--- layout: blazor title: Blazor Events description: Blazor Events keyword: blazor events, DOM events, user-defined events, custom events ---
Blazor supports the event programming model through binding. You can bind DOM events such as onclick, onchange or others to a function and trigger it by a user interaction. You can also define a user-defined event and enable the event to be binded to callback functions.
The following illustrates binding onclick event to a function named Print. If you click on the Click Here button, the Print function will be executed and the "Button Clicked!" text will be displayed in the browser's console.
@page "/"

DOM Events

<button @onclick=Print>Click Here</button>
@functions {
private void Print()
{
Console.WriteLine("Button Clicked!");
}
}
A Lambda expression can also be used to specify the function to execute. The following code achieve the same thing as the above.
@page "/"

DOM Events

<button @onclick=@(() => Print())>ClickHere</button>
@functions {
private void Print()
{
Console.WriteLine("Button Clicked!");
}
}
Using a Lambda expression can help you reduce the number of lines of code and make your code simpler in some situations.
@page "/"

DOM Events

<button @onclick=@(() => {Console.WriteLine("Button Clicked!");})>ClickHere<button>
@functions {
}
Event data such as MouseEventArgs can be specified in the event function. In our example below, the event data arguments enables us to access properties of the mouse event such as ClientX, ClientY and others.
@page "/"

onclick Events

<button @onclick=@((e) => Print(e))>ClickHere</button>
@functions {
private void Print(MouseEventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine("X :"+e.ClientX+" Y :"+e.ClientY);
}
}
The following is another example showing how to access the KeyboardEventArgs with the onkeypress event.
@page "/"

onkeypress Event

<input type="text" @onkeypress="@(e => KeyWasPressed(e))" />
@functions {
private void KeyWasPressed(KeyboardEventArgs args)
{
if (args.Key == "r")
{
Console.WriteLine("R was pressed");
}
}
}
And the onchange event with the ChangeEventArgs.
@page "/"

onchange Event

<input type="checkbox" @onchange=CheckboxChanged />
New York

@functions {
void CheckboxChanged(ChangeEventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine("CheckboxChanged");
}
}
Besides DOM events, Blazor also supports user-defined or custom events. For example, if you have a parent and a child component , and you want the parent to execute a function (callback function) when certain conditions in the child component occur, you can define a user-defined event.
You can add the following into the child component to define a user-defined event:
[Parameter]
Action SomethingChanged { get; set; }
This enables you to use the child component in the following manner:
<Component1 SomethingChanged=SomeCallBackFunctionInTheParent>
</Component1>
The following is a complete Blazor sample with parent and child component codes. When a button in the child component is clicked, the parent callback function will be executed to update a message variable.
MySomethingComponent.cshtml (Child Component)
<button @onclick=ButtonClick>ClickHere</button>
@functions {
private void ButtonClick()
{
Console.WriteLine("Calling SomethingChanged Action");
SomethingChanged();
}
[Parameter]
public Action SomethingChanged { get; set; }
}
index.cshtml (Parent Page)
@using MySomethingComponent;
@page "/"
<Mysomething SomethingChanged=ChangeMessage></MySomething>

@message

@functions {
string message;
private void ChangeMessage()
{
Console.WriteLine("ChangeMessage");
message="Message Changed";
StateHasChanged();
}
}


Today in 2012: Akufo-Addo left Oxford under strange circumstances - Tsatsu Tsikata
The 2012 presidential candidate of the NPP, Akufo-Addo was accused of strangely excluding from his Curriculum Vitae, his details from Oxford University. His action according to the NDC’s, Tsatsu Tsikata, casts a slur on his integrity.
According to the former Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, Tsatsu Tsikata, there were rumours about Nana Addo’s dismissal from the Oxford University.
Read the full story originally published on November 22, 2004, on Ghanaweb
A leading member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) is claiming that the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Akufo-Addo was a student at the Oxford University in London.
Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata said the manner in which the NPP flagbearer and his cohorts have dealt with the Oxford University question casts a slur on his [Nana Addo's] integrity.
He was speaking on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen programme on Tuesday.
The NPP presidential candidate has been accused of deliberately excluding from his Curriculum Vitae, his attendance of Oxford University.
According to the pro-NDC group, Research and Advocacy Platform (RAP), the NPP presidential candidate has compromised his integrity by concealing such vital information.
The group says it has written to authorizes at Oxford University to disclose Akufo-Addo’s details of studentship at the school.
Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, speaking on Ekosii Sen said the questions being raised by RAP are legitimate especially when the NPP flagbearer is vying for the highest office of the land.
He explained that as a fresh student at Oxford in 1969, he heard that Nana Akufo-Addo had left the school under strange circumstance.
Mr. Tsikata said there were rumours then that Nana Akufo-Addo was dismissed from the university, but could neither deny nor confirm the rumours.
"There were so many rumours but what ever I will say will be mere speculations," he added.
Tsatsu Tsikata noted that Nana Addo must not deny the fact that he went to a prestigious University even if it was for a very short period therefore to end the ongoing controversy, he [Nana] must set the records straight.
He intimated that the attempt to deny or ignore the question and to create the impression that Nana Addo was never a student at Oxford could be detrimental to his presidential ambition.
Tsatsu Tsikata said there will be too many doubts in the minds of Ghanaians if Nana Akufo-Addo does not come clean on the matter.


