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.
Appeal No.105 of 2011 Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Appellate Jurisdiction) APPEAL No.105 of 2011 Dated:21st January, 2013 Present : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON HON'BLE MR. RAKESH NATH, TECHNICAL MEMBER In the Matter of: M/s. JSW Energy Limited Jindal Mansion, 5-1, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 026 ...Appellant Versus 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Prakashgad, 5th Floor, Bandra(East) Mumbai-400 051. 2. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission World Trade Centre No.1, 13th Floor Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400 001 .....Respondent(s) Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. M G Ramachandran Mr. Anand K Ganesan Ms. Sneha Venkataramani Page 1 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 Counsel for the Respondent(s):Ms. Deepa Chawan Mr. Abhishek Mitra for R.1 Mr. Buddy A Ranganadhan for R.2 Mr. Varun Pathak Mr. Amarjeet Singh J U D G M E NT PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, CHAIRPERSON 1. JSW Energy Limited is the Appellant herein. 2. The Appellant filed a petition before the Maharashtra Commission claiming the cost of installation of Flue Gas De-sulphurisation (FGD) system to be included in the Project Cost as per Power Purchase Agreement dated 23.2.2008. However, the said claim was rejected by the State Commission through the order dated 25.5.2011. 3. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 4. The short facts are as follows:- i) The Appellant is a generating company. Page 2 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 ii) The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) is the Distribution Licensee, the 1st Respondent. iii) The Maharashtra State Regulatory Commission is the 2nd Respondent. iv) The Appellant envisaged to set up a generating Station at Ratnagiri after identifying the land required and obtaining the requisite permissions and approvals. v) The Appellant applied for Environmental clearance for the power project from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. vi) Accordingly, the Ministry, Government of India granted the Environmental clearance to the Appellant on 17.5.2007. In the said approval, the Government of India had imposed various conditions subject to which the Environmental clearance was granted. vii) The clearance stipulated that adequate space shall be provided by the Appellant for installation of the Flue Gas De- sulphurisation(FGD) system for removal of Page 3 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 sulphur di-oxide, if required at later stage. Accordingly, the adequate space was provided for the installation of the FGD system. viii) In the year 2007, the Distribution Licensee (R-1) initiated competitive bidding process for procurement of electricity in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India under section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003. From 21.2.2008 onwards, the Appellant and others submitted the bids for the sale of electricity to the Distribution Licensee on the terms and conditions of the bidding documents. After observing the required procedures, the Appellant was selected as a successful bidder. Thereafter, on the basis of selection of the Appellant as the successful bidder to supply 300 MW of electricity to the Distribution Licensee(R-1) both the parties have entered into the Power Purchase Agreement on 23.2.2008. The bid documents and the Power Purchase Agreement provided that in case of change in law after 7 days prior to the bid deadline, i.e. 14.2.2008, any financial impact on account of Page 4 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 such change in law needed to be compensated. ix) The Ministry of Environment and Forest sent a letter, at the final stage of commissioning the Project on 16.4.2010 imposing a condition that FGD system shall be installed before the commissioning of the Project. The Appellant sent a reply to the Ministry on 22.4.2010 for cancellation of such imposition of condition mainly on the ground that the requirement of the FGD was not established yet and that the commissioning of the Project would get delayed further on account of condition now imposed for installing FGD prior to commissioning of the Project. On the basis of the representation made by the Appellant, the Ministry by the letter dated 28.6.2010 required the Appellant to install the FGD within a period of 23 months and conveyed its Environmental clearance for the Project subject to the compliance of the safeguards and conditions mentioned in the said letter. Page 5 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 x) In pursuance of the said letter sent by the Government, the Appellant incurred expenditure for installation of FGD. Thereupon, the Appellant sent a letter to the Distribution Licensee(R-1) on 27.7.2010 intimating that the mandate had been imposed by the Government of India dated 16.4.2010 and as such there was a change in law as per clause 13 of Power Purchase Agreement and accordingly, the Company incurred expenditure for installation of FGD which claimed to be included in the cost. In reply to the said letter, the Distribution Licensee(R1) sent a letter dated 11.8.2010 rejecting the claim of the Appellant contending that it was the obligation of the Appellant to maintain all required consents for the Power Project and as such there was no change in law in terms of clause 13 of Power Purchase Agreement. xi) On receipt of the refusal of this claim, the Appellant issued notice to the Distribution Licensee on 20.8.2010 for resolution of the dispute arose between the parties. The Appellant further stated in the letter that notwithstanding the disputes that have arisen Page 6 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 between the parties, the Appellant will continue to perform its obligations by supplying power under the Power Purchase Agreement without prejudice to its claim. xii) Thereupon, the meeting was held between the parties. It was decided in the meeting that the parties shall proceed for resolution of the dispute by way of adjudication by the State Commission. xiii) In pursuance of the said decision, the Appellant filed a petition in petition No.99 of 2010 on 14.12.2010 before the State Commission for adjudication of dispute that has arisen between parties regarding the application of Clause 13 of the Power Purchase Agreement on account of imposition of the condition of installation of FGD by the Appellant. xiv) The State Commission after hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 25.5.2011 dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant and rejected its claim on the ground that even under the initial Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007, it was mandated for the installation Page 7 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 of the FGD and that the cost thereof ought to have been included in the total cost. xv) Having aggrieved over this order, the Appellant has filed this Appeal. 5. Assailing the order impugned, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has made the following submissions:- i) The State Commission held in the impugned order that there was no change in law in terms of clause 13 of Power Purchase Agreement entered into between the Appellant and Distribution Licensee (R-1) since the condition of installation of FGD imposed by the Government of India by the communication dated 16.4.2010 had already been imposed in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007. This finding is wrong because there was no statutory direction in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 mandating the installation of the FGD and this mandate was issued only on 16.4.2010 and as such it squarely falls within the definition of "Change in Law" as per the PPA. Page 8 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 ii) The stipulation regarding FGD in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 was that the installation be done, only if required, in future. Thus, the installation of FGD as on the cut off date was not a mandate or certainty. This means that the installation of FGD may not be necessary at all at this stage. Therefore, there was no reason for the Appellant to consider at that stage that the cost of FGD should be included in the Project Cost. iii) The State Commission held that there was an obligation on the part of the Appellant for maintaining a separate fund for implementation of the Environmental protection measures in the form of FGD to include FGD cost in the Project Cost. This finding is wrong. At the time when the bid was submitted and when the Power Purchase Agreement was signed, the cost of FGD did not form part of the Environmental protection measures as it was not directed to be incurred by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, as per the Environmental clearance. Page 9 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 iv) The initial Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 did not mandate the installation of FGD by the Appellant at its Power Station. The only condition as applicable then was the sufficient space needed to be provided by the Appellant, and the installation of FGD if required at the time in future. Therefore, the cost to be considered by the Appellant at such a point of time was only for the space to be kept aside. There was no mandate for the installation of the FGD at that time. Under those circumstances, the State Commission can not hold that the Appellant was under an obligation to install the FGD and its cost was to be included in the Project cost at that stage itself. v) The Appellant at the time of submission of the bids had disclosed all the relevant events with regard to its activities. Further, the Appellant has acted in terms of PPA. In any event, there was no order in the pending litigation affecting in any manner, the implementation of the Project and as such it did not in any manner affect the claim of the Appellant. As such, the non disclosure of the Page 10 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 pending litigation is irrelevant to the issue in question. 6. On these grounds, the Appellant seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 25.5.2011 and to hold that the imposing the mandate of installation of FGD amounts to 'change in law' under clause 13 of the PPA and consequently the Distribution Licensee is liable to pay compensation to the Appellant for the adverse financial impact for installation of FGD on account of "Change in Law. 7. In reply to the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-1, the Distribution Licensee has made the following submissions:- i) The Appellant is totally wrong in contending that the requirement in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 was required to be carried out only in future and therefore, the mandate that the FGD must be installed issued by the Government would amount to change in law. Careful perusal of the Environmental Clearance would show that the argument advanced by the Appellant has no basis. As a matter of fact, the Environmental Clearance puts the conditions Page 11 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 that a detailed study with reference to the impact of the Project was to be undertaken and additional safeguards should be provided by identifying the separate space for the installation of FGD and not only that, it required that separate funds should be allocated for such measures which were to be included in the Project cost. Therefore, nothing prevented the Appellant from implementing these measures and claiming the same in the Project cost even at the first instance. ii) In terms of the conditions in the Environmental Clearance, the Appellant was under bounden duty to include the FGD cost in the Project cost which the Appellant had failed to do. The Environmental clearance would specifically mandate that the space provision shall be made for installation of FGD, if required, at a later stage and it further mandated that separate allocation of funds for the Environmental protection measures must be made and that the same must be included in the Project cost. Admittedly, the funds were not allocated at that time even though it was Page 12 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 mandated that the funds were to be allocated at that stage itself, which shall be included in the Project cost. Therefore, it can not be contended that there was a change in law. iii) RFQ and RFP and draft PPA were circulated to the bidders in October 2007 itself. As per the bid documents, the Appellant had to disclose at the bid stage itself, the litigation pending against it but actually there was litigation pending at that stage as against the Appellant both before the Appellate Forum and the High Court. However, this was not disclosed. As a result of the non-disclosure of the pending litigation by the Appellant, the Distribution Licensee was unable to consider the possible effects of the pending litigation and in good faith it considered the bid of the Appellant on the merits of the particulars disclosed by the Appellant. The factum of the non-disclosure by the Appellant of the pendency of the legal litigation related to the Environmental clearance is fatal to the claim of the Appellant. Page 13 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 iv) In the event the Appellant had disclosed to the Distribution Licensee, the pending litigation in respect of Environmental clearance, the Distribution Licensee would not have considered the bid of the Appellant or in the alternative the Distribution Licensee would have included adequate conditions in the PPA itself regarding the possible outcome of the pending litigation. In that event, the Distribution licensee could have analysed the impact of the adverse order on the tariff proposed by the Appellant and would have made provisions accordingly. As a result of the non- disclosure, the Distribution Licensee was prevented to consider the actual outcome of the pending litigation. On the other hand, the Appellant misled the Distribution Licensee to consider the bid of the Appellant on the merits of the limited particulars disclosed by the Appellant in the submissions for the bid. Therefore, the Appellant is estopped from contending that there was a change in law as provided in the PPA and also from claiming the benefits of the said provision. Page 14 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 8. In the light of the rival contentions, the following questions would arise for consideration:- a) Whether there was any change in law in accordance with the clause 13 read with other clauses of the Power Purchase Agreement in its entirety in the good faith and circumstances of the case? b) Whether in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 or at any time prior to the bid deadline namely 14.2.2008, was there any mandate requiring the installation of FGD by the Appellant and allocation of funds as part of the Project cost for the installation of FGD? c) Whether non-disclosure of pending litigation by the Appellant at the time of submission of bid documents would be fatal to the claim of the Appellant on the strength of subsequent notification issued by the Ministry dated 16.4.2010? 9. Before dealing with these questions, it would be better to refer to the relevant chronological events Page 15 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 which would disclose the actual background of the case, which are given below:- i) The Ministry of Power, Government of India notified tariff based competitive bidding guidelines for Distribution Licensees to ensure procurement of power in transparent and competitive manner. These guidelines were issued on 19.01.2005. Thereupon, on 14.9.2006, the Central Government issued notification relating to requirement of prior Environmental clearance. On the basis of this notification, the Ministry of Environment and Forest issued a circular in terms of the notification dated 14.9.2006 inviting applications from the applicants who are interested in putting up thermal power plants to grant prior Environmental clearance. ii) The Appellant, seeking for the prior Environmental clearance, sent a proposal to the Ministry on 06.11.2006. On receipt of several applications, the expert appraisal committee was constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Page 16 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 iii) Ultimately on 17.5.2007, the Ministry of Environment and Forest issued Environmental clearance to the Appellant for the Power Project, subject to the implementation of the various terms and conditions. iv) There were several conditions provided in the Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007. We shall quote the relevant conditions contained in the Environmental clearance which are given below:- (iii) Space provision shall be made for installation of FGD of requisite efficiency of removal of SO2, if required at later stage. (xx) Separate funds should be allocated for implementation of Environmental protection measures along with item wise break up. These cost should be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the environment protection measures should not be diverted for other purposes and year wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry. Page 17 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 v) Through these conditions, the Appellant had been communicated that the Appellant may be required to install FGD of required capacity at a later stage and called upon the Appellant to provide the space for installation of FGD of requisite efficiency as well as to allocate funds for implementation of those Environmental protection measures and the cost should be included as part of the Project cost. It also provided that the Appellant should not divert the said funds for any other purpose. vi) As against the Environmental clearance issued in favour of the Appellant, one other party claiming himself aggrieved, filed an Appeal before the National Environment Appellate authority challenging the said Environmental Clearance on 27.7.2007. The same was pending. vii) At that stage, in October, 2007, the Distribution Licensee (MSEDCL) initiated competitive bidding process for procurement of power. With reference to this, 14.2.2008 was decided as the cut-off-date for application for change in law being 7 days prior to the bidding Page 18 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 deadline. As on the cut-off-date, the prior Environmental clearance received by the Appellant stipulated that the cost relating to the implementation of the Environmental protection measures should be included as part of the Project cost. On 21.02.2008, the Appellant had submitted the bid for supply of 300 MW of power, in terms of the competitive bidding process initiated by the Distribution Licensee. In March, 2008 bidding evaluation was completed. At the end of technical evaluation; 10 bidders including the Appellant were selected. All technical bids were opened on 20.8.2008. At that stage on 12.9.2008, the Appeal filed against the Environmental clearance was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. viii) As against this order passed on the Appeal, a writ petition was filed by the aggrieved party before the High Court, New Delhi on 18.9.2009. The High Court while disposing the writ petition directed the Expert Appraisal Committee to re-examine the issue and to file the report and that the issue of provision of FGD be decided. On 11.01.2010 Page 19 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 Expert Appraisal Committee conducted a meeting. There also, it was decided regarding the requirement of installing FGD at a later stage. ix) Since the Appellant became the successful bidder, Power Purchase Agreement was entered into between the Distribution Licensee, Respondent-1 and the Appellant for supply of 300 MW to the Distribution Licensee on 23.02.2010. Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment and Forest sent a letter to the Appellant on 16.4.2010 directing the Appellant that the FGD system shall be installed before commissioning the Project. x) Though the Appellant sent a request through a letter dated 22.4.2010 praying for withdrawal of the condition of establishing FGD before commissioning the plant, the Ministry refused to withdraw the said direction but directed the Appellant to install FGD within a period of 23 months. xi) Only thereafter, the Appellant gave all these details to the Distribution Licensee through its letter dated 11.8.2010 about the Page 20 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 pendency of the litigation, the committee's report and the letter sent to the Ministry of Environment and Forest and claimed the financial benefits due to "Change in Law". However, on 11.8.2010, the Distribution Licensee rejected the claim of the Appellant. xii) On this basis, the Appellant raised the dispute for resolution. The meeting was held between the parties to explore the possibility of amicable settlement as contemplated in the Power Purchase Agreement but the same did not get materialised. xiii) Therefore, the Appellant filed Petition No.99 of 2010 before the State Commission on 14.12.2010. The Appellant has prayed the State Commission in the petition to adjudicate upon the dispute between the Appellant and Distribution Licensee or in the alternative refer the dispute to adjudication through arbitration. xiv) The State Commission after hearing the parties, by the order dated 25.5.2011 rejected the petition filed by the Appellant on the ground that the initial Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 itself mandated the Page 21 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 installation of the FGD and cost incurred for the said installation ought to have been included in the total cost by the Appellant and as such the same is not a "Change in law". xv) Aggrieved by this order, this Appeal has been filed by the Appellant mainly on the ground that there was no statutory direction in the Environmental clearance mandating the installation of FGD prior to the direction of the Ministry of Environment and Forest i.e. 16.4.2010 and as such, it squarely falls within the definition of 'Change in Law under the PPA entered into between the Appellant and the Distribution Licensee. 10. Bearing these facts in our mind, let us now refer to the discussion and the finding referred to in the impugned order by the State Commission while rejecting the claim of the Appellant: "Having heard the parties and after considering the materials placed on record, the Commission has following observations: (i) The Petitioner states that as per Article 13.1.1 of the PPA dated 23rd February 2010, it is entitled to claim financial benefits due to change in Page 22 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 law of that of the condition to install FGD imposed under a letter dated 16th April 2010 of the MoEF issued to the Petitioner imposing the following as " "additional conditions" under paragraph 2(i) in the said letter which is extracted as follows: "Flue Gas Desulphurisation System (FGD) shall be installed before commissioning of the project and action in this regard shall be submitted within three months to the Ministry". ii) On account of the "additional conditions", the Petitioner has sought to claim Rs.150 Crore as an increase in the project cost(one fourth of total projected cost of 600 Crore of FGD plant) subsequent to signing of the PPA and which is stated to have a significant cost impact on the contracted capacity of 300 MW to be supplied to the Respondent. iii) it is necessary therefore to examine Article 13.1.1 of the PPA dated 23rd February 2010 as follows:- "Change in Law" means the occurrence of any of the following events after the date, Page 23 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 which is seven (7) days, prior, to the Bid Deadline: i) the enactment, bringing into effect, adoption, promulgation, amendment, modification or repeal, of any Law or (ii) a change in the interpretation of any Law by a Competent Court of law, tribunal of Indian Governmental Instrumentally provided such Court of law, tribunal on Indian Governmental Instrumentality is final authority under law for such interpretation but shall not include(i) any change in any withholding tax on income or dividends distributed to the shareholders of the Seller, or (ii) change in respect of UI Charges or frequency intervals by an Appropriate Commission. (iv) As per the Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007, the direction was given to keep the space for installation of the FGD if required and also for allocation of separate funds for that purpose. The letter dated 16.4.2010 issued by the GOI MoEF binds the Petitioner to install the FGD before commissioning of the project. The Petitioner contended that this subsequent imposition of Page 24 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 the condition is a change in law. As per the above quoted provision of change in law, the contention of the petitioner is nowhere sustained in the definition. Furthermore, as per the Clause 5.4. of the PPA the Seller i.e. the Petitioner shall be responsible for obtaining all consents required for developing, financing, constructing, operating and maintenance of the project, the Petitioner shall also be responsible for obtaining/maintaining/renewing the Initial Consents and for fulfilling all conditions specified therein. (v) As per Clause 3.1.2.i of the PPA, the Petitioner shall have received the initial Consents as mentioned in Schedule I either unconditionally or subject to conditions which do not materially prejudice its rights or the performance of its obligations under the Agreement. Schedule I include the Clearance of State Pollution Control Board/MoEF. All these clauses of the PPA cast the burden on the Petitioner and further the condition (xx) in the Environmental Clearance protection measures and that this cost should be included as part of the project cost and not diverted for any other purpose. Even though the Petitioner stated that he has not included the cost of the FGD in the bid and now claiming for enhancing the capital cost and tariff, Page 25 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 this claim is untenable. This claim of the Petitioner shows that, the Petitioner has disregarded the directions of the MoEF. (vi) The Petitioner has made positive assertion/warranties in consonance with Condition 2.5. of Schedule 9 that no litigation was pending or threatened against the Petitioner. By such positive assertion the Petitioner suppressed the pendency of litigation regarding Environmental Clearance. While the Commission records the above contention of Respondents and notes that the Petitioner has not disputed the same, this matter can not be taken up in the present proceedings of the Petitioner. In view of the above, the present Petition is hereby dismissed." 11. The crux of the findings given in the impugned order are as follows:- i) According to the generating company, it is entitled to claim financial benefits due to "Change in Law" with regard to the condition in FGD imposed under letter dated 16.4.2010 by the Government directing the Company to impose the additional condition to the effect that the company shall install FGD before commissioning the Project. On account of the Page 26 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 additional conditions, the generating company sought claim of Rs.150 crores incurred subsequent to signing the PPA as the said additional conditions would amount to change in law under clause 13.1.1 of the PPA. ii) According to the Generating Company, as per the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007, direction was given to keep the space for installation of FGD, if required, in future, but the letter subsequently issued by the Government on 16.4.2010 only binds the generating company to install the FGD before the commissioning the Project and therefore, the subsequent imposition of condition is a change in law. This contention cannot be accepted as it would not satisfy the definition of the term 'Change in Law' as contained in clause 13 of the PPA. iii) As per the clause 5.4. of the PPA, the generating company namely Seller shall be responsible for obtaining all the Consents required for developing, financing, constructing, operating and maintenance of the Project. This clause further provides that the Page 27 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 generating company shall be responsible for obtaining and renewing the initial consents and other financial conditions specified there. iv) As per the clause 3.1.2 of the PPA, the generating company shall receive all the initial consents either unconditionally or subject to some conditions which do not prejudice its right or the performance of its obligations. All these clauses of the PPA cast burden on the generating company for obtaining all the consents unconditionally or subject to some conditions. Further, the condition (xx) in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 mandates the generating company not only to keep the space but also to allocate a separate fund for implementation of the Environmental protection measures and that this cost should included as part of the Project cost which should not be diverted for any other purpose. v) Even though, the generating company has provided space for FGD, it has not allocated the separate funds and not included in the cost of the FGD in the bid. Even then, the generating company is now claiming for Page 28 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 enhancing the capital cost of the FGD which has been spent subsequent to the PPA. Thus, it is clear that the generating company has disregarded the direction of the Ministry who issued Environmental clearance. Therefore, this claim is untenable. vi) The Distribution Licensee has pointed out that at the time of the submission of the bid documents some litigation was pending with reference to the Environmental clearance but the same was not disclosed to the Distribution Licensee while the bid documents have been submitted and this shows that the generating company has suppressed the pendency of the litigation regarding the Environmental clearance in the bid documents. Even though the Distribution Licensee raised this contention on the point of non disclosure and the Commission also recorded their contentions on the impugned order, the Generating Company has not disputed this. However, this issue cannot be decided in the present proceedings of the generating company and it can be decided later in the appropriate proceedings. Page 29 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 12. On these reasonings, the claim of the Appellant is rejected. 13. The Appellant, in this Appeal has raised two issues (1) Change in Law and (2) The effect of non- disclosure of pending litigation. 14. With reference to the 2nd issue relating to non- disclosure of pending litigation, we do not propose to deal with the said issue as the State Commission has held that the said issue can be decided later in the appropriate proceedings. In the absence of any findings with regard to the said issue by the State Commission, we do not want to go into the merits of that issue though the said issue has been elaborately argued by both the parties before this Tribunal. That apart, the non-disclosure of the pending litigation will not be a relevant issue for considering the main issue which has been raised as the First Issue with regard to 'change in law'. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to go into the First issue regarding the change in law in detail. 15. The case of the Appellant in a nutshell is that the requirement as referred to in the Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007 was required to be carried out only in future and not at that stage, and Page 30 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 that therefore, the direction for enforcement of the said condition by the Government of India by the letter dated 16.4.2010 amounts to change in law as per the PPA executed between the Appellant and the Distribution Licensee and consequently, the Appellant is entitled to claim the financial benefits of the said change in law. Thus, the Appellant relies upon two documents namely Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007 and the letter of Ministry of Forest dated 16.4.2010 in the light of the Clause providing for change in law in the PPA. 16. The relevant extract of the Environmental clearance granted to the Appellant by the letter dated 17.5.2007 are as under: "3. The proposal has been considered in accordance with para 12 of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 read with para 2.2.1 (i) (a) of the Circular No.J- 110013/41/2006-IA II (i) dated 13.10.2006 and Environmental clearance is hereby accorded under the provisions there of subject to implementation of the following terms and conditions: ............
(ii) The detailed study regarding the impact of the project, if any, on Alphanso mango and marine fisheries as recommended in the report of Dr. B.S Konkan Krishi Page 31 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 Vidyapith shall be undertaken. Based on the same, additional safeguard measures as may be required will be taken by the proponent with prior approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. A copy of the report will be submitted to the Ministry. The cost towards undertaking the study and implementation of safeguard measures, if any, will be borne by the project.
(iii) Space provision shall be made for installation of FGD of requisite efficiency of removal of SO2, if required at later stage. .......
(xx) Separate funds should be allocated for implementation of Environmental protection measures along with item wise break-up. These cost should be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the Environmental protection measures should not be diverted for other purposes and year wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry.
...............
7. In case of any deviation or alteration in the project proposed from those submitted to this Ministry for clearance, a fresh reference should be made to the Ministry to assess the adequacy of the condition (s) imposed and to add additional Environmental protection measures required, if any.
8. The above stipulations would be enforced among others, under the Water (Prevention and Page 32 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules there under, Hazardous Wasters (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and its amendments, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and its amendments."
17. The highlighted portion would indicate that the Appellant was mandated not only to undertake for providing additional safeguards but also it required for allotting separate space as well as for allocating certain funds for such measures which are to be included in the project cost.
18. It is true that in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 in Para-(iii), the Appellant was directed to install the FGD at a later stage if required. However, it was to be noted that there is not only reference relating to identification of the space in the Environmental Clearance but it specifically mandated under Para (xx) that the Appellant should allocate separate funds for implementation of the Environmental protection measures and cost of the same should be included as part of the project cost. It further provided the funds earmarked for the same should not be diverted for any other purpose.
Page 33 of 51Appeal No.105 of 2011
19. According to the Appellant, when the Environmental clearance was issued in favour of the Appellant, the FGD was not foreseen at that stage. As indicated above, the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 of course, provided for installation of FGD at a later stage but it clearly mandated that the cost of the Environmental protection measures must be allocated and the said funds allocated, have to be included in the project cost and the same should not be diverted for any other purpose.
20. According to the Appellant, under Clause 13.1.1 of the PPA it is entitled to claim financial benefits due to change in law as the additional condition was imposed only through the letter dated 16.4.2010 sent by the Ministry of Environment and Forest by directing the Appellant that the FGD was to be installed before commissioning the project and this additional condition was not provided in the Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007 and that on account of the additional condition, the Appellant had incurred a sum of Rs.150 Crores as an increase in the project cost.
21. Therefore, in view of the above contention urged by the Appellant, it would be appropriate to refer to Page 34 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 Clause 13.1.1 of the PPA dated 23.2.2011 which is as follows:
"Change in Law" means the occurrence of any of the following events after the date, which is seven (7) days, prior to the Bid Deadline:
(i) the enactment, bringing into effect, adoption, promulgation, amendment, modification or repeal, of any Law or (ii) a change in the interpretation of any Law by a Competent Court of Law, tribunal of Indian Governmental instrumentality provided such Court of Law, tribunal on Indian Governmental Instrumentality is final authority under law for such interpretation but shall not include(i) any change in any, withholding tax on income or dividends distributed to the shareholders of the Seller, or (ii) change in respect of UI Charges or frequency intervals by an Appropriate Commission."
