel (mono) audio. Only FLAC
includes a header that describes
the bytes of audio that follow the header. The other encodings are raw
audio bytes with no header.
For best results, the audio source should be captured and transmitted using
a lossless encoding (FLAC
or LINEAR16
). Recognition accuracy may be
reduced if lossy codecs (such as AMR, AMR_WB and MULAW) are used to capture
or transmit the audio, particularly if background noise is present.
Protobuf enum google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.RecognitionConfig.AudioEncoding
StreamingRecognizeRequest.StreamingRequestCase
StreamingRecognizeResponse.EndpointerType
Indicates the type of endpointer event.
Protobuf enum google.cloud.speech.v1beta1.StreamingRecognizeResponse.EndpointerType


Video: Jose Mourinho on ‘charm offensive’ as he arrives for first game as Tottenham boss
by Ron CarneJose Mourinho was all smiles and showed his class as he arrived ahead of his first game in charge of Tottenham as they take on West Ham on Saturday.
The Portuguese tactician was swiftly appointed as Mauricio Pochettino’s successor this week and he had just a matter of days to prepare his new squad for the encounter with the Hammers.
SEE MORE: SIX players who could be at risk of Tottenham axe from Jose Mourinho
Time will tell whether or not it’s enough to secure an immediately positive start for the former Man Utd boss, but from his first interview to Friday’s press conference and now his arrival at the ground on Saturday, he is certainly cutting a relaxed and happy figure.
As seen in the video below, Mourinho was all smiles as he arrived at the stadium ahead of kickoff, and he even had to time to greet every single mascot lining up to see the Spurs players head towards their dressing room.
That even led BT Sport presenter Jake Humphrey to suggest that Mourinho is on a ‘charm offensive’ this week, but time will tell if he’s still smiling later this afternoon with Tottenham needing to secure all three points to start moving up the Premier League table from a lowly 14th place.


| Name | Manufacturer ID | Address | State | Allocation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{station.name}} | {{station.manufacturerId}} | {{concatAddress(station.address)}} | {{station.state}} {{station.state}} {{station.state}} | {{station.numAllSlots - station.numFreeSlots}} / {{station.numAllSlots}} |


Used to verify that this instance of the micro-service is accessible
URL
api/ping
Method
GET
URL Parameters
None
Data Parameters
None
Success Response
Code: 200
Content: { "Ping":"Pong" }
Error Response
Code: 404 NOT FOUND
Used to determine if a service number is valid
URL
api/validate
Method
GET
URL Parameters
Service Number
Data Parameters
None
Success Response
Code: 200
Content:
{
"id":"A12345AA",
"valid":"false",
"error":["message":"does not contain a valid pension code suffix. Valid codes include CS, PS, OS, PG, MS, DF, DB, AD.",
"message":"is not a valid Australian Government Service (AGS) or Military Service Number."]
} or
{
"id":"A12345ADA",
"valid":"true",
"prefix":"A",
"number":"12345",
"pensionCode":"AD",
"suffix":"A"
}


Home
Science
Math
Menu
Tools
Conversation
English
The Page for your English Needs!
MLA Style Citations
MLA Header
MLA Citing
MLA Intext Citation
If an authors name is not avaliable use the title of the work and if the title is very long use a shortened version.
Click to Try Citing things MLA Style Yourself
APA Style Citations
APA Header
APA Citing
APA Intext Citations
Click to Try Citing things APA Style Yourself
Links to Research Sites
FAU's Library
Social Science Research Network
Educational Resources Information Center
Please enable JavaScript to view the
comments powered by Disqus.