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-53), BENGALURU CITY. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015 PRESENT: Smt. Yadav Vanamala Anandrao, B.Com., LL.B (Spl.,) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. : O.S. NO. 713/2012 : PLAINTIFF : Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, By its Member-Secretary, 'Parisara Bhavana' No.49, Church Street, Bangalore - 560 001. (By Sri. TGS / KRN, Advocate) -V/S- DEFENDANTS : 1. The Chief Engineer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Hudson Circle, Bangalore. 2. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, By its Commissioner, Hudson Circle, Bangalore. (By Sri. S.N.Prashanth Chandra, Advocate) Date of institution of the suit: 23.01.2012 2 O.S.No.713/2012 Nature of the suit: Permanent Injunction Date of commencement of 25.07.2013 recording of evidence: Date on which Judgment was 28.07.2015 pronounced: Duration: Days Months Years 5 6 3 : JUDGMENT :
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the work undertaken by the plaintiff for development of park / garden in the suit schedule property and such other reliefs with costs. (Note:- This case has been transferred from the Court of IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, to this court as per Notification dated:01.12.2014.)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a Statutory Board established under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the defendants are also Statutory Body established under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The Government of Karnataka by its order dated 22.09.1992 granted Sy.No.120 of Saneguruvanahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, 3 O.S.No.713/2012 Bangalore North Taluk, to an extent of area measuring 4.00 acres of land in favour of KSRTC for construction of Bus Depot on collection of 50% of the market value i.e., Rs.17,59,340/- per acre plus conversion fine and other levies as per rules. Another extent of area measuring 4.00 acres of land in the said survey number was granted by the Government of Karnataka as per order dated 22.09.1992 in favour of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board i.e., plaintiff, for its office building and laboratory on collecting 50% of market value i.e., 17,59,340/- per acre plus conversion fine and other levies as per rules. The sanction was also accorded for transfer of 4 acre 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.120 of Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in favour of Revenue Department for construction of official quarters to its employees in terms of Government Order dated 20.05.1971. The Government of Karnataka issued a corrigendum dated 10.11.1992, stating that in the order portion of the Government Order dated 22.09.1992, substituting the contents of sub-paras 1 & 2 in connection with the market value and conversion fine, etc. After completion of all required formalities as per the Government order, the possession of the said land was 4 O.S.No.713/2012 taken by the plaintiff from the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, on 29.10.1993, and possession of other areas of land in the said survey number, was also delivered to the KSRTC and Revenue Department of Government of Karnataka. One Ramachandra, S/o. Late Hanumanthappa had filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in respect of the suit schedule land before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.24185/1997 (GM-PIL). After hearing the matter, said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.02.2001 issuing the directions and as per directions issued in the said Writ Petition, the Principal Secretary to the Department of Revenue called a meeting on 10.04.2001 and it was resolved in the meeting that the KSRTC should retain an extent of 3.00 acres of land, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (plaintiff) should retain an extent of 2.00 acres of land and Revenue Department should retain 3 acres 1 gunta of land. The area measuring 4.00 acres of land so contributed by the plaintiff and the other two authorities described in the schedule to be handed over to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (plaintiff) for developing the park / garden. However, the right and title of the said park / garden should be with 5 O.S.No.713/2012 the Government of Karnataka. Accordingly, as per Government Order dated 14.05.2001, the plaintiff authorities contributed the land for developing the said park by drawing a detailed plan and possession was also given to the plaintiff. The matter was deliberated in the office of Chief Engineer of the defendants in the presence of Ministers of the Government of Karnataka and the concerned members of the defendants. The Chief Engineer of the defendants as per direction of 2nd defendant, by his letter dated 18.10.2011, with reference to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka about the Writ Petition as referred to, informed the plaintiff-Board to develop the park / garden in the suit schedule property. Thus, the things stood as stated above, the officials of defendants came to the suit schedule land where the plaintiff was developing the park / garden and obstructed the work undertaken by the plaintiff, high-handed and illegally in the 3rd week of December 2011 and blocked the North-Eastern main entrance / gate of the plaintiff to the building constructed by it on the retained land of the plaintiff wherein the Regional Office and Central Environmental Laboratory was established in the year 2007. The 6 O.S.No.713/2012 defendants started putting up the footpath, around the schedule property obstructing the main entrance of the plaintiff, which affects the plaintiff's access to the building through the existing narrow entrance. The plaintiff has laid 11 K.V. cable underneath the said North-Eastern approach road which was blocked by the defendants and its officers and it has made difficult to attend the repairs and periodical maintenance work. The officers have also blocked the right round corridor road left by the plaintiff for the purpose of attending any fire mishap. Thus, the defendants' officers have committed illegalities having no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, thereby created the hurdle in developmental work undertaken for the purpose of park / garden in the suit schedule property. There was urgency in the matter, hence the application is filed separately seeking dispensation of notice under section 482(1-A) of KMC Act, stating the cause of action arose in the 3rd week of December 2011, as the defendants and their officials tried to enter the suit schedule property and trying to disturb the work undertaken by the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit. Accordingly, it is prayed to decree it. 7 O.S.No.713/2012
3. On issuance of suit summons to the defendants after registering the case, they appeared through their counsel and written statement has been filed for defendants No.1 & 2 through Head of the Legal Cell, BBMP, Bangalore. The contents of the written statement, are hereby narrated in brief that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable, as it is without seeking declaratory and mandatory injunction relief and the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is misconceived and there is no cause of action to file the suit and it has become in fructuous and denied on the material allegations pleaded in the plaint. The matters pleaded in plaint para Nos.2 to 4 do not require specific denial as they are matters of record and it has culminated in an order passed in W.P.No.24185/1997 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 4 acres of land reserved for developing the park and as per direction of Hon'ble Minister and Local Corporator, spot inspection was made on 24.05.2011 and direction issued to the BBMP to form a forest-cum-park. Accordingly, BBMP took up the development work by levelling the area, sanctioning the estimate and issuing work order on 08.11.2011 in favour of the Karnataka 8 O.S.No.713/2012 Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., Mahadevanagar, for providing pathway to small forest and cost was estimated for Rs.55 lakhs and another work order dated 11.08.2011 for construction of compound wall to small forest-cum-park estimating it for Rs.45 lakhs and specifying the date of commencement by 10.11.2011 and completion should be on 09.02.2011 / 11.02.2012. Accordingly, the work was undertaken and completed in all respects much before presenting the suit in January 2012. The building of plaintiff was located abutting to the South portion of suit property Sy.No.120, measuring 4 acres. The building of the plaintiff has two separate access roads 25 feet each in width i.e., 7th 'A' Main & 7th 'B' Main Road, which are joining Thimmaiah Road, situated to the East of schedule property. But the plaintiff demanding additional road from North-Eastern side to connect the North-Eastern side of the said property. BBMP has developed park / forest and hence the suit of the plaintiff, is not maintainable. Apart from this, it has provided maximum space in the layout or in the process the additional stretch demanded by the plaintiff, is already developed by BBMP as a portion of park-cum-forest. The development by BBMP regarding 9 O.S.No.713/2012 the park / forest is in the larger interest of public and provided separate area for children to play and planted mixed variety of fruit bearing trees and other trees, which has widely appreciated by all. The deviation against the layout plan providing for the link road as demanded by the plaintiff, make the area congest and reducing the space and removal of already grown saplings from the park-cum- forest. Hence granting of permanent injunction to result in injustice to the public at large and affect the environmental disturbance and create hazardous condition. The defendants have undertaken the developmental work and completed it in the month of January 2012. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, it is prayed as such to dismiss it with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, has framed the following issues on 18.01.2014.
(1) Whether plaintiff proves its lawful
possession over the schedule property?
(2) Does plaintiff prove the alleged
obstruction?
(3) Does he entitle for the relief sought for?
(4) What decree or order?
10 O.S.No.713/2012
5. The plaintiff has adduced its evidence through
B.H.Sannappa, who is Assistant Executive Engineer as PW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.14. On the other hand, the defendants have adduced its evidence through Shanthe Gowda, who is Assistant Executive Engineer as DW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.D.1 to D.15.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants.
7. Perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence and record on hand.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
(1) Issue No.1 .. In the negative (2) Issue No.2 .. In the negative (3) Issue No.3 .. In the negative (4) Issue No.4 .. As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3 :- These issues are interlinked with each other and it needs common consideration and discussion. Hence to avoid repetition of facts and circumstances of the case, they are taken for common consideration.
10. The plaintiff to prove its case has adduced evidence of B.H.Sannappa, who is Assistant Executive Engineer as PW.1. He deposed by way of affidavit evidence reiterating the plaint averments 11 O.S.No.713/2012 and relied upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.14. Exs.P.1 & P.2 are the Government orders dated 22.09.1992 & 10.11.1992 respectively; Ex.P.3 is the possession record received from Tahsildar dated 29.10.1993; Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.24185/1997, dated 23.02.2001; Ex.P.5 is the Government order dated 14.05.2001; Ex.P.6 is the detail plan; Ex.P.7 is the notice given by Advocate General; Ex.P.8 is the Government order dated 20.05.1971; Ex.P.9 is the decision taken as per the Writ order; Ex.P.10 is the copy of complaint given to Police Commissioner; Ex.P.11 is the copy of complaint given to the Police Inspector, Basaveshwaranagar Police Station; Ex.P.12 is the endorsement of police and Exs.P.13 & P.14 are the photographs marked through D.W.1. On the other hand, the defendants have adduced its evidence through Shanthe Gowda, who is Assistant Executive Engineer as DW.1 and placed reliance on the documents in respect of the case i.e., Exs.D.1 to D.15. Ex.D.1 is the rough sketch; Exs.D.2 to D.13 are the photographs; Ex.D.13(a) is the C.D and Exs.D.14 & D.15 are the work orders.
12 O.S.No.713/2012
11. On perusal of evidence of PW.1 and DW.1 and the documents referred by both the parties, it is revealed that the Government of Karnataka by its order No. 109 LGB 92 Bangalore, dated 22.09.1992 had granted Sy.No.120 of Saneguruvanahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, to an extent of area measuring 4.00 acres of land in favour of KSRTC for construction of Bus Depot on collection of 50% of the market value i.e., Rs.17,59,340/- per acre plus conversion fine and other levies as per rules. Another extent of area measuring 4.00 acres of land in the said survey number was granted by the Government of Karnataka as per order dated 22.09.1992, in favour of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board i.e., plaintiff, for its office building and laboratory on collecting 50% of market value i.e., 17,59,340/- per acre plus conversion fine and other levies as per rules. The sanction was also accorded for transfer of 4 acre 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.120 of Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in favour of Revenue Department for construction of official quarters to its employees in terms of Government Order dated 20.05.1971. The Government of Karnataka issued a corrigendum dated 10.11.1992, 13 O.S.No.713/2012 stating that in the order portion of the Government Order dated 22.09.1992, substituting the contents of sub-paras 1 & 2 in connection with the market value and conversion fine, etc. After completion of all required formalities as per the Government order, the possession of the said land was taken by the plaintiff from the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, on 29.10.1993, and possession of other areas of land in the said survey number, was also delivered to the KSRTC and Revenue Department of Government of Karnataka.
12. One Ramachandra, S/o. Late Hanumanthappa had filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in respect of the suit schedule land before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.24185/1997 (GM-PIL). After hearing the matter, said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.02.2001, issuing the directions and as per directions issued in the said Writ Petition, the Principal Secretary to the Department of Revenue called a meeting on 10.04.2001 and it was resolved in the meeting that the KSRTC should retain an extent of 3.00 acres of land, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (plaintiff) should retain an extent of 2.00 acres of land and Revenue Department should retain 3 14 O.S.No.713/2012 acres 1 gunta of land. The area measuring 4.00 acres of land so contributed by the plaintiff and the other two authorities described in the schedule to be handed over to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (plaintiff) for developing the park/garden. However, the right and title of the said park/garden should be with the Government of Karnataka. Accordingly, as per Government Order dated 14.05.2001, the plaintiff authorities contributed the land for developing the said park by drawing a detailed plan and possession was also given to the plaintiff. The matter was deliberated in the office of Chief Engineer of the defendants in the presence of Ministers of the Government of Karnataka and the concerned members of the defendants. The Chief Engineer of the defendants as per direction of 2nd defendant, by his letter dated 18.10.2011, with reference to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka about the Writ Petition as referred to, informed the plaintiff-Board to develop the park/garden in the suit schedule property.
13. Thus, stating so, it is further contended that, the plaintiff was in lawful possession over the suit property, is proved by the plaintiff through the evidence of P.W.1 and the said concerned 15 O.S.No.713/2012 records; specifically the resolution passed by the government calling upon the meeting dated 10-4-2001, in pursuance of the direction in WP. No.24185/1997 and Government order No.RD 109 LGB 92 (P) dated 14-5-2001. The detailed plan was drawn and the possession was given by the said two departments to the plaintiff and thus the suit property measuring 4 acres of land was to be developed as per direction and order of the government and that, after the deliberations Chief Engineer of the defendants who was directed by the defendant No.2, has informed the plaintiff by his letter dated 18- 10-2011, that the plaintiff board has to carry out the said work of development. Thus stating so, the plaintiff has asserted the possessory right over the suit property for the said work. The material dispute is that defendants are obstructing the work undertaken by the plaintiff.
14. It is specific case of the defendants brought on record through DW.1, referring the sketch, photo and work orders, for having completed the alleged development of park-cum-forest; There is no cause of action to file the suit and it has become in fructuous; 4 acres of land reserved for developing the park and it has to be 16 O.S.No.713/2012 carried out. These are not in dispute at all. But it is specific case of this defendant and deposed by DW1 that, as per direction of Hon'ble Minister and Local Corporator, spot inspection was made on 24.05.2011 and direction issued to the BBMP to form a forest-cum- park; Accordingly, BBMP took up the development work by levelling the area, sanctioning the estimate and issuing work order on 08.11.2011, in favour of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., Mahadevanagar, for providing pathway to small forest and cost was estimated for Rs.55 lakhs. Another work order dated 11.08.2011, for construction of compound wall to small forest- cum-park estimating it for Rs.45 lakhs and specifying the date of commencement by 10.11.2011. The completion should be on 09.02.2011/11.02.2012. Accordingly, the work was undertaken and completed in all respects much prior to filing of this suit in the month of January 2012. D.W.1 has further stated reiterating the contents of written statement supporting the defendants that the building of plaintiff was located abutting to the South portion of suit property Sy.No.120, measuring 4 acres i.e. preserved for garden purpose. It is notable point that the prayer for decreeing the suit is permanent 17 O.S.No.713/2012 injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's work undertaken in the property shown in schedule to the plaint for the alleged purpose. The plaintiff has claimed the right to sue accrued. But this suit is only against the statutory authority established under Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.(in short taken as KMC Act) i.e. BBMP represented by its authorities - defendants. It is also with out impleading the necessary parties, who have alleged to be created such right to develop the park, by granting lands infavour of plaintiff and other two government departments, under impugned government order. Because the plaintiff has stated that the ownership shall be with the government. These defendants at the most, representing the government have to act as per the direction and order of the government which are in pursuance of the direction issued in the said W.P. Whether the work of or alleged obstruction is justifiable or otherwise are the matters to be decided as against the alleged right of the plaintiff to develop the garden.