22. In the light of the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, on the basis of the definition of the term "Change in Law", it would be proper to compare both the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 and the letter dated 16.4.2010 issued by the Government of India. The same are quoted as under:Page 35 of 51
Appeal No.105 of 2011
(a) Environment Clearance Letter dated 17.5.2007
3. The proposal has been considered in accordance with para 12 of the EIA Notification dated 145th September, 2006 read with para 2.2.1 (i) (a) of the Circular No.J-11013/41/2006- IA.II(I) dated 13.10.2006 and Environmental clearance is hereby accorded under the provisions there of subject to implementation of the following terms and conditions:
(i)........
(ii)........
(iii) Space provision shall be made for installation of FGD of requisite efficiency of removal of SO2, if required at later stage.
(iv) to (xix).............
(xx) Separate funds should be allocated for implementation of Environmental protection measures along with item wise break up. These cost should be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the environment protection measures should not be diverted for other purposes and year-wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry.
(b) Environmental Clearance Letter dated 16.4.2010
2. (i) Flue Gas De-Sulphurisation (FGD) system shall be installed before commissioning the Page 36 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 project and action in this regard shall be submitted within three months to the Ministry.
23. Under the Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007, the direction was issued to the Appellant to keep the space for installation of FGD if required at later stage and also to allocate separate funds for that purpose which should not be diverted for any other purpose.
24. On going through the letter dated 16.4.2010 issued by the Ministry, it is evident that the Appellant is bound to install the FGD before commissioning of the project. According to the Appellant, the subsequent imposition of the condition is a change in law. To interpretate this clause in order to understand the real meaning of the term "Change in Law", we have to refer to the other clauses.
25. As per clause 5.4 of the PPA, the Appellant shall be responsible for obtaining consents required for developing, financing, constructing, operating and maintenance of the project. Not only that, the Appellant shall be responsible for obtaining, maintaining and renewing the initial consents and also for fulfilling all conditions specified therein. Clause 5.4 of the PPA is quoted below:
Page 37 of 51Appeal No.105 of 2011 "5.4. Consents The Seller shall be responsible for obtaining all Consents required for developing, financing, constructing, operating and maintenance of the Project and maintaining/renewing all such Consents in order to carry out its obligations under this Agreement in general and this Article 5 in particular and shall supply to the Procurer promptly with copies of each application that it submits, and cop/ies of each consent/approval/license which it obtains. For the avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that the Seller shall also be responsible for obtaining/ maintaining/renewing the initial Consents and for fulfilling all conditions specified therein.
26. That apart, Clause 3.1.2 (i) of the PPA, the Appellant shall have received the initial consents either unconditionally or subject to conditions which do not materially prejudice its right or performance of its obligations under the agreement. Thus, all these clauses of the PPA cast the burden on the Appellant. Clause 3.1.2 (i) of the PPA is quoted below:
"Clause 3.1.2 (i) "the Seller shall have received the Initial Consents as mentioned in Schedule I, either unconditionally or subject to conditions which do not materially prejudice its rights or the performance of its obligations under this Agreement".Page 38 of 51
Appeal No.105 of 2011
27. That apart, the clause xx of the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 has mandated the Appellant a separate fund for implementation of the Environmental protection measures. It also provided a condition that this cost, namely separate funds should be included as part of the project cost and not diverted for any other purpose. Clause xx of the Environmental Clearance is quoted below:
"(xx) Separate funds should be allocated for implementation of Environmental protection measures along with item wise break up. These cost should be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the environment protection measures should not be diverted for other purposes and year-wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry".
28. Under these circumstances, the question would arise like this: "whether the Appellant can now claim for enhancement of the capital cost in the absence of the allocation of separate funds for installing FGD which is to be included as part of the project cost ?".
29. On a careful perusal and on a combined reading of relevant clauses of the PPA, the Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007 and the letter issued by the Central Government on 16.4.2010, it is clear that Page 39 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 there is no change in law as contemplated by the PPA.
30. As mentioned above, Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 provided for installation of the FGD at a later stage and further mandated that separate funds must be allocated for installation of the said FGD as well as for making such Environmental protection measures which are to be included in the project cost. Admittedly, this has not been complied with by the Appellant after getting the Environmental clearance. The letter dated 16.4.2010 issued by the Central Government merely confirms the requirement of installation of the FGD intimated earlier. It merely informs the Appellant the stage of installation. Therefore, there was no 'Change in Law' which has been occasioned as claimed by the Appellant.
31. The contention of the Appellant regarding the status of it Environmental clearance and the connected claim of change in law has also to be appreciated in view of the observations made by Delhi High Court in the order dates 16.9.2009 regarding the Environmental clearance as under:
Page 40 of 51Appeal No.105 of 2011 "20. After noticing the report of the KKVD and considering the recommendation made, the project was approved subject to conditions as under:-
"(i) No activities in CRZ area will be taken up without requisite clearance under the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 1991.
(ii) The detailed study regarding the impact on Alphonso mango and marine fisheries as recommended in the report of Dr. B.S. Konkan Krishi Vidyapith shall be undertaken. Based on the same, additional safeguard measures as may be required will be taken by the proponent. A copy of the report will be submitted to the Ministry. The cost towards undertaking the study and implementation of safeguard measures, if any, will be borne by the project.
(iii) Space provision for FGD will be kept, if required at a later date.
(iv) Cooling water blow down will be discharge from the cold water side and not from the hot water."
(emphasis supplied)
21. There is contradiction between the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee held on 9-10th January, 2007 and 12-14th March, 2007. On 9th-10th January, 2007, the application was Page 41 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 decided to be kept in abeyance to await the report of KKVD which as per the said minutes would take six months. What was before the Committee on 12-14th March, 2007 was a preliminary report prepared within 2-3 months? The minutes dated 12-
14th March, 2007 record that as per the report submitted by KKVD it would take about four years of detailed study to effectively evaluate the impact of the proposed plant. KKVD on the basis of the existing material, in form of assessment studies conducted by EQMS India Pvt. Ltd., and predictions on the level of pollutants made by MPCB and Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi, had stated that it was likely that there would not be any adverse impact on horticulture, mango plantations or marine life, subject to the condition that the respondent no.3 strictly maintained adherence to their commitments. The so called report submitted by KKVD is extremely guarded and cautious. It was not based on their data and studies. It was not conclusive and does not give approval but qualified statements were made. Further KKVD in clear terms had stated that any final assessment would require a detailed study for a period of four years to evaluate the impact on mango plantations and the marine life/fisheries. This was noted by the expert committee themselves in their minutes dated 12-14th March, 2007 quoted above. Further the issue of provision of FGD has been left to be decided at a later Page 42 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 stage. Position before NEAA remained the same"
32. The observation of Delhi High Court particularly at paragraph-21 quoted above, clarifies the status of requirement of the installation of the FGD in the project. The High Court has clearly stated that what the expert appraisal committee considered in its earlier meeting dated 14.3.2007 was only a preliminary report which was extremely guarded.
33. In fact, the High Court has stated clearly in its order "Further the issue of provision of FGD has been left to be decided at a later stage. Position before NEAA remained the same".
34. This observation of the Delhi High Court read along with the mandate that the funds were to be separately allocated for the same which was to be included in the project cost clearly mandates that the situation as projected by the Appellant does not fall within "Change of Law". It is in this light that the Environmental clearance granted on 17.5.2007 has to be seen.
35. As mentioned above, the condition No (iii) would mandate that the space provision shall be made for installation of FGD at a later stage. The Para (xx) Page 43 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 would also provide that separate funds would be allocated for implementation of these conditions and the said funds should be included as a part of the project cost. Therefore, the specific direction given to the Appellant even in the Environmental clearance would reveal that the Appellant was duty bound to include the fund allocation in the project cost. Admittedly, this was not done.
36. The Appellant now seeks to rely only upon the condition that the space provision for FGD is made if required in future. But the Appellant, in fact has not taken note of the remaining conditions as to the fund allocation and inclusion of the same in the project cost.
37. According to the Appellant, FGD fund is not required to be included in the project cost. There is no merit in this substance.
38. Let us again refer to the conditions in the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007:
"(ii) the detailed study regarding the impact of the project, if any, on Alphanso mango and marine fisheries as recommended in the report of Dr. B.S. Konkan Krishi Vidyapith shall be undertaken. Based on the same, additional safeguard measures as may be Page 44 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 required will be taken by the proponent with prior approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. A copy of the report will be submitted to the Ministry. The cost towards undertaking the study and implementation of safeguard measures if any, will be borne by the project.
(iii) Space provision shall be made for installation of FGD of requisite efficiency of removal of SO2, if required at later stage.
...................
(xx) Separate funds should be allocated for implementation of Environmental protection measures along with item wise break up. These cost should be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the environment protection measures should not be diverted for other purposes and year wise expenditure should be reported to the Ministry".
39. So, the reading of the conditions in entirety referred to in the Environmental clearance would make it clear that there was a mandate with regard to the requirement of earmarking of funds for FGD as well. The study to be carried out was specific to the case of the Appellant's plant as it is recorded that the study is to be carried out in terms and the recommendations in the report of KKVD. This has been referred to in the order of the Delhi High Court Page 45 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 while reference was made to the minutes of the 42nd Meeting of the Expert Appraise Committee.
40. The contention of the Appellant to the effect that Environmental clearance did not require the installation of FGD is to be accepted, then the said Environmental clearance would have categorically stated that FGD is not required and in that event, the directions for such specific funds allocation would not have been issued.
41. On the other hand, as mentioned above, there is a specific requirement regarding space as well as separate fund allocation.
42. This can be viewed from yet another angle. Admittedly, the Appellant was declared as a successful bidder after competitive bidding process. As indicated above, the Environmental clearance dated 17.5.2007 contemplated installation of FGD at a later stage with inclusion of cost for all Environmental measures in the project cost. If the claim of the Appellant is to be accepted, then it would defeat the sanctity of the competitive bidding process. Not only that, the other bidders who had participated in the bidding would also be pre- judicially affected. In fact, the Appellant after Page 46 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 ignoring the relevant conditions referred to in the Environmental clearance relating to the inclusion of project cost has allegedly submitted the bids without FGD cost, getting into the zone of consideration in the bidding process having been bidder L-3 and thereafter revising the project cost. Due to this, the entire bidding process and the interest of other bidders get vitiated.
43. Even the mandate contained in Clause 13 of the PPA relating to the change in law clearly stipulates that the change in law can be taken into consideration only in respect of occurrence of events after the cut-off date which is 7 days prior to the dead line. In the present case, the cut-off date is 14.2.2008. In a Regulatory regime, the sanctity of the PPA and the representation and warranties made by the parties in entering into such agreements have to be given due consideration. The claim of the Appellant cannot be permitted to vitiate the bidding process and to pre-judicially affect other bidders.
44. The case of the Appellant is that it was not required to install FGD system till the execution of the PPA Page 47 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 and also it was not required to allot separate funds. This is misconceived.
45. As indicated above, Clause 4.1.1 (a) of the PPA, read with Schedule-I, clearly casts the responsibility on the Appellant to obtain all requisite, consents and approvals. Clause 13 relating to change in law of the PPA has to be read along with Clause 2.5 of the Schedule 9 of the PPA which relates to the representation and warranties. Therefore, Clause 13 cannot be read in isolation. The change in law contemplated U/S 13 of the PPA is seven (7) days prior to the bid dead line in this case i.e. 14.2.2008.
46. It is a settled law that the terms of a contract have to be read as a whole and cannot be read in isolation. There is no change as sought to be claimed by the Appellant. The mere intimation of the stage for installation of FGD is not a change in law or interpretation of law. We find that prior Environmental clearance granted was conditional and that the entire bid of the Appellant was on the basis of the representation of the Appellant is indicative of the fact that the FGD was required to be installed by the Appellant and the Appellant was well aware of the same.
Page 48 of 51Appeal No.105 of 2011
47. The Appellant's argument is that very purpose of Clause 13 of the PPA was to ensure that the lowest tariff is produced in the competitive bidding process based on the legal requirements as on the bid deadline and any future changes in law would be adjusted in the tariff. This argument has no basis.
48. According to the Distribution Licensee (R-1), fixing of the price is vital aspect in the bidding process but the requirement to disclose the material facts is more vital so as to enable the tenderer to disclose the most sustainable price offer as well.
49. There is one more document which is in support of the Respondent. The minutes of the 62nd Meeting dated 12.1.2010 will make it evident that the Environmental clearance was conditional and the requirement to install FGD was not done away with. As a matter of fact, this condition was made unambiguous from the subsequent letter from the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 16.4.2010. In this letter, the Ministry has directed that subject to implementation of the condition of the Environmental clearance, the FGD shall be installed. This condition was expressly stipulated in the letter dated 16.4.2010, relating to the conditions mentioned in Page 49 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 both the clearance granted on 17.5.2007 as well as in the minutes of the 62nd Meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee. Hence there is no merit in the claim of the Appellant.
50. Summary of Our Findings
(i) The Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007 provided for installation of the FGD at a later stage. It further mandated that separate funds must be allotted for installation of the said FGD, which are to be included in the project cost. Admittedly, these conditions have not been complied with by the Appellant after getting the Environmental Clearance.
(ii) On a careful perusal of the relevant clause of the PPA, the Environmental Clearance dated 17.5.2007 and the letter issued by the Central Government on 16.4.2010, it is clear that there is no "Change in Law" as contemplated by the PPA. In fact, the letter dated 16.4.2010 issued by the Central Government merely confirms the requirement of installation of the FGD intimated through the letter dated 17.5.2007. It merely informs the Appellant the state of the installation of the FGD. Therefore, there is no "Change in Page 50 of 51 Appeal No.105 of 2011 law" as claimed by the Appellant. The reasonings given in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the Appellant are perfectly valid in law.
51. In view of the above findings, we find that there is no merit in the Appeal.
52. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, there is no order as to costs.
(Rakesh Nath) (Justice M. Karpaga Vinayagam)
Technical Member Chairperson
Dated:21st January, 2013
√REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABALE
Page 51 of 51