keyboard_arrow_leftBack
Privacy Policy
Use of this website and its services are also governed by our Privacy Policy, which is
incorporated into these terms by this reference.
- All credit/debit cards’ details and personally identifiable information will NOT be
stored, sold, shared, rented or leased to any third parties.
- We will not pass any debit/credit card details to third parties.
- We take appropriate steps to ensure data privacy and security including through
various hardware and software methodologies. However, www.prernards.org.in
cannot guarantee the security of any information that is disclosed online.
- We are not responsible for the privacy policies of websites to which it links. If you
provide any information to such third parties different rules regarding the collection
and use of your personal information may apply. You should contact these entities
directly if you have any questions about their use of the information that they
collect.
- The Website Policies and Terms & Conditions may be changed or updated
occasionally to meet the requirements and standards. Therefore, the Customers’ are
encouraged to frequently visit these sections to be updated about the changes on
the website. Modifications will be effective on the day they are posted.
Without limitation of the terms and conditions set forth in our Privacy Policy you
understand and agree that we may disclose personally identifiable information if required
to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to comply with
legal process, enforce these terms or protect the rights, property or safety of PRDS, its
members and the public.


Before Change
if attack_string is None:
error = "Attack type is not specified, list of available attacks\t"
error += attacks_list
raise AttributeError(error)
if attack_string not in attacks_list:
error = "Attack not available, list of available attacks\t"
error += attacks_list
raise AttributeError(error)
After Change
raise AttributeError("Attack type is not specified, "
"list of available attacks\t".join(attacks_list))
if attack_string not in attacks_list:
raise AttributeError("Attack not available "
"list of available attacks\t".join(attacks_list))
// Mapping attack from string to class.
attack_class = AVAILABLE_ATTACKS[attack_string]
return attack_class


A jquery popup plugin, version 8.0
Previous versions could be found at https://code.google.com/p/jquery-msgbox/
Browser support: morden browsers, IE7+
Required: jquery 1.7+
Why another jquery popup plugin ?
Most of the exising jquery popup plugins are lacking some of the features:
- Multiple instances support
- Resize handler to resize the popup box
- Maximization/Minimization of the popup box
- Dragging support
- Theme customization
- Key bindings support
- Working as a photo slideshow
- Fourth party library indenpendent (some may dependent on jQuery UI, etc)
If you are looking for a plugin with most of the above features, here it is
Features
(c) could be customized
- Key bindings (c)
- Overlay events (c)
- Draggable
- Resizable
- Icons, (prev,play,next,min,max,close) (c)
- Buttons in footer, and their events could be fully customized (c)
- Working as a photo viewer
- Themes (c)
- Multiple instances (task tar simulation)
- Internationalization (c)
- API
Basic usage
$(".trigger").msgbox({ type: 'html', content: '
Hello
' }); // calling API $(".trigger").msgbox().close(); // multiple instances $.msgbox({ type: 'text', content: 'instance1', id: 0 }); $.msgbox({ type: 'html', content: 'instance2', id: 'msgbox1' }); // calling API $.msgbox(0).close(); $.msgbox('msgbox1').min();


Guidance
A guide for training providers requesting funding for pre-initial teacher training SKE programmes and bursaries.
Ref: NCTL-20068-2016 PDF , 154KB , 15 pages
A manual for initial teacher training ( ITT ) providers and School Direct lead schools to use as a guidance document to request subject knowledge enhancement ( SKE ) funding from the National College for Teaching and Leadership.
SKE programmes are pre- ITT programmes designed to help potential trainees gain the depth of knowledge needed to train to teach their chosen subject.
The funding manual outlines:
For SKE funding to be released, School Direct lead schools and ITT providers must have a signed grant offer letter in place. All highlighted sections in the grant offer letter must be completed and annex A must be signed by the accounting officer.
The grant offer letter should be returned to the SKE team at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
Published: 21 August 2015
Updated: 4 October 2016