15. The specific grievance of the plaintiff is that, the defendants are blocking the access to official building of the plaintiff 18 O.S.No.713/2012 by admitting that defendants have undertaken the development of the park. The plaintiff has tried to make out the cause of action that, the things stood as stated above, the officials of defendants came to the suit schedule land, where the plaintiff was developing the park/garden and obstructed the work undertaken by the plaintiff, in the 3rd week of December 2011, with high-handedness and it was illegal. They blocked the North-Eastern main entrance/gate of the plaintiff's building constructed by it, on the retained land, wherein the Regional Office and Central Environmental Laboratory were established, in the year 2007. The defendants started putting up the footpath, around the schedule property obstructing the main entrance of the plaintiff, which affects the plaintiff's access to the building through the existing narrow entrance. The plaintiff has laid 11 K.V. cable underneath the said North-Eastern approach road which was blocked by the defendants and its officers. It has made difficult to attend the repairs and periodical maintenance work. The officers have also blocked the right to use the 'round corridor road' left by the plaintiff for the purpose of attending any fire mishap. Thus, the defendants' officers have committed illegal acts having no 19 O.S.No.713/2012 manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, thereby created the hurdle in developmental work undertaken for the purpose of park / garden in the suit schedule property. What was that work undertaken by the plaintiff has not been made it clear and that the materials to prove the same are also not placed on record by the plaintiff except the version of PW1, whose evidence without any material documents dose not support the plaintiff's case to believe that, the alleged work of the plaintiff was going on with due process and it has right to resist the entry of the defendants into the suit property. Ex. P1 to 3 and 8 are of the year 1992 and 1993 and Ex.P5 dated 14-5-2001 is immediately after the order passed in WP. No. 24185/1997 (dte. 23-2-2001). Ex. P. 6 the detailed plan was valid from 13-5-2003 up to 12-5-2005. Ex.P. 7 is the letter of Advocate General representing the State Government, dated 23-2-2001 directing the representatives of said three departments within two months etc. to take steps regarding said direction. Ex. P.9 is copy of resolution in that regard. Ex. P 10 to 12 are the recent notices and endorsement prior to filing of the suit, and they are pertaining to taking legal action. Thus non of these documents are showing any 20 O.S.No.713/2012 work undertaken by the plaintiff under what authority when the sanction plain was valid up to 2005 i.e. for a period of only two years. No pleading and no proof of the same. If such process was undertaken by the plaintiff Board it ought to have placed the relevant and authenticated materials. But not done and only inference that can be drawn is that the plaintiff has no such authority or such power might be withdrawn. So suppression of the materials is fatal to the plaintiff's case to believe the case that it has right and was proceeded to do the alleged work on the suit property and hence the defendants' entry thereupon was illegal. On this count it is failure of the plaintiff to prove the alleged right and it has under taken the work with due process. Over all reading it is main grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants have undertaken illegal activities on the suit property and blocking the passage to the official building area i.e. the entrance gate abutting to the building.
16. Per contra, it is contended by the defendants deposed through DW.1 that, the official building of the plaintiff has two separate access roads 25 feet each in width i.e., 7th 'A' Main & 7th 'B' Main Road, which are joining Thimmaiah Road, situated to the East 21 O.S.No.713/2012 of schedule property; but the plaintiff was demanding additional road from North-Eastern side to connect the North-Eastern side of the said property; BBMP has developed park-cum-forest already and hence the suit of the plaintiff, is not maintainable; and that apart from this, it has provided maximum space in the layout or in the process the additional stretch demanded by the plaintiff. That it is already developed by BBMP as a portion of park-cum-forest, which is in the larger interest of public; and that, it has provided separate area for children to play and planted mixed variety of fruit bearing trees and other trees, which has widely appreciated by all. The action and process of the government, which were for implementation of scheme of the park/garden, are not challenged as illegal. But the plaintiff it is basing only on the said plan and government orders which were prevailing only up to 2001-2002 and the plan upto 1005. So, the defendants' case has to be evaluated whether they are justified in resisting the suit or not.
17. It is specifically argued by the learned counsel for the defendants referring their defence put for the through DW.1 that, the deviation against the layout plan providing for the link road as 22 O.S.No.713/2012 demanded by the plaintiff, make the area congest and reducing the space and removal of already grown saplings from the park-cum- forest; Hence granting of permanent injunction would result in failure of justice and it affects to the public at large. So also it affects the environmental condition and creates disturbance and hazardous condition. The defendants have undertaken the developmental work and completed it in the month of January 2012. Thus, the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff was undertaking the development of park/garden and in the IIIrd week of December 2011. But the defendant came to the schedule property and obstructed it, i.e. the defendants virtually started to put up foot path around the schedule property, obstructed the entrance of retained property. When the plan was for two years upto 2005, then how could be the plaintiff do the alleged work without due sanction plan approved by the competent authority i.e. BBMP Bangalore. So the plaintiff shall fail in proving the alleged right to develop the park.
18. At this stage it is relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble High court in the said W.P. whether it has directed the plaintiff holding it his exclusive right to undertake the development of 23 O.S.No.713/2012 park /garden as contended by the plaintiff in that regard in respect of the property allotted to the plaintiff Board. The relevant portion at Ex.P.4 is hereby reproduced:
In these circumstances, it would be inexpedient and inappropriate to grant the larger relief sought for by the petitioner. We are, however, of the view that sufficient greenery and lung space should be provided for the residents of the areas and the wholesale diversion of the land for the purpose other than the park should not be permitted. Taking a pragmatic view of the matter and balancing the considerations of environment and public interest and also taking into account the representations made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the following order is passed:
1. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board should set apart an extent of 2 acres of land for the purpose of development the same in to park/garden. A memo to this effect has been filed today on behalf of the Board.
2. ......................
3. ......................
The park/garden so developed shall be accessible to public. We further direct that the representatives of the three authorities namely, Pollution Control Board, KSRTC and the revenue Department as well as the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and the Forest Department should meet within two months from the date of receipt of this order and explore the possibility of setting apart the aforementioned land in contiguity. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Thus, from the order it is reveled that the writ petition filed by the public i.e. one Ramachandra has been disposed of and directed the concerned departments to have the park, by taking the important aspect and balancing the conditions of environment and public 24 O.S.No.713/2012 interest and representations made by the learned counsel for the respondents in the said petition. It has specifically directed to set apart the specific extent of area for the purpose of developing it into park and garden and it shall be accessible to public. To the representatives of the three authorities namely, Pollution Control Board, KSRTC and the revenue Department as well as the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and the Forest Department, specifically it is directed to meet within two months from the date of receipt of this order and explore the project i.e. park development process. Thus, there is no any specific right pressed upon infavour of the plaintiff to develop the park. But it is also duty casted upon the defendants the direct authorities. It is the joint venture of said five government and statutory authorities. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff, other departments and the defendants to see that the said park in the land specified to be developed as park/garden with the assistance of forest department.
19. Ex.P.1 dated 14.5.2001 the government order bearing No.RD109/2GB92(P), passed by the government to implement the order passed in the said writ petition dated 23.2.2001 by conducting meet (Ex.P.9) on 9.4.2001. Thereby 4 acres of land to be entrusted to the plaintiff for formation of park and the ownership was to be with the government. Thus as per the government order as the 25 O.S.No.713/2012 plaintiff has to undertake the formation of park in 4 acres of land i.e. 2 acres of land out of 4 acres given to the plaintiff-Board and each one acre of land out of granted extent of land to KSRTC and revenue department in view of the government order dated 14.5.2001. But now as on 28.11.2011 after lapse of 10 years the plaintiff came with the grievance by submitting complaint to the Police Commissioner (Ex.P.10) requesting to take legal action against the B.B.M.P. as it has been encroaching upon the land measuring 2 acres, preserved for plaintiff-Board, for formation of park. Thus, it is contended that B.B.M.P. authorities have undertaken to form the park by encroaching upon the area of 2 acres of plaintiff's property preserved for park. After Ex.P.10 this suit was filed. It does not sustain, because it is without supporting materials that development work was carried on by the plaintiff Board.
20. Now what is revealed from the moth of P.W.1 during cross-examination that he is recently working in the plaintiff-Board as Asst. Executive Engineer. He was not aware about the proceedings those were taken place prior to taking his charge in the plaintiff- Board specifically during the year 2011. Thus, he has no personal 26 O.S.No.713/2012 knowledge about the transaction and proceedings pertaining to formation of park measuring 4 acres of land in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said W.P. and the orders passed by the government and the proceedings thereunder, those were taken place in the presence of then the officials of the plaintiff-Board, B.B.M.P., forest department and other concerned government departments. Therefore, his evidence on this count for want of knowledge, is not worth to believe. Apart from this he has pleaded ignorance about the proceedings and the orders passed by the Government of Karnataka during relevant of pint of time between 2001 to 2011. It is not specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that what steps has been taken with due process, in order to implement and to comply the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Apart from this, it is agreed by the plaintiff and other departments in connection with the property preserved for formation of park, that its ownership shall be with the government. The said direction as referred above, (Ex.P.4), it does not state anything that such absolute right to form the park has been created in favour of the plaintiff-Board. Even the plaintiff has not put forth any materials 27 O.S.No.713/2012 with specific pleading that the plaintiff-Board has such a exclusive right to form and develop the park and that the order under Ex.P.4 does not create any such right, but it is the specific order of the government which was passed with due procedure.
21. It is the specific case of the defendant that as the plaintiff Board has not implemented the work entrusted in connection with development of park in the area measuring 4 acres and hence the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have undertaken the work as per entrustment of work by the government i.e. the direction issued to form a forest cum park and it has taken up the development work in the area kept for said purpose in view of the order passed in W.P.NO. 24185/1997 and as per the sanctioned plan and estimation defendant-Corporation has undertaken the work, which was to be completed on 11.2.2012 and that the said work was completed, much prior to filing of the suit i.e. in the month of January, 2012.
22. The plaintiff has to stand on his own case and he cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant. DW.1 has stated about the implementation of the encrusted work, but PW.1 has admitted 28 O.S.No.713/2012 almost the defence taken by the defendant and it is relevant, to consider the same which reads thus:
"JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±Àz° À è ¥ÁPïð ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À DzÉÃ±À EvÀÄÛ ¤d. ¤UÀ¢vÀ ªÉÃ¼ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÆÃrð£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÁPïð ªÀiÁqÀzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀiÁ£ÀåªÀÄAwæU¼À ÀÄ, PÀ«ÄÃµÀ£Àgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¥ÉÇðgÉÃlgï ¸ÀzÀj eÁUÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁPïð ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ gÉ¸® À ÆµÀ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÁPïð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀzÁ ¹zÀÝgÁVzÀÝgÀÆ ©©JA¦ ¥ÁPïð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ©qÀ°®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÁPïð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀ«ÄÃµÀ£Àgï DzÉÃ±À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¢B8_11_2011 gÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÀÆgÀ¯ï E£ï¥üÁæ¸ÀÖPç ÀÑgï qÉª® À ö¥ïªÉÄAmï °«ÄmÉqïögÀªÀjUÉ «Ä¤ ¥üÁgÉ¸ïöÖ, PÁA¥ËAqï ªÁ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁvïªÉÃ gÀÆ.55 ®PÀë ªÉZÀöÑ zÀ°è ¢B10_11_2011 jAzÀ 9_2_2012gÀ M¼ÀUÀqÉ ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ªÀPïð DqÀðgï PÀÆqÁ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
"zÁªÉ ºÁPÀÄªÀ ¢£ÀPÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ ªÀPïð DqÀðgï£ÀAvÉ «Ä¤ ¥üÁgÉ¸ïöÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁvïªÉÃ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆArvÀÄÛ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ PÉÆÃnð£À AiÀÄxÁ¹Üw DzÉÃ±À EzÁÝUÀÆå PÀÆqÁ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ."
"FUÀ®Æ PÀÆqÁ £ÀªÀÄä ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §gÀ®Ä gÉÆÃqï EzÉ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ aPÀÌzÁVzÉ CAzÀgÉ 20 Cr CUÀ®zÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è ºÉ« læPïì §gÀ®Ä DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ 25 Cr CUÀ®zÀ 7J ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7© gÉÆÃqïUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¸ÉÃgÀÄvÀª Û É JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CªÀÅ 25 Cr CUÀ® EzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è DzÀgÉ 7J ªÀiÁvÀæ §AzÀÄ ¸ÉÃgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. F zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀÇªÀð ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è gÉÆÃqï ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉÃ½özÉÃÝ ªÉ."
"FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ «Ä¤ ¥üÁgÉ¸ïÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁvïªÉÃ ¥ÀÇtð DVªÉ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ AiÀÄxÁ¹Üw DzÉÃ±À EzÁÝUÀÆå ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄªÀgÀÄ. FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ «Ä¤ ¥üÁgÉ¸ïöÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁvïªÉÃ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ ¤d. FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ «Ä¤ ¥ÁgÉ¸ïÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÁvïªÉÃ ªÀÆrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É £ÁªÀÅ PÉÃ½zÀAvÉ C°è gÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ¸ÁöªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." 29 O.S.No.713/2012
23. In the complaint submitted to the Commissioner of Police prior to filing of the suit Ex.P.10 and the complaint submitted to the PI of Basaveshwararanagar as per Ex.P.11 the only grievance revealed that the defendants are forming the park in the preserved areas measuring 2 acres. The plaintiff-Board is not claiming the alleged right to develop the park in pursuance of the government order and the directions issued in the W.P., i.e. to the extent of the area measuring 4 acres jointly reserved lands allotted to three departments. It is not the case of the plaintiff-Board that the work undertaken by the defendant is in contravention of the alleged right given to the plaintiff-Board, but under the complaint what is claimed is only the alleged right over 2 acres of land. But in this connection, how the plaintiff-Board has got such exclusive right to form the park only over 2 acres of land etc, is defective and it has also not proved which of the right accrued to it. The government order and the directions issued under Ex.P.4 there is no specification pertaining to the alleged road to be left for the use of concerned persons of plaintiff-Board, as PW.1 has contended that because of installing of gate and formation of the park by the B.B.M.P., it has created hurdle 30 O.S.No.713/2012 to have access to the building constructed in the area preserved for said purpose. No documents are produced by the plaintiff that it has right to develop the park and it was still existing to enforce it, even after laps of date of sanction plan.
24. Therefore, from these documents and the plaint averments, it is clear that no such right has been given to the plaintiff either by the government or under the direction as per Ex.P.4. It seems that the plaintiff has failed to implement the scheme/work entrusted to it as per undertaking to do the said work by the authorized person of plaintiff Board and such work to it to be commenced and complete it as per the proceedings and orders of the government. Therefore the State government has taken steps and entrusted the work to the defendants-B.B.M.P. which is the ultimate and authorized wing of the government, through which the forest cum park has been formed with due process of law. The plaintiff has not at all challenged the action taken and the order passed by the State government before the appropriate forum with due process of law. Without doing so, the plaintiff straight away approached the Civil Court only against the authority who has entrusted with the 31 O.S.No.713/2012 work to implement the scheme, i.e. B.B.M.P. without impleading the necessary parties, who are alleged to be affected the alleged right of the plaintiff. Apart from this, any of the documents referred to by the plaintiff does not confer any exclusive right to develop the park.
25. With reference to the compliance under Sec. 482 of KMC Act learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, there was urgency in the matter, hence the application is filed separately seeking dispensation of notice under section 482(1-A) of KMC Act, stating the cause of action arose in the 3rd week of December 2011, as the defendants and their officials tried to enter the suit schedule property and trying to disturb the work undertaken by the plaintiff. But in view of non production of materials it is held that plaintiff has not proved the alleged right to undertake the development of Park. It has not challenged the subsequent orders and proceedings of the government entrusting the work to BBMP Bangalore, this suit for mere injunction against the defendants do not indicate that there was emergency to get any interim order by dispensing the statutory notice. So the suit filed with out such notice, is held to be noncompliance of the statutory notice and suit is not maintainable. 32 O.S.No.713/2012
26. No doubt the order under Ex.P.4 is prevailing, but it has made it clear how the plaintiff does not get and alleged right against the defendants. It is only direction to implement the scheme to protect the environment and to protect the interest of the public at large to have a healthy environment in the locality by having such Park-cum-forest to be developed on the government land preserved for it. It is within the jurisdiction and purview of the powers of the government. So the plaintiff cannot claim the direction issued to the competent authority of the government to proceed with the same, as of right. It is not enforceable right against the defendants before this civil court. Thus, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the lawful possession over the suit schedule property, since it has claimed the alleged right over the property preserved for developing it as a park. Hence, when the plaintiff has not proved the lawful possession, and alleged right to develop the park/garden, then question of interference of defendants does not arise. However it has not proved the obstruction with cogent evidence. So, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Therefore, Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answer in negative.
33 O.S.No.713/2012
27. Issue No.4:- In view of the above discussion and conclusion arrived at, it is proceeded to pass the following;
O R D E R The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of July 2015) (Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 B.H. Sannappa
List of the documents marked for the plaintiff:
Exs.P.1 & P.2 Government orders dated 22.09.1992 & 10.11.1992.
Ex.P.3 Possession record received from Tahsildar dated
29.10.1993.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.24185/1997,
dated 23.02.2001.
Ex.P.5 Government order dated 14.05.2001.
Ex.P.6 Detail plan.
Ex.P.7 Notice given by Advocate General.
34 O.S.No.713/2012
Ex.P.8 Government order dated 20.05.1971.
Ex.P.9 Decision taken as per the Writ order.
Ex.P.10 Copy of complaint given to Police Commissioner.
Ex.P.11 Copy of complaint given to the Police Inspector,
Basaveshwaranagar Police Station.
Ex.P.12 Endorsement of police.
Exs.P.13 & P.14 Photographs marked through D.W.1. List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 Shanthe Gowda List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Rough sketch. Exs.D.2 to D.13 Photographs. Ex.D.13(a) C.D. Exs.D.14 & D.15 Work orders. (Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru. 35 O.S.No.713/2012 Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separately) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Draw up the decree accordingly. (Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru. 36 O.S.No.713/2012 37 O.S.No.713/2012 38 O.S.No.713/2012