The dot product of two vectors a and b, written a.b or < a, b > is a number. It is defined by:
$$\left ( \begin{array}{c}
a_1 \\
a_2 \\
a_3
\end{array} \right ) \cdot
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
b_1 \\
b_2 \\
b_3
\end{array}
\right )
= a_1 b_1 + a_2 b_2 + a_3 b_3,$$
or similarly for vectors with other numbers of components. Also: a.b = ∣a∣∣b∣cosθ, where θ is the angle between the two vectors, and ∣a∣ and ∣b∣ are the lengths of a and b.
Note that for every choice of a, b and c we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{a}.\mathbf{b} &=& \mathbf{b}.\mathbf{a}\\
\mathbf{a}.(\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{c}) &=& \mathbf{a}.\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{a}.\mathbf{c}\\
k\mathbf{a}.\mathbf{b}& = & k(\mathbf{a}.\mathbf{b})\\
&=&\mathbf{a}.k\mathbf{b} \quad\mbox{where k is a scalar}\end{aligned}$$
.


Roy Keane tears into Man Utd transfer target Declan Rice in scathing review
The West Ham midfielder played the full 90 minutes of England's 4-0 victory over Kosovo but was criticised by the ITV pundit ahead of the game
by Alex MilneRoy Keane said Declan Rice still has many areas to improve on as he continues to be linked with a move to his former club Manchester United .
Rice featured for England during their 4-0 thrashing of Montenegro, winning his seventh cap for the Three Lions after opting to turn down the Republic of Ireland.
His performances have been mixed for West Ham so far this season, however, and Keane thinks the 20-year-old has much to work on if he is to compete at the very highest level.
Speaking to ITV ahead of the game against Kosovo Keane said: "Where he needs to improve, there are plenty of aspects when you think about it.
"Over the last few months he has had a lot of praise, I worked with him when he was with the Ireland squad.
"Where does he need to improve, where do you want me to start? His positional play, I don't think is consistent enough, he doesn't stay with runners, he's sloppy in possession.
"I can go on. He's one of those players, a couple of months ago everyone was enjoying him and loved him. He's one of those players that's now played his way out of the team because he's not been consistent for West Ham."
Rice went on to be outshone by his fellow central midfielder Harry Winks against Kosovo, with the Tottenham man scoring the side's opening goal and winning the Man of the Match award.
Rice has been part of the Hammers team that has slumped dramatically in the Premier League, with Manuel Pellegrini's side failing to win in the division since their victory against United in September, losing four of their last six games.
He will next be in action when they take on rivals Tottenham at the London Stadium on November 23.