filmcritic.com presents a review from staff member James Brundage. You can find the review with full credits at http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/2a460f93626cd4678625624c007f2b46/88855cbe3007b09b882568d1001f4d11?OpenDocument
The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas (2000, PG)
Directed by Brian Levant
Produced by Bruce Cohen and Steven Spielberg
Written by Harry Elfont, Deborah Kaplan, Jim Cash, and Jack Epps Jr.
Starring Mark Addy, Steven Baldwin, Jane Krakowski, Kristen Johnston, Joan Collins, Thomas Gibson, and Alan Cumming
As Reviewed by James Brundage
All right. I withered away my youth watching "The Flintstones" like just about every other kid in the 80s. That doesn't mean I have to like the movie or feel the slightest pang of nostalgia. I won't give any special points to The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas for invoking some memory in me of the pre Cartoon Network days when I watched "The Flintstones" on a black and white TV located outside of my room in the house that I grew up in.
Viva Rock Vegas is bad. Real bad. It features the same kind of dry humor that the show did, and thus makes you wonder why you watched the show in the first place.  It has the high point of watching The Great Gazoo, an alien sent to observe prehistoric man's mating patterns, get kicked and crash into signs.
It really, really stinks.
Viva Rock Vegas opens with the standard Universal logo redone in tied-together wood and retitled "Univershell." This provides yet another bleakly high point, as, being tired when I saw this movie, I read the logo as "Universe Hell" instead of the intended "Universe Shell." This brought a small laugh out of me. It just so happens that was all the movie was able to garner up in the way of entertainment.
The story goes as such: Fred (Mark Addy) and Barney (Steven Baldwin) have just graduated from construction school. Elated and prompted by The Great Gazoo (Alan Cumming), the two go out in search for dates. They find said dates in the form of Betty (Jane Krakowski) and Wilma (Kristen Johnson). Betty is very lower class, but Wilma comes from a large mansion on a mountain overlooking bedrock. Wilma is under constant pressure by her mother (Joan Collins) to marry Chip Rockefellar (Thomas Gibson), so she runs away and moves in with Betty.
Predictable, the four fall in love. Even more predictably, Chip invites them to Rock Vegas to attempt to steal Wilma from Fred. A few things from are explained in this film: how Wilma got her pearls, where Dino came from, and why the dinosaurs went extinct (apparently, someone had been poisoning their water supply). To the "Flintstones" fanatic, these will matter. To everyone else, who cares.
Krakowski is delightful as Betty, who she basically plays the same way she does her character on Ally MacBeal. Baldwin proves once again why film critics hate the Baldwin clan.
 It's lame, predictable, and just plain unfunny. So, for God's sake, don't watch it.
1.5 stars
-- Christopher Null -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>- http://www.filmcritic.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


Web Portal
Virtualization Platform
Source Code Repository
Data Visualization Dashboard
Container Orchestrator
Password Manager
CI/CD
Cloud Provider
Infrastrucutre as Code


{@eq key=state value="private"}
Private Room
{/eq}
{@eq key=state value="disconnected"}
Disconnected
{/eq}
{@eq key=state value="disconnecting"}
Disconnecting...
{/eq}
{@eq key=state value="connecting"}
Connecting as {player.userid}
{/eq}
{@eq key=state value="connected"}
Connected as {player.userid}
{/eq}