Voting FAQ: The 2019 City of Chicago Municipal Elections
When are the 2019 Chicago elections?
Tuesday, Feb. 26th is Election Day.
What positions are being filled in the 2019 Municipal Elections?
- Mayor of Chicago
- City Clerk
- City Treasurer
- All 50 City Council positions (Aldermen)
How do I vote?
You can vote in person on Election Day, you can vote early at designated polling places, or you can vote by mail.
Do I need to register to vote?
Yes.
How do I register to vote?
Go here to get started or check and see if you are registered. If you are registered already, it will also give you your polling place location and absentee ballot options.
If you’re not already registered, you can register online, via snail-mail, in-person at Early Voting, on Election Day, or at the Secretary of State’s office.
If you are registering in person, you must present two forms of ID, one of which must show your current address. Chicago voters may use any of the dozens of Early Voting locations in the city:
- At the Loop Super Site from Jan. 30 - Feb. 25; and
- At the 50 ward sites from Feb. 11 - Feb. 25.
Can I register to vote on Election Day?
Election Day registration is also available on Feb. 26th, but only at the polling place assigned to your home precinct. (Just to be safe, we recommend registering in advance!)
Where do I vote (how to find your “polling place”)?
Enter your address here, and it will tell you where to vote. Remember, your vote won't count if you vote in the wrong ward. If you've moved since the last election, make sure you update your registration.
What time are the polls open in Chicago on Election Day?
6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Feb. 26th.
Can I vote early?
Yes. There are two windows of in-person early voting starting Jan. 28, described below. Remember: A government-issued photo ID is not required but is helpful if there is a question about your registration, address or signature, or if there are two voters with the same or similar names at the same address.
Registration services are available at every Early Voting site, and any voter who needs to register for the first time, or file an address update or a name change must show two forms of ID, one of which shows the voter's current address.
That ballot you cast in Early Voting is final.
In-person Early Voting, 1st Window: For all registered voters, in-person Early Voting is available Jan. 28 - February 11, at the Loop Super Site, 175 W. Washington. Here’s the schedule:
- Monday, Jan. 28 - Saturday, Feb. 2 — 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
- Sunday, Feb. 3 — 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
- Monday, Feb. 4 - Saturday, Feb. 9 — 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
- Sunday, Feb. 10 — 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
In-person Early Voting, 2nd Window: For all registered voters, in-person Early Voting is available Feb. 11 - Feb. 25, at the Loop Super Site, 175 W. Washington, and at ward sites. Here are the hours of operation and locations:
- Hours of Operation
- Monday, Feb. 11 - Saturday, Feb. 16 — 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
- Sunday, Feb. 17 — 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
- Monday, Feb. 18 - Friday, Feb. 22 — 9 a.m.-7 p.m.
- Saturday, Feb. 23 — 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
- Sunday, Feb. 24 — 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
- Monday, Feb. 25 — 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
- Loop Super Site: 175 W. Washington
- Ward 1: Goldblatt's Building, 1615 W Chicago
- Ward 2: Near North Library, 310 W Division
- Ward 3: Hall Branch Library, 4801 S Michigan
- Ward 4: King Community Ctr., 4314 S Cottage Grove (On Feb 25, this site will remain open through 7 pm.)
- Ward 5: Jackson Park, 6401 S Stony Island
- Ward 6: Dist. 3 Police Station, 7040 S Cottage Grove
- Ward 7: Jeffrey Manor Library, 2401 E 100th St
- Ward 8: Olive Harvey College, 10001 S Woodlawn
- Ward 9: Palmer Park, 201 E 111th St
- Ward 10: Vodak/Eastside Library, 3710 E 106th St
- Ward 11: Dist. 9 Police Station, 3120 S Halsted
- Ward 12: McKinley Park, 2210 W Pershing (On Feb 25, this site will remain open through 7 pm.)
- Ward 13: West Lawn Park, 4233 W 65th St
- Ward 14: Archer Heights Library, 5055 S Archer
- Ward 15: Gage Park, 2411 W 55th St
- Ward 16: Lindbloom Park, 6054 S Damen
- Ward 17: Thurgood Marshall Library, 7506 S Racine
- Ward 18: Wrightwood Ashburn Library, 8530 S Kedzie
- Ward 19: Mount Greenwood Park, 3721 W 111th St (On Feb 25, this site will remain open through 7 pm.)
- Ward 20: Bessie Coleman Library, 731 E 63rd St
- Ward 21: Woodson Library, 9525 S Halsted St
- Ward 22: Toman Library, 2708 S Pulaski
- Ward 23: Clearing Branch Library, 6423 W 63rd Pl
- Ward 24: St. Agatha Parish, 3147 W Douglas Blvd
- Ward 25: Chinatown Library, 2100 S Wentworth
- Ward 26: Humboldt Park Library, 1605 N Troy
- Ward 27: Eckhart Park, 1330 W Chicago
- Ward 28: W. Side Learning Ctr, 4624 W Madison (On Feb 25, this site will remain open through 7 pm.)
- Ward 29: Amundsen Park, 6200 W Bloomingdale
- Ward 30: Kilbourn Park, 3501 N Kilbourn
- Ward 31: Portage Cragin Library, 5108 W Belmont
- Ward 32: Bucktown-Wicker Park Library, 1701 N Milwaukee
- Ward 33: McFetridge Sports Center, 3843 N California
- Ward 34: W. Pullman Library, 830 W 119th
- Ward 35: NEIU El Centro, 3390 N Avondale
- Ward 36: West Belmont Library, 3104 N Narragansett
- Ward 37: West Chicago Ave Library, 4856 W Chicago
- Ward 38: Hiawatha Park, 8029 W Forest Preserve
- Ward 39: North Park Vill. Admin., 5801 N Pulaski
- Ward 40: Budlong Woods Library, 5630 N Lincoln
- Ward 41: Roden Library, 6083 N Northwest Highway (On Feb 25, this site will remain open through 7 pm.)
- Ward 42: Museum of Broadcast Communications, 360 N State
- Ward 43: Lincoln Park Library, 1150 W Fullerton
- Ward 44: John Merlo Library, 644 W Belmont
- Ward 45: Dist. 16 Police Station, 5151 N Milwaukee
- Ward 46: Truman College, 1145 W Wilson
- Ward 47: Welles Park, 2333 W Sunnyside (On Feb 25, this site will remain open through 7 pm.)
- Ward 48: Edgewater Library, 6000 N Broadway
- Ward 49: Pottawattomie Park, 7340 N Rogers
- Ward 50: Warren Park, 6601 N Western
There are also options at universities for Early Voting from Wednesday, Feb. 20 - Friday, Feb 22 — 10 a.m.-5 p.m. at the following locations:
- Chicago State University, 9501 S M L King Dr
- UIC Student Center, 750 S Halsted
- Northeastern Illinois University, 5500 N St Louis
Do I need an ID to vote in the Chicago Municipal Elections?
It depends. You must bring a government-issued photo ID if you've changed your address or are voting for the first time at your polling place
You do NOT need a photo ID if you are voting on Election Day and
have voted from your current address before.
Do I need to bring my voter ID card from the Illinois Board of Elections?
No, but you may need to provide a government-issued photo ID as explained above.
Can I vote by mail?
Yes. Anyone can vote by mail. However, in order to receive a ballot, you will have to submit a Vote By Mail application. Applications can be submitted online or at the offices of the Board of Elections. The deadline for requesting a ballot is 5 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 21. You can find more information at the Chicago elections website.
Can I vote online or via social media?
No. Sorry.
What's a runoff election?
In order to win an elected position in the 2019 Municipal Elections, a candidate must receive a majority, or more than 50 percent of the votes. If no candidate wins on February 26th in a race, the top two candidates in the race will compete in a runoff election on April 2, 2019.
Who should I vote for?
That is, of course, entirely up to you. While the Chi.vote Collective does not endorse candidates for public office, we can recommend tools to help you decide:
- Got questions? You can ask us anything.
- Want to test your readiness? You can take our quiz.
- Coming soon: A comprehensive voter guide to research candidates, races and issues.
What is the schedule for candidate debates and forums?
There are a variety of mayoral forums and debates planned. Many require advanced registration or membership in a hosting club. However, several live mayoral candidate forums are available on television or online.
You can find a full list at Documenters.org, which is produced by Chi.vote Collective partner City Bureau.
How do I get in touch with an election official with the city?
You can call the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Text telephone (TTY):<PHONE_NUMBER>
Voter help-line
(Español):<PHONE_NUMBER>
Voter help-line (Polski):
312.223.0823
What’s the Chi.vote Collective?
The Chi.vote Collective is a new group of nonpartisan media and civic organizations that believe in fostering a safer, more prosperous and more equitable and connected Chicago by creating content and tools of the highest quality and accessibility around city elections. The founding partners of the Collective are the Better Government Association, Block Club Chicago, The Chicago Reporter, The Daily Line and The Triibe.