IMPORTANT Version 0.6 might break some behaviour from 0.5 and lower versions, please refer to the changelog
Opinio is an engine used to add comments behaviour to your application. The engine is designed to work only with *Rails 3*
Simply add the following line to your Gemfile:
gem "opinio"
and run:
bundle
Opinio provides generators to facilitate it's usage. The most common way to quickly get Opinio working is:
rails g opinio:install comment
This will generate the Comment model, migration and also
generate the opinio initializer for customization of the engine. A
opinio_model
will be added on the routes.rb
. This
method adds the default urls for the model that will act as the comment in
your app.
In order to add the comments functionality to a model, you use the opinio_subjectum method
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base opinio_subjectum end
On the routes.rb
you should simply add an opinio
for your commentable resource
resources :posts do opinio end
To render the comments in your views, there is a helper to display the resource’s comments easily:
<%= comments_for @post %>
This will render the comments and a form for new comment submissions. Alternatively you can render just the comments or just the form like this:
<%= render_comments @post %> <%= render_comments_form @post %>
If you need to render the comments with a specific page or limit you can use Kaminari’s configurations like +paginates_per 10+ on your comment model or you can customize it for specific views on the helpers
<%= render_comments @post, :page => params[:page], :limit => 5 %>
This options can also be used on the comments_for
helper.
Of course you will want to customize how the comments are displayed or any other customization to the view. To generate the view files on your application, run:
rails g opinio:views
And you can customize all the views used by the engine.
You can customize the opinio model to suit your needs. The basic
customization is the owner class name. It defaults to User
but
you can change that in the initializer or in the model by passing the
+:owner_class_name => “MyOwnerClass”+ option to the
opinio_model
method call.
Another customization you can do is set the counter_cache
to
true in the commentable model. You can use the :counter_cache
option for that.
The other two customizations are only made through the initializer, and
they are the accept_replies
which defaults to true and
strip_html_tags_on_save
which also defaults to true.
Validations on the opinio model are very basic, just ensuring it has a body, a commentable and an owner, if you want any other kind of validation, like the minimum size of a comment, you can use the regular AR validations as you wish.
Remember that if you use titles, you need to add that to your comments table, since the generator doesn’t add it by default.
To change how the models that actually have the comments, you can customize
them with any option you would use to a regular has_many
relationship in ActiveRecord.
The default options are these:
has_many :comments, :class_name => Opinio.model_name, :as => :commentable, :order => "created_at #{Opinio.sort_order}"), :dependent => :destroy
The sort_order
and model_name
are both setup in
the initializer. Here you can do things like, let’s say you have moderation
in your comments, you can only show the approved comments:
opinio_subjectum :conditions => ["approved = ?", true]
Remember you can override any of these options (except as
) by
passing them to the opinio_subjectum
method.
Often times you will want the engine to show the index of comments for a specific item without having to pass the :commentable_type or :commentable_id parameters.
In order to do that, opinio provides a method to *ActionController::Base*:
opinio_identifier do |params| next Review.find(params[:review_id]) if params[:review_id] next Product.find(params[:product_id]) if params[:product_id] end
Note: you use next instead of return because it is a proc that will be executed later on, and you cannot return on procs
Basically on this method you receive the params variable and you tell the engine, who owns the comments from that page. This allows you to use routes like:
/products/1/comments /products/1/reviews/1/comments
Without passing those 2 parameters. I suggest you put this method on the ApplicationController
By default, noone can destroy a comment in the engine. You have to tell the engine who can do it. To setup a custom destroy condition use the methods provided by opinio in our controllers. For instance, if our opinio model is called ‘comment’ it could be written like this:
comment_destroy_conditions do |comment| comment.owner == current_user end
This would make users only be able to remove their own comments. Another example would be using the CanCan:
comment_destroy_conditions do |comment| authorize :destroy, comment end
You get the picture, you’re inside your controller’s methods on that block so you can call anything your normal controllers call on actions.
Opinio provides a few shared examples for testing of your model with rspec On your opinio model test case you can require opinio's shared examples and use them
require 'opinio/shared_examples' describe Comment do it_should_behave_like :opinio end describe Post do it_should_behave_like :opinio_subjectum end
If you want to help in any way with Opinio please message me or fork the project, make the changes and send me a pull request. For issues please use the github issues tracker
* Refactor the +comments_for+ helper * Extract documentation to wiki * Add mongoid support