|
| def | __init__ (self, connId, configuration) |
| |
| def | __enter__ (self) |
| |
| def | __exit__ (self, exc) |
| |
| def | on_datachanged (self, nodeId, dataValue) |
| |
| def | on_disconnect (self) |
| |
| def | on_generic_response (self, request, response) |
| |
| def | disconnect (self) |
| |
| def | connected (self) |
| |
| def | add_nodes_to_subscription (self, nodeIds) |
| |
| def | send_generic_request (self, request, bWaitResponse) |
| |
| def | get_response (self, request) |
| |
| def | read_nodes (self, nodeIds, attributes=None, bWaitResponse=True) |
| |
| def | write_nodes (self, nodeIds, datavalues, attributes=None, types=None, bWaitResponse=True) |
| |
| def | browse_nodes (self, nodeIds, maxReferencesPerNode=1000, bWaitResponse=True) |
| |
Base class giving the prototypes of the callbacks,
and implements the subscription-library connection wrappers.
The class supports Python's "with" statements.
In this case, the connection is automatically closed upon exit of the context.
| def pys2opc.connection.BaseConnectionHandler.read_nodes |
( |
|
self, |
|
|
|
nodeIds, |
|
|
|
attributes = None , |
|
|
|
bWaitResponse = True |
|
) |
| |
Forges an OpcUa_ReadRequest and sends it.
When bWaitResponse, waits for and returns the ReadResponse,
which contains the attribute results storing the read value for the ith element.
Otherwise, returns the request.
Args:
nodeIds: NodeId described as a string "[ns=x;]t=y" where x is the namespace index, t is the NodeId type
(s for a string NodeId, i for integer, b for bytestring, g for GUID), and y is typed content.
attributes: Optional: a list of attributes to read. The list has the same length as nodeIds. When omited,
reads the attribute Value (see :class:`AttributeId` for a list of attributes).
| def pys2opc.connection.BaseConnectionHandler.write_nodes |
( |
|
self, |
|
|
|
nodeIds, |
|
|
|
datavalues, |
|
|
|
attributes = None , |
|
|
|
types = None , |
|
|
|
bWaitResponse = True |
|
) |
| |
Forges an OpcUa_WriteResponse and sends it.
When bWaitResponse, waits for and returns the WriteResponse,
which has accessors to check whether the writes were successful or not.
Otherwise, returns the request.
Types are found in 3 places, for each NodeId and DataValue :
- in each datavalue.variantType,
- in the `types` list,
- in a ReadResponse that is sent and waited upon if both previous sources are set to None.
The Read request is only sent when at least one datavalue lacks type in both datavalue.variantType and `types`.
If both datavalue.variantType and the type in `types` are given, they must be equal.
Args:
nodeIds: NodeId described as a string "[ns=x;]t=y" where x is the namespace index, t is the NodeId type
(s for a string NodeId, i for integer, b for bytestring, g for GUID), and y is typed content.
datavalues: A list of DataValue to write for each NodeId
attributes: Optional: a list of attributes to write. The list has the same length as nodeIds. When omitted,
reads the attribute Value (see :class:`AttributeId` for a list of attributes).
types: Optional: a list of VariantType for each value to write.


This was the first major coding on the Udacity Front-End Web Developer Nanodegree. Considering it's literally the start of the course this included a lot of material!
HTML, CSS, JavaScript, responsive layouts and images, frameworks, custom CSS files, DIPs and Pixels. Not to mention a host of goodness such as the Forums, Google+ group, Cohort Chat, Style Guides... you get the idea!