|
Nana ++ Library An open-source C++ framework project The Nana Programmer's Guide |
||||||||||||
|
nana::gui::menubar Description a menubar widget is a toolbar at the top of window for popuping menus. Model of Widget Window Public base classes class widget_object<widget_tag, DrawerTrigger>: public widget Members
File nana/gui/widgets/menubar.hpp Notes 1. The widget sets the shortkey that the a character behind the first of & in text, for the item. e.g. "File(&F)" or "&File". See also menu. Move to The Nana Programmer's Guide Main Page |
||||||||||||


Reports expressions that overflow during computation.
Usually, this happens by accident and indicates a bug. For example, a wrong type is used or a shift should be done in an opposite direction .
Examples:
float a = 1.0f/0.0f;
long b = 30 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000;
long c = 1000L << 62;


|
Assimp
5.0.1, master @ cd42b955
|
Represents an UTF-8 string, zero byte terminated. More...
Public Member Functions | |
| aiString () AI_NO_EXCEPT | |
| Default constructor, the string is set to have zero length. More... | |
| aiString (const aiString &rOther) | |
| Copy constructor. More... | |
| aiString (const std::string &pString) | |
| Constructor from std::string. More... | |
| void | Append (const char *app) |
| Append a string to the string. More... | |
| const char * | C_Str () const |
| Returns a pointer to the underlying zero-terminated array of characters. More... | |
| void | Clear () |
| Clear the string - reset its length to zero. More... | |
| bool | operator!= (const aiString &other) const |
| Inverse comparison operator. More... | |
| aiString & | operator= (const aiString &rOther) |
| Assignment operator. More... | |
| aiString & | operator= (const char *sz) |
| Assign a const char* to the string. More... | |
| aiString & | operator= (const std::string &pString) |
| Assign a cstd::string to the string. More... | |
| bool | operator== (const aiString &other) const |
| Comparison operator. More... | |
| void | Set (const char *sz) |
| Copy a const char* to the aiString. More... | |
| void | Set (const std::string &pString) |
| Copy a std::string to the aiString. More... | |
Public Attributes | |
| char | data [MAXLEN] |
| String buffer. More... | |
| ai_uint32 | length |
| Binary length of the string excluding the terminal 0. More... | |
Represents an UTF-8 string, zero byte terminated.
The character set of an aiString is explicitly defined to be UTF-8. This Unicode transformation was chosen in the belief that most strings in 3d files are limited to ASCII, thus the character set needed to be strictly ASCII compatible.
Most text file loaders provide proper Unicode input file handling, special unicode characters are correctly transcoded to UTF8 and are kept throughout the libraries' import pipeline.
For most applications, it will be absolutely sufficient to interpret the aiString as ASCII data and work with it as one would work with a plain char*. Windows users in need of proper support for i.e asian characters can use the MultiByteToWideChar(), WideCharToMultiByte() WinAPI functionality to convert the UTF-8 strings to their working character set (i.e. MBCS, WideChar).
We use this representation instead of std::string to be C-compatible. The (binary) length of such a string is limited to MAXLEN characters (including the the terminating zero).
|
inline |
Default constructor, the string is set to have zero length.
|
inline |
Copy constructor.
|
inlineexplicit |
Constructor from std::string.
|
inline |
Append a string to the string.
|
inline |
Returns a pointer to the underlying zero-terminated array of characters.
|
inline |
Clear the string - reset its length to zero.
|
inline |
Inverse comparison operator.
|
inline |
Assign a const char* to the string.
|
inline |
Assign a cstd::string to the string.
|
inline |
Comparison operator.
|
inline |
Copy a const char* to the aiString.
|
inline |
Copy a std::string to the aiString.
| char aiString::data[MAXLEN] |
String buffer.
Size limit is MAXLEN
| ai_uint32 aiString::length |
Binary length of the string excluding the terminal 0.
This is NOT the logical length of strings containing UTF-8 multi-byte sequences! It's the number of bytes from the beginning of the string to its end.