I enjoy the creative process of building a basic website and bringing it to life with people's ideas.
I like making fun game with the language and also learning all of the cool frameworks that go with it.
I like stretching my creative muscles and making something look cool.


Queue
interface.See: Description
| Interface | Description |
|---|---|
| MeldableOrderedQueue<E,Q extends MeldableOrderedQueue<? extends E,?>> |
A
OrderedQueue that can be merged with another efficiently. |
| MeldablePriorityQueue<E,P,Q extends MeldablePriorityQueue<? extends E,? extends P,?>> | |
| OrderedDeque<E> |
A double-ended form of an ordered queue.
|
| OrderedQueue<E> |
A queue that retrieves items in priority order instead of in LIFO order.
|
| PriorityQueue<E,P> |
A priority queue abstract data structure.
|
| PriorityQueue.Entry<E,P> |
An entry in a priority queue.
|
| PriorityQueues.MeldableQueue<E> |
A simple meldable ordered queue.
|
| SetBackedOrderedQueue.SetFactory |
| Class | Description |
|---|---|
| BinomialHeapQueue<E> | |
| FibonacciHeapOrderedQueue<E> |
A priority queue that supports merging of two queues and is backed by a Fibonacci heap.
|
| PriorityQueues |
Utility methods for working with instances of
PriorityQueue (not to be mistaken for
PriorityQueue ). |
| RandomAccessArrayBlockingDeque<E> |
A
BlockingDeque implementation based on a RandomAccessArrayDeque . |
| RandomAccessArrayDeque<E> |
A double-ended queue that is backed by an array and, in addition to standard
Deque
operations, also exposes random access operations on its contents. |
| RandomizedQueue<E> | |
| SetBackedOrderedQueue<E> |
An ordered queue that is backed by a navigable set and breaks ties in FIFO manner.
|
| SkewHeapOrderedQueue<E> |
An ordered queue backed by a Skew Heap.
|
Queue
interface.
This package also includes a new related-but-different interface named
PriorityQueue
. This interface is quite different from
the JRE's class of the same name in that it exposes additional operations of a classical
priority-queue ADT, mainly reduce-key
. This decouples an element's priority from its
intrinsic value, making it more useful for certain types of graph algorithms.


On-Ramps to Open Source
Lyzi Diamond, Mapbox
FOSS4G-NA 2015
Let's start with a postulate: every open source community experiences the same growing pains.
Folks already inside the community don't know what to do about it.
Folks interested in joining the community don't know what to do about it.
Neither group can even identify the problem!
But there is a disconnect. It is difficult to join an open source community as a beginner...
... and it's difficult for an open source community to open itself up to beginners.
Why? Open source is meant to be accessible by nature. And it is, technically.
But not always conceptually.
This is considered one of the seminal programming texts. It is an essay in praise of open source, particularly in the Linux community.
The essay is full of quotes like this:
"A certain base level of design and coding skill is required, of course, but I expect almost anybody seriously thinking of launching a bazaar effort will already be above that minimum. The open-source community's internal market in reputation exerts subtle pressure on people not to launch development efforts they're not competent to follow through on. So far this seems to have worked pretty well."
"So far this seems to have worked pretty well."
:-/
Raymond is describing the infancy of modern-day open source communities. (Keep in mind he was writing in the late nineties. Parachute pants were a popular fashion choice.)
A different time.
Open source projects in our time typically start when people with a common skillset have a common problem or frustration that they want to solve together.
Doing that in the open means more people will contribute and it will mature faster.
That is what Raymond was writing about.
But there comes a time when the project has users who are not the same as the developers.
In the nineties, this divide didn't exist.
Technology was for technologists.
The whole concept of an open source community is relatively young itself.
Open source PLUS consumer technology is even younger.
Add into that everything in between and you see...
We simply haven't had time to solve this problem yet.
I repeat: YET.
As a community, open source geospatial is pretty amazing.
We put a lot of focus on education and growing our community.
But we have yet to solve this problem.
And I have an idea of how we can start.
Hint hint
Geospatial technology has many facets. There are many problems to solve that require different skill sets.
So why are we trying to onboard everyone in the same way?
There are tons of places you can start. There are tons of doors.
Or, if you prefer: on-ramps.
I have subdivided our field into five main groups:
1. Cartography
2. Web Programming
3. Spatial Analysis
4. Data Management and Acquisition
5. Community Mapping
The number of tools you can use for mapping has been growing exponentially.
This is awesome! It means we have many places to start.
So...
Let's walk through each of these groups and talk about on-ramps that can build on existing skillsets.
Let's identify some comfortable introductions to geospatial open source.
Let's sing and talk about puppies and rainbows! Yay!
This is of course not meant to insinuate that these are the only ways to get involved. They are simply helpful paradigms for those lost among us who just want to get involved.
Also, disclaimer: I do work at Mapbox, but I'm not only going to talk about Mapbox tools. That would be counter to the goals of this talk. We want diversity of tools for a diversity of projects!
1. Cartography
a.k.a. making pretty maps :)
In terms of web mapping, cartography applies to basemaps, feature layers, and the ways the two interact.
Bad cartography is easy to spot (and way easy to create).
Good cartography is difficult to define and emulate.
We want people with good design skills in our field!
They make beautiful things.
So was this one.
You can use Mapbox Studio to make map tiles for web maps or to make styles and print static maps.
This is just one of the reasons that Mapbox Studio is a great onramp to open source geospatial for designers: no data wrangling necessary!
It's also a great onramp because it does require some additional learning.
Styling in Mapbox Studio is done using a language called CartoCSS.
There are
many resources to learn CartoCSS, but simply the
act of
learning something new is
awesome preparation for learning
other tools in open source geo.
Another open source tool for
cartography is
QGIS.
"The cartographic capabilities of QGIS are sufficient to produce almost all the common map layout components with an adequate amount of advanced capabilities and even some options, like the color blending modes, that aren’t typically found elsewhere."
2. Web Programming
Arguably the
best and definitively the most
ubiquitous open source JavaScript mapping library is
Leaflet.
Leaflet powers so many things!
Leaflet is an awesome place to start because it powers so many things.
Anything you can do in Leaflet you can also do in Mapbox.js.
Leaflet also has a
ton of plugins that give a
huge range of functionality...
There are of course
other open source JavaScript mapping libraries, like
OpenLayers,
Polymaps, and
D3.geo, but
Leaflet is an
excellent place to start.
There are also JavaScript mapping libraries that do more than just getting an interactive map on a page...
3. Spatial Analysis
A huge percentage of folks who are new to open source geospatial are coming from a traditional GIS environment.
Creating data, editing data, classifying data...
Raster data, vector data...
Data data data!
For
this crowd, the most
familiar-looking tool will be
QGIS.
QGIS is an open source desktop mapping platform. It is free and works on many different systems.
It works with rasters and vectors:
You can do fun styling to show off results of analysis:
But maybe best of all, QGIS has an awesome community of users and developers.
There are some
excellent tutorials for getting started. There's also room for using
Python scripting inside QGIS when it's time to
level up!
Another popular
analysis and visualization tool that's an
awesome place to start is
CartoDB.
With CartoDB you can upload a spreadsheet and get to visualizing and classifying data in relatively few clicks.
That's a great feeling: one that keeps you coming back for more!
4. Data Management and Acquisition
This section falls into two camps:
If you love
converting data into different formats and
computational analysis, you should learn about
GDAL.
GDAL stands for Geographic Data Abstraction Library.
It is a command-line tool for data conversion and processing. It can do a lot. (OGR is the related utility that handles vector data.)
If you love
storing data and conducting
large-scale spatial operations, you should learn about
PostGIS.
PostGIS is a
spatial database extension for
PostgreSQL, which is an open source object relational database.
PostGIS is concerned with how data is stored and manipulated, joined and related.
It is often the heavy lifter behind spatial web applications that have lots of data.
PostGIS can be a bit difficult to get started with, but that's just because databases require a specific way of operating.
BoundlessGeo has an excellent
intro tutorial that uses their OpenGeo Suite. It's a
good place to start.
5. Community Mapping
This one is pretty obvious...
OpenStreetMap!
It is entirely open source and has sprung countless projects to facilitate community mapping.
All
organizing for OpenStreetMap-related
projects and
events happens on the
OSM Wiki.
OpenStreetMap is an open source community itself.
How do many people -- especially newcomers -- interact with OpenStreetMap?
The in-browser iD editor.
You see, iD is an onramp itself.
It's an
entirely open source project with the
goal of bringing
more people into an
open source community.
It's quite beautiful.
It also shows us that we have the power to build these on-ramps collectively.
Open source projects can themselves be on-ramps to open source communities.
It just takes a little thought and a whole lot of empathy.
Then, all of a sudden, those newcomers are themselves experts and are bringing in newcomers themselves.
We have an amazing opportunity to grow our community here.
There's absolutely nothing stopping us from taking it.
Thanks!