--- layout: post title: "Angular addition monoid" description: "Geometric angles can be added together. Angular addition forms a monoid." date: 2018-07-16 14:40 UTC tags: [Software Design] image: "/content/binary/angle-315-90.png" image_alt: "A 315° angle and a 90° angle overlaid on the first one." --- {% include JB/setup %}
{{ page.description }}
This article is part of a series about monoids. In short, a monoid is an associative binary operation with a neutral element (also known as identity).
In geometry, an angle is a measure of how two crossing lines relate to each other. In mathematics, angles are usually represented in radians, but in daily use, they're mostly measured in degrees between 0 and 360.
You can always draw an angle within a circle. Here's a 45° angle:
If you add another 90° angle to that, you get a 135° angle:
What do you get if you add 90° to 315°?
Well, you get 45°, of course!
There's only 360° in a circle, so overflow is handled, in this case, by subtracting 360°. In general, however, angular addition is nothing but modulo 360 addition.
You can model a geometric angle as a struct. Here's a simple example:
public struct Angle { private readonly decimal degrees; private Angle(decimal degrees) { this.degrees = degrees % 360m; if (this.degrees < 0) this.degrees += 360m; } public static Angle FromDegrees(decimal degrees) { return new Angle(degrees); } public static Angle FromRadians(double radians) { return new Angle((decimal)((180D / Math.PI) * radians)); } public Angle Add(Angle other) { return new Angle(this.degrees + other.degrees); } public readonly static Angle Identity = new Angle(0); public override bool Equals(object obj) { if (obj is Angle) return ((Angle)obj).degrees == this.degrees; return base.Equals(obj); } public override int GetHashCode() { return this.degrees.GetHashCode(); } public static bool operator ==(Angle x, Angle y) { return x.Equals(y); } public static bool operator !=(Angle x, Angle y) { return !x.Equals(y); } }
Notice the Add
method, which is a binary operation; it's an instance method on Angle
, takes another Angle
as input, and returns an Angle
value.
Not only is Add
a binary operation; it's also associative. Here's an example:
var x = Angle.FromDegrees(135); var y = Angle.FromDegrees(180); var z = Angle.FromDegrees(300); var left = x.Add(y).Add(z); var right = x.Add(y.Add(z));
Notice that left
first evaluates x.Add(y)
, which is 315°; then it adds 300°, which is 615°, but normalises to 255°. On the other hand, right
first evaluates y.Add(z)
, which is 480°, but normalises to 120°. It then adds those 120° to x
, for a final result of 255°. Since left
and right
are both 255°, this illustrates that Add
is associative.
Obviously, this is only a single example, so it's no proof. While still not a proof, you can demonstrate the associativity property with more confidence by writing a property-based test. Here's one using FsCheck and xUnit.net:
[Property(QuietOnSuccess = true)] public void AddIsAssociative(Angle x, Angle y, Angle z) { Assert.Equal( x.Add(y).Add(z), x.Add(y.Add(z))); }
By default, FsCheck generates 100 test cases, but even when I experimentally change the configuration to run 100,000 test cases, they all pass. For full disclosure, however, I'll admit that I defined the data generators to only use NormalFloat
for the radian values, and only decimal
values with up to 10 decimal places. If you try to use entirely unconstrained floating points, you'll see test failures caused by rounding errors.
Changing the data generator is one way to address rounding errors. Another way is to add a bit of fuzzy tolerance to the assertion. In any case, though, the Add
operation is associative. That rounding errors occur is an implementation detail of floating point arithmetic.
The above code listing defines a value called Identity
:
public readonly static Angle Identity = new Angle(0);
As an Angle, I want my Add and Identity members to obey the monoid laws so that I can be a monoid.
As an example, both left
and right
should be true
in the following:
var x = Angle.FromDegrees(370); var left = x == Angle.Identity.Add(x); var right = x == x.Add(Angle.Identity);
That does, indeed, turn out to be the case.
Again, you can generalise using FsCheck:
[Property(QuietOnSuccess = true)] public void AddHasIdentity(Angle x) { Assert.Equal(x, Angle.Identity.Add(x)); Assert.Equal(x, x.Add(Angle.Identity)); }
Once more, a reservation identical to the one given above must be given when it comes to floating point arithmetic.
The Add
method is an associative, binary operation with identity; it's a monoid.
As far as I can tell, any modulo-based addition is a monoid, but while, say, modulo 37 addition probably doesn't have any practical application, modulo 360 addition does, because it's how you do angular addition.


BELFRICS CERTIFICATE DAPP
Sign Out
Certificate Id:
Certificate of Completion
This is to certify that
has completed the course
from
Date Of issue
Enrollment Id
Authorized Signatory


My Profile
Profile
Search Challenges
My Upcoming Challenges
Completed Challenges
View State Capitol
Did you attend?
Lady Bird Hike & Bike Trail
Did you attend?
Sightseeing Tour
Did you attend?
LBJ Presidential Library
Did you attend?
Bullock Texas State History Museum
Did you attend?


A JavaScript library of special functions and common mathematical operations has been initiated, entitled simply Math. It provides higher-level mathematics not available by default in JavaScript.
As an example, here are the first five Bessel functions of the first kind:
Here is the complete list of mathematical functions available in Math.


An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests or subtests designed to assess human intelligence.
by wikipedia.org
Our Mega-IQ tests would help you to know your highest IQ score.
Several free IQ tests with different complexity and a different number of questions are available.
Start The IQ Test
Average adult combined IQs associated with real-life accomplishments by various tests.


It seeks to produce and create high, uncorrelated yields that are tail-risk conscious, proposinga single solution to offer and deliver varied and expanded global emerging markets coverage to TGR’s prevailing emerging market other approaches and schemes across a diversity of asset classes as well as direct funds in these same asset classes when that method is considered more proper and suitable.
The stratagem invests in liquid investments in distressed, credit, equity and unusual circumstances. Vigorous asset provision and risk controls are applied and executed by a greatly knowledgeable pan-emerging markets investment team working in partnership at the portfolio level.