BREReceiptIMAPError
Objective-C
enum BREReceiptIMAPError : NSUInteger {}
Swift
enum BREReceiptIMAPError : UInt, @unchecked Sendable
-
Declaration
Objective-C
BREReceiptIMAPErrorInvalidCredentials = 5
Swift
case invalidCredentials = 5
-
Declaration
Objective-C
BREReceiptIMAPErrorGmailIMAPDisabled = 6
Swift
case gmailIMAPDisabled = 6
-
Declaration
Objective-C
BREReceiptIMAPErrorGmailTwoFactor = 40
Swift
case gmailTwoFactor = 40


UKCloud Limited (“UKC”) and Virtual Infrastructure Group Limited (“VIG”) (together “the Companies”) – in Compulsory Liquidation
On 25 October 2022, the Companies were placed into Liquidation with the Official Receiver appointed as Liquidator and J Robinson and A M Hudson simultaneously appointed as Special Managers to manage the liquidation process on behalf of the Official Receiver.
Further information regarding the Liquidations can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/virtual-infrastructure-group-limited-and-ukcloud-limited-information-for-creditors-and-interested-parties
Contact details:
For any general queries relating to the Liquidations please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For customer related queries please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For supplier related queries please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Big Cloud Enablement Service Scope
About this document
This document describes the Big Cloud Enablement services available for hosting servers and storage.
About Big Cloud Enablement
The Big Cloud Enablement service provides co-location of your own hardware, installed in our data centres, for the purpose of utilising our cloud.
The table below provides an overview of the Big Cloud Enablement services available for hosting infrastructure. If the usage scenario you need isn't shown in the table, contact us to discuss your requirements.
Note
ANY device placed within the UKCloud estate must be done so for the purpose of utilising our cloud services. If you do not plan to use a UKCloud service (such as UKCloud for VMware or Cloud Storage) as part of your design, we can arrange for you to talk to one of our partners about your co-location requirements.
| Use case | You may have complex systems that can't be virtualised (for example, database clusters or legacy applications). You may also have large amounts of storage (for example, private file storage) you want to host with us, so that you can integrate it with our compute offerings. |
| Service type | Co-location of physical infrastructure |
| Security level | Assured OFFICIAL, Elevated OFFICIAL and Tier 2 |
| Hosted device | Physical servers, networking devices or storage appliances |
| Useable U count | 40U |
| Service level (default) | Single data centre, no automatic failover |
| PDU specifications per rack | 2 x 16A single phase PDUs per rack with A and B power supplies Each PDU has 36 x C13 and 6 x C19 sockets |
| Hosted device(s) allowed | Depends on solution. UKCloud will work with the customer to understand the requirement and assess the suitability of the devices that the customer wants to locate within Cloud Enablement. |
| Max power draw per rack | Customer devices within a single 40u rack have a combined average power draw of no more than 4kW. Average power draw will be assessed based vendor material supplied by the customer as part of the engagement with UKCloud prior to installation of devices, and reviewed whenever any additional equipment is added. |
| Networking | Bespoke networking based on customer requirement. Big Cloud Enablement price excludes any networking components. |
| Contiguous racks | Contiguous racks are not guaranteed if not purchased together on a single order. UKCloud can reserve racks for a maximum of 6 months before charging for full use. This is at UKCloud's discretion. |
| Resilience available? | You can provision multiple Big Cloud Enablement services within a single or dual sites, but you'll need to manage any resilience within the hardware. |
| Failover responsibility | Customer |
| Resilience cost | Depends on solution |
| Notes | Devices must be hosted in the same region as your compute environment. We cannot stretch connectivity from local Big Cloud Enablement into other regions (for example, Big Cloud Enablement in region 5 cannot be stretched to region 6). |
| Next steps | Raise a service request via the My Calls section of the UKCloud Portal |
Big Cloud Enablement connectivity
Connectivity within the solution will be bespoke to your requirements. You can bring your own switches and manage them, or you can ask UKCloud to purchase and manage switches on your behalf. Switches purchased by UKCloud will be agreed based on the solution, and port count/speed will be agreed between you and UKCloud.
Connectivity port speed
If UKCloud purchases and manages the switches, the port speed available for your kit can be either 1Gbps (copper or fibre) or 10Gbps (fibre only). Uplinks to your virtual UKCloud environment will be 2 x 10Gbps ports per switch.
If you purchase and manage your own switches, you can define your own port speeds for your own kit. Uplinks to your virtual UKCloud environment will need to be 2 x 10Gbps fibre ports per switch. UKCloud will provide the cables but you will need to supply the SFPs.
Initial setup
Initial setup covers
Provision and handover of secure rack(s) (combination lock)
Provision and handover of PDUs
Escorting you during the physical installation of your hosted devices for up to four days during the standard working week (Monday to Friday, 0900 - 1700)
Initial setup does not cover
Installing your device(s) for you
Configuring your device(s) for you
Networking components to connect device(s) into the UKCloud virtual environment
Complex design services and consultancy regarding your solution
Peripheral consumables such as brackets, cable ties, cage nuts, power cords and intra-rack cabling
Tools for installing your device(s)
Ongoing support and maintenance
Ongoing maintenance and support covers
Physical hosting of your device(s), including power and cooling
Eight scheduled escorted visits (per rack) per year by you for maintenance of your hosted device(s) during the standard working week (Monday to Friday, 0900 - 1700)
Access to the UKCloud Portal, Cloud Support Engineers and a dedicated Service Delivery Manager
Monitoring of data centre environmentals and security
Manual power-on of device(s) in the event of a power failure (see the Power Failure section)
Ongoing maintenance and support does not cover
Maintenance of your device(s) on your behalf
Support and management of your device(s) on your behalf
Out-of-hours escorted access to your device(s)
Unscheduled escorted access to your device(s)
Escorted access for installation and configuration of additional device(s) in your solution (this is a chargeable service, see Additional Maintenance Access)
Unscheduled maintenance access
Due to the secure nature of UKCloud's sites, unscheduled maintenance access may not be granted. You'll need to give at least 24 hours' notice before attending site. Emergency access may be granted at UKCloud's discretion.
Out-of-hours maintenance access
Out-of-hours access will be granted at UKCloud's discretion and is charged as per the SFIA rate card (Level 4 - Enable).
Additional maintenance access
If you require more than eight visits per year for maintenance, these additional escorted visits will be charged as per the SFIA rate card (Level 4 - Enable).
If you need to install and configure additional device(s) within your solution, these escorted visits will be charged as per the SFIA rate card (Level 4 - Enable).
Power failure
If, in the unlikely event of a power failure, you'd like your hardware restarted, you must provide laminated work instructions (totalling no more than a double-sided A4 page), which must be placed within your Big Cloud Enablement rack space.
Decommissioning
If you want to decommission your Big Cloud Enablement service you must provide a minimum of 30 days' notice and are responsible for the removal of your equipment. Visits to remove equipment are counted towards your allocation of maintenance access days and if you need additional days, these additional escorted visits will be charged as per the SFIA rate card (Level 4 - Enable).
Feedback
If you find a problem with this article, click Improve this Doc to make the change yourself or raise an issue in GitHub. If you have an idea for how we could improve any of our services, send an email to feedback@ukcloud.com.


This is an example of an inline button link.
Below is an example of a link style button as a dropdown label: Date Range: Last Month (9/3/17 - 10/3/17)
This might contain a date picker, a list of values, input boxes, etc


Trace Next Frame
Clear
Delete selected OpenGL resources
next traced frame
(Resources with empty data containers
will not be recreated)
Attribute Arrays
Buffer Objects
Framebuffer Objects
Samplers
Shader Input Registries
Shader Programs
Shaders
Textures


After twenty years of good and loyal service,
it's time to find a successor to XML, HTML and JSON,
erase their many flaws and offer new syntactic possibilities...
{ title="GS for JSON" primitives= [ true <#"Hey, we can add comments!"> false <#'or comment fragment ✌'[ 12 null ]> ] }
GS for JSON
JSON can be written in Generic-Syntax.
GS is more optimized and allows new features like comments.
<html lang=en[ <head[ <meta charset=UTF-8> <title"GS for HTML"> ]> <body[ <h1`Title`> <p`Paragraph with <em`inline tag`>.`> <textarea disabled !"A "bounded escape" mechanism allow to never have any character escaped, <cool!>!"> <p ~`The formattable flag <code`~`> explicitly indicates to editors this text can be formatted and indented.`> ]> ]>
GS for HTML and XML
Generic-Syntax is a great replacement for HTML and XML.
GS resolves many flaws of these two ancestors and is more optimized.
GS is generic and simple to parse and serialize in any language (unlike HTML).
<Article identifier='5Pl8d4' { author= "Author name" datePublished= "2020-1-1" image= <imageObject { url= "http://example.com/image.png" height=600 width=800 }> publisher= <Organization { name="Publisher name" logo=<imageObject url='http://example.com/logo.png'> }> }>
GS for object mapping and graph
Neither JSON nor XML are well suited for object mapping.
Generic-syntax combines map properties of JSON and named nodes of XML and offers a new and efficient syntax for specific purpose like serializing typed object graphs.
GS principles
In GS everything is a node:
All node parts are optional, when a node has only a body, it can be simplified:
A body can be a terminal text ""
, a list of nodes []
,
a map of properties {}
, or a mixed content for paragraph and inline tags ``
.
rawCharacters is the limited characters set for names, values and body text usable without delimiters:
const obj = GSON.parse(`{a=1 b="ok"}`); console.log(GSON.stringify(obj)); //minified console.log(GSON.stringify(obj, {serialize:{ method: 'pretty' } })); const domFragment = GSML.parse('xml', `<node att=value>`); console.log(GSML.stringify('xml', domFragment)); //minified console.log(GSML.stringify('xml', domFragment, {serialize:{ method: 'indented', unformat: true, indent: '\t' } }));
GS API
A high level API provides simple parsing and serialization methods.
A low level API based on a logical and a physical event-driven process provides many more options and extendability.
A first implementation is available in Typescript/Javascript for tests. Generic-Syntax is not ready for production.