So in this post I'm gonna guide you how you can use efistub, a feature which you can use to boot the kernel without an extra boot manager(grub, systemd-boot, rEFInd etc.).
Create a boot entry using efibootmgr.
# efibootmgr --create --disk sda --part 1 --label Debian --loader /vmlinuz --unicode "root=/dev/sda2 rw initrd=\initrd.img" --verbose
Explaination of the command.
--create 'creates a new boot entry'
--disk 'disk where you wanna create the boot entry'
--part 'partition number'
--label 'the label for new entry'
--loader 'loader to boot, it's vmlinuz in this example'
--unicode 'kernel parameters you can define here like initrd, swap, encrypted container for root'
--verbose 'let it verbose'
I have an encrypted installation on my machine so here is how I create an entry for me.
# efibootmgr --create --disk sda --part 1 --label 'My Debian' --loader /vmlinuz --unicode "cryptdevice=UUID=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:cryptlvm root=UUID=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX rw initrd=\initrd.img resume=UUID=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" --verbose
Now go to /boot directory and check for the vmlinuz and initrd.img. They might be in child directories like if EFI/grub or maybe somewhere else depending on your current boot managers. and move them to /boot.
UUID=XXXX-XXXX /boot vfat umask=0077 0 1
By default, debian installs kernel and initrd images with their version numbers. But also puts a symlink to it in / with vmlinuz name. So we have to write a script so that if we get an update of kernel, it will automatically rename it to vmlinuz and initrd.img. Just create a script with following path and make it executable.
# vim /etc/kernel/postinst.d/update-efistub
#!/bin/sh
cp /vmlinuz /boot/
save it and make it executable.
# chmod +x /etc/kernel/postinst.d/update-efistub
and do the same with initramfs.
# vim /etc/initramfs/post-update.d/update-efistub
#!/bin/sh
cp /initrd.img /boot/
make it executable.
chmod +x /etc/initramfs/post-update.d/update-efistub
That's it. Now uninstall any extra boot manager and reboot. You'll see that your machine is booting without a boot manager. Yeah, you heard it right. No sensible person will call it bootloader. They are just boot managers which also create an entry just like we did. So why don't we do it ourselves. Feel free to mail me if you get some errors.


"GENNESARET "a garden of riches. (1.) A town of Naphtali, called Chinnereth (Joshua 19:35), sometimes in the plural form Chinneroth(11:2). In later times the name was gradually changed to Genezar and Gennesaret (Luke 5:1). This city stood on the western shore of the lake to which it gave its name. No trace of it remains. The plain of Gennesaret has been called, from its fertility and beauty, “the Paradise of Galilee.” It is now called el-Ghuweir. (2.) The Lake of Gennesaret, the Grecized form of CHINNERETH (q.v.). (See GALILEE, SEA OF.)
"GENNESARET "a garden of riches. (1.) A town of Naphtali, called Chinnereth (Joshua 19:35), sometimes in the plural form Chinneroth(11:2). In later times the name was gradually changed to Genezar and Gennesaret (Luke 5:1). This city stood on the western shore of the lake to which it gave its name. No trace of it remains. The plain of Gennesaret has been called, from its fertility and beauty, “the Paradise of Galilee.” It is now called el-Ghuweir.
(2.) The Lake of Gennesaret, the Grecized form of CHINNERETH (q.v.).
(See GALILEE, SEA OF.)


closed-loop control system A closed-loop control system uses a measurement of the output and feedback of this signal to compare it with the desired output (reference or command). .
Control System A control system is an interconnection of components forming a system configuration that will provide a desired system response. .
DC Motors A DC motor is any of a class of rotary electrical machines that converts direct current electrical energy into mechanical energy. The most common types rely on the forces produced by magnetic fields. Nearly all types of DC motors have some internal mechanism, either electromechanical or electronic, to periodically change the direction of current flow in part of the motor. Covered in ELEC 370 — Electromagnetic energy conversion .
linear time-invariant Linear time-invariant systems (LTI systems) are a class of systems used in signals and systems that are both linear and time-invariant. Linear systems are systems whose outputs for a linear combination of inputs are the same as a linear combination of individual responses to those inputs. Time-invariant systems are systems where the output does not depend on when an input was applied. .
Multiple Input Multiple Output In control engineering, systems with more than one input and/or more than one output are known as Multi-Input Multi-Output systems, or they are frequently known by the abbreviation MIMO. MIMO systems that are lumped and linear can be described easily with state-space equations..
Op Amps An operational amplifier (often op-amp or opamp) is a DC-coupled high-gain electronic voltage amplifier with a differential input and, usually, a single-ended output. In this configuration, an op-amp produces an output potential (relative to circuit ground) that is typically hundreds of thousands of times larger than the potential difference between its input terminals. Covered in ELEC 300 — Electric Circuit II .
open-loop control system An open-loop control system utilizes an actuating device to control the process directly without using feedback. .
Partial Fractions Taking a rational expression and decomposing it into simpler rational expressions that we can add or subtract to get the original rational expression is called partial fraction decomposition. Many integrals involving rational expressions can be done if we first do partial fractions on the integrand..
Single Input Single Output In control engineering, a single-input and single-output (SISO) system is a simple single variable control system with one input and one output. SISO systems are typically less complex than multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems. Frequency domain techniques for analysis and controller design dominate SISO control system theory. .
Consider using a manual approach to style listlisting, what I do for pandoc, a combination of prism.js withandtags inbewteen.