16. Making Simple Decisions
(Adapted from David Heckerman.) This exercise concerns the Almanac Game, which is used by decision analysts to calibrate numeric estimation. For each of the questions that follow, give your best guess of the answer, that is, a number that you think is as likely to be too high as it is to be too low. Also give your guess at a 25th percentile estimate, that is, a number that you think has a 25% chance of being too high, and a 75% chance of being too low. Do the same for the 75th percentile. (Thus, you should give three estimates in all—low, median, and high—for each question.)
-
Number of passengers who flew between New York and Los Angeles in 1989.
-
Population of Warsaw in 1992.
-
Year in which Coronado discovered the Mississippi River.
-
Number of votes received by Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election.
-
Age of the oldest living tree, as of 2002.
-
Height of the Hoover Dam in feet.
-
Number of eggs produced in Oregon in 1985.
-
Number of Buddhists in the world in 1992.
-
Number of deaths due to AIDS in the United States in 1981.
-
Number of U.S. patents granted in 1901.
The correct answers appear after the last exercise of this chapter. From the point of view of decision analysis, the interesting thing is not how close your median guesses came to the real answers, but rather how often the real answer came within your 25% and 75% bounds. If it was about half the time, then your bounds are accurate. But if you’re like most people, you will be more sure of yourself than you should be, and fewer than half the answers will fall within the bounds. With practice, you can calibrate yourself to give realistic bounds, and thus be more useful in supplying information for decision making. Try this second set of questions and see if there is any improvement:
-
Year of birth of Zsa Zsa Gabor.
-
Maximum distance from Mars to the sun in miles.
-
Value in dollars of exports of wheat from the United States in 1992.
-
Tons handled by the port of Honolulu in 1991.
-
Annual salary in dollars of the governor of California in 1993.
-
Population of San Diego in 1990.
-
Year in which Roger Williams founded Providence, Rhode Island.
-
Height of Mt. Kilimanjaro in feet.
-
Length of the Brooklyn Bridge in feet.
-
Number of deaths due to automobile accidents in the United States in 1992.
Chris considers four used cars before buying the one with maximum expected utility. Pat considers ten cars and does the same. All other things being equal, which one is more likely to have the better car? Which is more likely to be disappointed with their car’s quality? By how much (in terms of standard deviations of expected quality)?
Chris considers five used cars before buying the one with maximum expected utility. Pat considers eleven cars and does the same. All other things being equal, which one is more likely to have the better car? Which is more likely to be disappointed with their car’s quality? By how much (in terms of standard deviations of expected quality)?
Exercise 16.4 [St-Petersburg-exercise]
In 1713, Nicolas Bernoulli stated a puzzle, now called the St. Petersburg paradox, which works as follows. You have the opportunity to play a game in which a fair coin is tossed repeatedly until it comes up heads. If the first heads appears on the $n$th toss, you win $2^n$ dollars.
-
Show that the expected monetary value of this game is infinite.
-
How much would you, personally, pay to play the game?
-
Nicolas’s cousin Daniel Bernoulli resolved the apparent paradox in 1738 by suggesting that the utility of money is measured on a logarithmic scale (i.e., $U(S_{n}) = a\log_2 n +b$, where $S_n$ is the state of having $n$). What is the expected utility of the game under this assumption?
-
What is the maximum amount that it would be rational to pay to play the game, assuming that one’s initial wealth is $k$?
Write a computer program to automate the process in Exercise assessment-exercise. Try your program out on several people of different net worth and political outlook. Comment on the consistency of your results, both for an individual and across individuals.
Exercise 16.6 [surprise-candy-exercise]
The Surprise Candy Company makes candy in two flavors: 75% are strawberry flavor and 25% are anchovy flavor. Each new piece of candy starts out with a round shape; as it moves along the production line, a machine randomly selects a certain percentage to be trimmed into a square; then, each piece is wrapped in a wrapper whose color is chosen randomly to be red or brown. 70% of the strawberry candies are round and 70% have a red wrapper, while 90% of the anchovy candies are square and 90% have a brown wrapper. All candies are sold individually in sealed, identical, black boxes.
Now you, the customer, have just bought a Surprise candy at the store but have not yet opened the box. Consider the three Bayes nets in Figure 3candy-figure.
-
Which network(s) can correctly represent ${\textbf{P}}(Flavor,Wrapper,Shape)$?
-
Which network is the best representation for this problem?
-
Does network (i) assert that ${\textbf{P}}(Wrapper|Shape){\textbf{P}}(Wrapper)$?
-
What is the probability that your candy has a red wrapper?
-
In the box is a round candy with a red wrapper. What is the probability that its flavor is strawberry?
-
A unwrapped strawberry candy is worth $s$ on the open market and an unwrapped anchovy candy is worth $a$. Write an expression for the value of an unopened candy box.
-
A new law prohibits trading of unwrapped candies, but it is still legal to trade wrapped candies (out of the box). Is an unopened candy box now worth more than less than, or the same as before?
Exercise 16.7 [surprise-candy-exercise]
The Surprise Candy Company makes candy in two flavors: 70% are strawberry flavor and 30% are anchovy flavor. Each new piece of candy starts out with a round shape; as it moves along the production line, a machine randomly selects a certain percentage to be trimmed into a square; then, each piece is wrapped in a wrapper whose color is chosen randomly to be red or brown. 80% of the strawberry candies are round and 80% have a red wrapper, while 90% of the anchovy candies are square and 90% have a brown wrapper. All candies are sold individually in sealed, identical, black boxes.
Now you, the customer, have just bought a Surprise candy at the store but have not yet opened the box. Consider the three Bayes nets in Figure 3candy-figure.
-
Which network(s) can correctly represent ${\textbf{P}}(Flavor,Wrapper,Shape)$?
-
Which network is the best representation for this problem?
-
Does network (i) assert that ${\textbf{P}}(Wrapper|Shape){\textbf{P}}(Wrapper)$?
-
What is the probability that your candy has a red wrapper?
-
In the box is a round candy with a red wrapper. What is the probability that its flavor is strawberry?
-
A unwrapped strawberry candy is worth $s$ on the open market and an unwrapped anchovy candy is worth $a$. Write an expression for the value of an unopened candy box.
-
A new law prohibits trading of unwrapped candies, but it is still legal to trade wrapped candies (out of the box). Is an unopened candy box now worth more than less than, or the same as before?
Prove that the judgments $B \succ A$ and $C \succ D$ in the Allais paradox (page allais-page) violate the axiom of substitutability.
Consider the Allais paradox described on page allais-page: an agent who prefers $B$ over $A$ (taking the sure thing), and $C$ over $D$ (taking the higher EMV) is not acting rationally, according to utility theory. Do you think this indicates a problem for the agent, a problem for the theory, or no problem at all? Explain.
Tickets to a lottery cost 1. There are two possible prizes: a 10 payoff with probability 1/50, and a 1,000,000 payoff with probability 1/2,000,000. What is the expected monetary value of a lottery ticket? When (if ever) is it rational to buy a ticket? Be precise—show an equation involving utilities. You may assume current wealth of $k$ and that $U(S_k)=0$. You may also assume that $U(S_{k+{10}}) = {10}\times U(S_{k+1})$, but you may not make any assumptions about $U(S_{k+1,{000},{000}})$. Sociological studies show that people with lower income buy a disproportionate number of lottery tickets. Do you think this is because they are worse decision makers or because they have a different utility function? Consider the value of contemplating the possibility of winning the lottery versus the value of contemplating becoming an action hero while watching an adventure movie.
Exercise 16.11 [assessment-exercise]
Assess your own utility for different incremental amounts of money by running a series of preference tests between some definite amount $M_1$ and a lottery $[p,M_2; (1-p), 0]$. Choose different values of $M_1$ and $M_2$, and vary $p$ until you are indifferent between the two choices. Plot the resulting utility function.
How much is a micromort worth to you? Devise a protocol to determine this. Ask questions based both on paying to avoid risk and being paid to accept risk.
Exercise 16.13 [kmax-exercise]
Let continuous variables $X_1,\ldots,X_k$ be independently distributed according to the same probability density function $f(x)$. Prove that the density function for $\max{X_1,\ldots,X_k}$ is given by $kf(x)(F(x))^{k-1}$, where $F$ is the cumulative distribution for $f$.
Economists often make use of an exponential utility function for money: $U(x) = -e^{-x/R}$, where $R$ is a positive constant representing an individual’s risk tolerance. Risk tolerance reflects how likely an individual is to accept a lottery with a particular expected monetary value (EMV) versus some certain payoff. As $R$ (which is measured in the same units as $x$) becomes larger, the individual becomes less risk-averse.
-
Assume Mary has an exponential utility function with . Mary is given the choice between receiving with certainty (probability 1) or participating in a lottery which has a 60% probability of winning $5000 and a 40% probability of winning nothing. Assuming Marry acts rationally, which option would she choose? Show how you derived your answer.
-
Consider the choice between receiving with certainty (probability 1) or participating in a lottery which has a 50% probability of winning and a 50% probability of winning nothing. Approximate the value of R (to 3 significant digits) in an exponential utility function that would cause an individual to be indifferent to these two alternatives. (You might find it helpful to write a short program to help you solve this problem.)
Economists often make use of an exponential utility function for money: $U(x) = -e^{-x/R}$, where $R$ is a positive constant representing an individual’s risk tolerance. Risk tolerance reflects how likely an individual is to accept a lottery with a particular expected monetary value (EMV) versus some certain payoff. As $R$ (which is measured in the same units as $x$) becomes larger, the individual becomes less risk-averse.
-
Assume Mary has an exponential utility function with $R = $400$. Mary is given the choice between receiving with certainty (probability 1) or participating in a lottery which has a 60% probability of winning $5000 and a 40% probability of winning nothing. Assuming Marry acts rationally, which option would she choose? Show how you derived your answer.
-
Consider the choice between receiving with certainty (probability 1) or participating in a lottery which has a 50% probability of winning $500 and a 50% probability of winning nothing. Approximate the value of R (to 3 significant digits) in an exponential utility function that would cause an individual to be indifferent to these two alternatives. (You might find it helpful to write a short program to help you solve this problem.)
Alex is given the choice between two games. In Game 1, a fair coin is flipped and if it comes up heads, Alex receives . If the coin comes up tails, Alex receives nothing. In Game 2, a fair coin is flipped twice. Each time the coin comes up heads, Alex receives , and Alex receives nothing for each coin flip that comes up tails. Assuming that Alex has a monotonically increasing utility function for money in the range [$0, $100], show mathematically that if Alex prefers Game 2 to Game 1, then Alex is risk averse (at least with respect to this range of monetary amounts).
Show that if $X_1$ and $X_2$ are preferentially independent of $X_3$, and $X_2$ and $X_3$ are preferentially independent of $X_1$, then $X_3$ and $X_1$ are preferentially independent of $X_2$.
Exercise 16.17 [airport-au-id-exercise]
Repeat Exercise airport-id-exercise, using the action-utility representation shown in Figure airport-au-id-figure.
For either of the airport-siting diagrams from Exercises [airport-id-exercise] and [airport-au-id-exercise], to which conditional probability table entry is the utility most sensitive, given the available evidence?
Modify and extend the Bayesian network code in the code repository to provide for creation and evaluation of decision networks and the calculation of information value.
Consider a student who has the choice to buy or not buy a textbook for a course. We’ll model this as a decision problem with one Boolean decision node, $B$, indicating whether the agent chooses to buy the book, and two Boolean chance nodes, $M$, indicating whether the student has mastered the material in the book, and $P$, indicating whether the student passes the course. Of course, there is also a utility node, $U$. A certain student, Sam, has an additive utility function: 0 for not buying the book and -$100 for buying it; and $2000 for passing the course and 0 for not passing. Sam’s conditional probability estimates are as follows:
You might think that $P$ would be independent of $B$ given $M$, But this course has an open-book final—so having the book helps.
-
Draw the decision network for this problem.
-
Compute the expected utility of buying the book and of not buying it.
-
What should Sam do?
Exercise 16.21 [airport-id-exercise]
This exercise completes the analysis of the airport-siting problem in Figure airport-id-figure.
-
Provide reasonable variable domains, probabilities, and utilities for the network, assuming that there are three possible sites.
-
Solve the decision problem.
-
What happens if changes in technology mean that each aircraft generates half the noise?
-
What if noise avoidance becomes three times more important?
-
Calculate the VPI for ${AirTraffic}$, ${Litigation}$, and ${Construction}$ in your model.
Exercise 16.22 [car-vpi-exercise]
(Adapted from Pearl [@Pearl:1988].) A used-car buyer can decide to carry out various tests with various costs (e.g., kick the tires, take the car to a qualified mechanic) and then, depending on the outcome of the tests, decide which car to buy. We will assume that the buyer is deciding whether to buy car $c_1$, that there is time to carry out at most one test, and that $t_1$ is the test of $c_1$ and costs $50.
A car can be in good shape (quality ) or bad shape (quality $q^-$), and the tests might help indicate what shape the car is in. Car $c_1$ costs $1,500, and its market value is if it is in good shape; if not, in repairs will be needed to make it in good shape. The buyer’s estimate is that $c_1$ has a 70% chance of being in good shape.
-
Draw the decision network that represents this problem.
-
Calculate the expected net gain from buying $c_1$, given no test.
-
Tests can be described by the probability that the car will pass or fail the test given that the car is in good or bad shape. We have the following information:
Use Bayes’ theorem to calculate the probability that the car will pass (or fail) its test and hence the probability that it is in good (or bad) shape given each possible test outcome.
-
Calculate the optimal decisions given either a pass or a fail, and their expected utilities.
-
Calculate the value of information of the test, and derive an optimal conditional plan for the buyer.
Exercise 16.23 [nonnegative-VPI-exercise]
Recall the definition of value of information in Section VPI-section.
-
Prove that the value of information is nonnegative and order independent.
-
Explain why it is that some people would prefer not to get some information—for example, not wanting to know the sex of their baby when an ultrasound is done.
-
A function $f$ on sets is submodular if, for any element $x$ and any sets $A$ and $B$ such that $A\subseteq B$, adding $x$ to $A$ gives a greater increase in $f$ than adding $x$ to $B$: Submodularity captures the intuitive notion of diminishing returns. Is the value of information, viewed as a function $f$ on sets of possible observations, submodular? Prove this or find a counterexample.
The answers to Exercise almanac-game (where M stands for million): First set: 3M, 1.6M, 1541, 41M, 4768, 221, 649M, 295M, 132, 25,546. Second set: 1917, 155M, 4,500M, 11M, 120,000, 1.1M, 1636, 19,340, 1,595, 41,710.


| DOSE: T+ 0:00 |
|
oral |
Alcohol |
|
| T+ 1:00 |
|
oral |
2C-I |
(powder / crystals) |
| T+ 2:00 |
repeated |
smoked |
Cannabis |
|
WTF just happened?
Iím an experienced user and have done pretty much everything except acid, only because I canít find it where I live.
 I was in the process of planning a big day with my friends in the next day or so. I was heeding the warnings about how strong this stuff could be and to be careful. My friends and I were going to use the liquid measuring technique and figure out all the proper dosing as responsibly as we could. I was getting a little frustrated because I had no idea what to expect. Everyone kept asking me what it is like and I could only tell them itís supposed to be like MDMA and LSD, or so I heard.
A couple of days ago after I got the 2C-I in the mail, a friend and I were investigating it. We opened the bottle and put a very small amount on the table to see what it looked like. We then brushed it off the table back into the bottle. My friend used his finger to collect all the white dust left on the table (barely enough to see, like chalkboard dust) and then proceeded to wipe it on his gums. I was amazed to hear the next day he experienced very mild affects which he couldnít describe from doing that. Hardly anything to brag about, but it was incredible he got something he could register from the amount he did.
12:00AM: Iím at my townhouse drinking with my roommates. I donít have a scale or any way to measure the 2C-I accurately so I have to wait. I figure what could hurt if I just took a little of the powder? Just to test it, see what I get. I put a small amount on the tip of my pinky and lick it off.
1:00AM: Iím pretty drunk by now and Iím starting to feel the 2C-I kick in. My heart is beating faster and Iím experiencing feelings reminiscent of ecstasy. It is rather similar to the wave that begins to increase in strength that you feel when your roll is approaching.
2:00AM: Very messed up. It only took an hour to start, and by this time I canít believe that Iím this messed up off of the incredibly small amount I took. Iím not incoherent, and can function without problem. I just canít believe how strong the 2C-I is. Iím starting to smoke cannabis every now and then to see if it canít calm my system down a little.
3:00AM: I had been trying to figure out what I was experiencing. By now Iím feeling very tired like I want to go to bed. My skin is ďflushedĒ like it gets with ecstasy, but not to the point of a heightened feeling of touch. Colors seemed to appear more vibrant, and I was having trouble with perception of distance. My wall looked like it was a lot closer than it was. No tripping, no dancing lights, no pink elephants. The only thing I could really notice was the flushed feeling.
4:00AM: Iím starting to come down and not exactly satisfied with the experience. I wonder if the alcohol had anything to do with it. I wish I had had more of a trip. Iím happy that it did something, and that Iím not dead. At least I know I wasnít shipped baking powder. I think maybe my environment wasnít stimulating or I might not have done enough. Then again I have no idea how much I really did. Iíll have to try it again with my friends this weekend and use the liquid measuring technique.
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.


Wanted
Pissing Devil
For Reckless, Inhuman Crimes:
Pissing on a president's shoes
Biting a kitty
Eating my sandwich
Damaging my psychology
Reward: 500 sausages
Known Accomplices
FLower
Ozzy
Katik
Capture Alive Only


My heroin use can best be described in a poem I wrote about it about the time I got off it. I was never really horribly addicted, it never really got to the point where people could tell.  I started because my girlfriend at the time was into the stuff, she shared with me and I loved it. Wanting to please her, and be different (just like millions of other heroin addicts out there), I nearly destroyed my life.
Every time I shoot the stuff up, I stop caring about anything at all. I feel so warm and safe, that I never want to leave that place. It is almost what you could call heaven.  This is a drug that is a favorite, I believe, for those of us that have lived horribly traumatic lives. This seems to be an anti-depressant that works. Unfortunately, it is an anti-depressant that makes everything worse. After a while a milligram or two isn't enough, you have to go to three or four milligrams, then maybe even up to twenty. That gets horribly expensive, and so you must buy more to get high, or more accuratly, to escape the world. I think this drug also alters mood incredibly, as I noticed that my girlfriend seemed to become two different people, one evil, the other sweet and kind.  After a while, I begin to live on the street with my girl, we stayed at somebody's house, and we robbed them, for our habit.
Luckily, I realized where this was leading me, and I somehow got out. I tried to get my girlfriend to quit, but in the end, I had to leave her.  Probobly driving more people to drugs. I dunno. Read the poem, its called...
Giving In
Hatred consumes my soul
This cloud of emptyness you drag me through
Everything is lost because of you
You have taken everything away
You have destroyed me
I will never live again
I will never be free
Hold onto this pre-mortal coil
And shed away your tears
Break free from this sweet gravity
And fall into my fears
Be ever consumed within my darkness
Be blinded by my light
Hate everything about me
And I will make it all right
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.


MobRevTeam Dashboard
Message Scheduler
Kill Switch
Placement Analysis
Auto Optimizer
(current)
Email Optin
Select Campaign to Configure Rules for:
Campaign ID:
Choose a campaign...
{% for name in campaign_names %}
{{ name }}
{% endfor %}
If Placement:
Visits/Spend:
Visits
Spend
IS:
Greater Than
Less Than
Amount:
AND:
CV %
Conversions
CTR %
eCPA
IS:
Greater Than
Less Than
Amount:
Then Pause
Add New Rule
Existing Rules:
Delete
Edit Rule
×
Edit
ID
X Metric
X GTLT
X Amount
Y Metric
Y GTLT
Y Amount
{% for rule in campaign_rules %}
{{ rule.id }}
Visits
Spend
GT
LT
CV %
Conversions
CTR %
eCPA
GT
LT
Inactive
Edit Rule
Delete Rule
{% endfor %}


Use ARROW keys to control the movement of the snake.
Press ESCAPE key to end the game.
Press F11 or ctrl+cmd+f key enjoy the game in fullscreen .
& Died :(
Do you want to play again ?