{% extends "base.html" %} {% block title %}Home{% endblock %} {% block content %}
Development of the editor has not yet been started, so it's basically part of the engine project. In the future, you will be able to download the editor separately here.
Sorry, there are no binary packages available yet. Please download the source from above and compile as described in the github wiki.
If you want to compile the source yourself, you need all dependencies. Linux users should consult their package managers. For Windows users we prepared this dependency package.
For further instructions, visit the Getting Started wiki page on github.
If you just want to get a look at Ducttape without having to set up anything, you can use the Ducttape Development Environment. It is a virtual machine with everything set up already for you. The only requirement is that you have a processor with virtualisation hardware extensions or you will get an error on start-up.
If you have no idea how to use a virtual machine, just download VirtualBox, choose File -> Import and then select this OVA.
{% endblock %}


SIS 0.3 Release notes
New Features
- [SIS-62] - Create a sis-utility module
- [SIS-52] - Create a sis-metadata module
- [SIS-55] - Skeleton implementation of GeoAPI Citation
- [SIS-46] - Add sis-console module to current SIS project
- [SIS-66] - Create new Range class to avoid licensing issues
- [SIS-77] - Provide an IDE build for Eclipse
Improvements
- [SIS-57] - A Logo for SIS
- [SIS-31] - Website needs a facelift
- [SIS-38] - Add the missing documentation comments for SIS-core storage
- [SIS-40] - Add the missing documentation comments for SIS WS layer
- [SIS-41] - Improve the demo.jsp CSS
- [SIS-44] - Update the 'demo.jsp' file in the SIS webapp to use an open source maps API
- [SIS-56] - Merge parent-sis with root pom.xml and configure
- [SIS-72] - Find some clean way to put Anchor functionality in public API
- [SIS-78] - Replace null locale by Locale.ROOT
- [SIS-82] - Metadata implementations could use a single field for union
- [SIS-85] - Consider removing metadata synchronization
- [SIS-87] - Provide copy constructors in metadata objects
- [SIS-88] - Reduce side of public API
- [SIS-90] - Metadata objects should use EnumSet and CodeListSet when appropriate
Bug fixes
- [SIS-37] - LICENSE and NOTICE files are in incorrect location in sis-core-0.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
- [SIS-60] - Duplicated LICENSE and NOTICE files
- [SIS-53] - "svn:ignore" property missing on the "sis-app" directory
- [SIS-49] - ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException caused by method getCircularRegionApproximation(int numberOfPoints) in LatLonPointRadius class
- [SIS-58] - Fix SIS Jetty Webapp definition to pick random port
- [SIS-70] - Make QuadTreeNode and associated classes package private
- [SIS-95] - Explicitly specify Typed extends Object parameters in FallbackConverterTest
- [SIS-99] - Change URL (or any reference to incubator in Jira)
- [SIS-103] - Fix Eclipse errors in SIS
- [SIS-120] - AngleFormat: Missing minus sign when the degrees field is zero
Tasks
- [SIS-54] - Remove the definition of the sis.version property
- [SIS-59] - Move large test file outside code area
- [SIS-61] - Create a sis-build-helper module
- [SIS-63] - Fix <prerequisites> in sis-build-helper after Apache upgrated the Maven used by Jenkins
- [SIS-65] - Remove the version number overwriting of maven-project-info-reports-plugin
- [SIS-73] - Remove the automatic mapping of UUIDs to objects
- [SIS-80] - PropertyDescriptor to implement ExtendedElementInformation
- [SIS-89] - Move DefaultReferencingIdentifier out of org.apache.sis.referencing package
- [SIS-101] - Move QuadTree and GeoRSSData in their own packages
- [SIS-105] - Rename the sis-app module as sis-console
Tests
- [SIS-48] - Create unit tests for the core classes in the sis-core
- [SIS-50] - Create unit tests for the GeoHashUtils utility class in sis-core


| Home | About | Members | Sponsors | 4-H | FIRST | Contact Us |
We are MooBotics, a small rookie 4-H FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) team. Our goal for our first season was to learn how to build a robot and create a robot that could compete. We succeded by learning how to build and program our robot, gain knowledge about science and technology and most important of all, collaborate as a team to build a robot that accomplished the goal of the game and we surpassed our goal by winning two district competitions, qualified for states and then worlds.
We competed in our first district event at Kettering University on March 11th & 12th, 2016. We finished ranked 10th, through the alliance selection process we moved up to become the 6th place alliance captain. From there we went on to win it all and take home the blue banner. UNBELIEVABLE!!
|
1.
4943534 6085 |
494 3534 6085 |
494 3534 6085 |
5926 3707 5203 |
5926 3707 5203 |
3.
16844362 6073 |
|
8.
52385155 3539 |
6.
59263707 5203 |
||||
|
4.
4695046 5697 |
469 5046 5697 |
5534 6086 4961 |
2.
55346086 4961 |
||
|
5.
41302337 5260 |
7.
15066066 1243 |
We competed in our second ever district event March 25th & 26th in Marysville. Even though we had some bad luck in the qualification matches we showed our strengths enough to be picked up by the 2nd place alliance. With the help of our alliance partners we won our second district title. ANOTHER BLUE BANNER!!!
|
1.
2137217 5860 |
2137 217 5860 |
2137 217 5860 |
5155 3534 5926 |
6098 1025 6090 |
3.
60981025 6090 |
|
8.
60202851 4994 |
6.
50465048 6085 |
||||
|
4.
51675843 5436 |
2604 5150 4368 |
5155 3534 5926 |
2.
51553534 5926 |
||
|
5.
26045150 4368 |
7.
35354130 4779 |


-
2016 movie list-百円の恋
Fight for yourself.
-
2016 movie list-澄沙之味
铜锣烧为什么这么甜？
-
2016 movie list-十二公民
.....
-
2016 movie list-"(500) Days of Summer"
When Summer is gone, Autumn is here.
--- title: Portfolio layout: default ---
A student major in Information & Communication Engineering,
work on DSP, interested in frontend, poems, have a zest for life.
Fight for yourself.
铜锣烧为什么这么甜？
.....
When Summer is gone, Autumn is here.


MEN IN BLACK (PG-13)
Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld Running Time: 98 minutes Originally Released: July 2, 1997 (USA-National)
Reviewed by E. Benjamin Kelsey
* * * (out of four)
A lot of times a three-star film will be my favorite. They're usually the kind of movie I can watch most often too. They're usually not too deep, allowing for semi-brainless relaxation, and at the same time, not too dumb. MEN IN BLACK is a four-star three-star film. (Hope you could follow that one)
MEN IN BLACK doesn't wait to get to the fun. Just minutes into the film we are introduced to Agent Kay (Tommy Lee Jones), introduced to an alien, and introduced to the the awesome memory-diminishing tool that all MiB agents use. After all, you can't have alien witnesses running around with that kind of knowledge can you?
MEN IN BLACK is, of course, the organization which "moniters all extra-terrestrial activity on Earth". NYPD officer James Edwards (Will Smith), is on a routine foot chase when suddenly the no-good punk he's chasing starts leaping up buildings and blinking more than one pair of eyes. The alien delivers the simple message that the world is going to end, and with that, dives off of a roof.
Edwards then meets Agent Kay, the man who never seems to crack a smile, and is introduced to the MiB.  James Edwards no longer exists. Meet Agent Jay.
Agent Kay takes the rookie Jay under his wing as they go about "regular" duties. Eventually a far more treacherous event comes into play. A "bug" has landed on Earth and is going to wipe out mankind if these two don't (or can't) stop it. The plot isn't exactly clear, but we know it has to do with a galaxy as big as a jewel or marble being sought after on Earth, and that is crucial that the MiB find it before the "bug" does.
Barry Sonnenfeld, who also did the ADDAMS FAMILY films, directs this nicely. It's fun, it's funny, it's action-packed. A nice summer blockbuster as it rightfully turned out to be. This is one of those movies that is just "fun" and can't really be summed up any nicer or clearer. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones both do great jobs and both are a blast to watch. Definitely one of the best films of the the summer of '97, MEN IN BLACK comes highly recommeded from me!
November 26, 1997
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


{% extends base_site_template %} {% block title %}Password change completed{% endblock %} {% block content %}
You have successfuly changed your password.
You can now Log-in


Bidwar
Menu
Game
Player Manager
Contract Manager
Level Manager
Notes
Contract Manager
Create New Contract
Name
Points
Type
Exclusive
Extra
Edit
+3 Boost
3
Attack
Yes
2x attack to player
Edit
+3 Boost
3
Attack
Yes
2x attack to player
Edit
+3 Boost
3
Attack
Yes
2x attack to player
Edit


Hello 👋 fellow human being!
I'm {{ .Site.Params.author }}.
Welcome to my little corner of the World Wide Web.
Over the years, I've written some blog posts, given some talks, and written some open source code.
If you wish to get in touch you may email me.
{{ partial "social.html" . }}


The first two checks turn into two case
. The third check is split into two cases:
```js run let a = +prompt(‘a?’, ’’);
switch (a) { case 0: alert( 0 ); break;
case 1: alert( 1 ); break;
case 2: case 3: alert( ‘2,3’ ); ! break; /! } ```
Please note: the break
at the bottom is not required. But we put it to make the code future-proof.
In the future, there is a chance that we’d want to add one more case
, for example case 4
. And if we forget to add a break before it, at the end of case 3
, there will be an error. So that’s a kind of self-insurance.