Change Cancer, Inc
Last Updated: October 31, 2016
This privacy policy ("Policy") describes how Chance Cancer, Inc. and its related companies ("Company") collect, use and share personal information of consumer users of this website, www.getrobincare.com (the "Site"). This Policy also applies to any of our other websites that post this Policy. This Policy does not apply to websites that post different statements.
What We Collect
We get information about you in a range of ways.
Information You Give Us. We collect your name, email address, occupation and company as well as other information you directly give us on the Site.
Information We Get From Others. We may get information about you from other sources. We may add this to information we get from the Site.
Information Automatically Collected. We automatically log information about you and your computer. For example, when visiting the Site, we log your computer's operating system type, browser type, browser language, the website you visited before browsing to the Site, pages you viewed, how long you spent on a page, access times and information about your use of and actions on the Site.
Cookies. We may log information using "cookies." Cookies are small data files stored on your hard drive by a website. We may use both session Cookies (which expire once you close your web browser) and persistent Cookies (which stay on your computer until you delete them) to provide you with a more personal and interactive experience on the Site. This type of information is collected to make the Site more useful to you and to tailor the experience with us to meet your special interests and needs.
California Do Not Track Disclosure. We currently do not support the Do Not Track browser setting or respond to Do Not Track signals. Do Not Track (or DNT) is a preference you can set in your browser to let the websites you visit know that you do not want them collecting certain information about you. For more details about Do Not Track, including how to enable or disable this preference, visit this Do Not Track webpage.
Security. We take your privacy very seriously and employ administrative, physical and electronic measures to safeguard your information from identity theft and unauthorized access. We cannot, however, ensure or warrant the security of any information you transmit to us and you do so at your own risk. Once we receive your transmission of information, we make commercially reasonable efforts to ensure the security of our systems. However, please note that this is not a guarantee that such information may not be accessed, disclosed, altered, or destroyed by breach of any of our physical, technical, or managerial safeguards.
Use of Personal Information
We use your personal information as follows:
We use your personal information to operate, maintain, and improve our sites, products, and services.
We use your personal information to respond to comments and questions and provide customer service.
We use your personal information to send information including confirmations, invoices, technical notices, updates, security alerts, and support and administrative messages.
We use your personal information to communicate about promotions, upcoming events, and other news about products and services offered by us and our selected partners.
We use your personal information to link or combine user information with other personal information.
We use your personal information to protect, investigate, and deter against fraudulent, unauthorized, or illegal activity.
We use your personal information to provide and deliver products and services customers request.
Sharing of Personal Information
We may share personal information as follows:
We may share personal information with your consent. For example, you may let us share personal information with others for their own marketing uses. Those uses will be subject to the privacy policies of such other parties.
We may share personal information when we do a business deal, or negotiate a business deal, involving the sale or transfer of all or a part of our business or assets. These deals can include any merger, financing, acquisition, or bankruptcy transaction or proceeding.
We may share personal information for legal, protection, and safety purposes.
We may share information to comply with laws.
We may share information to respond to lawful requests and legal processes.
We may share information to protect the rights and property of Change Cancer, Inc., our agents, customers, and others. This includes enforcing our agreements, policies, and terms of use.
We may share information in an emergency. This includes protecting the safety of our employees and agents, our customers, or any person.
We may share information with those who need it to do work for us in order to provide services on your behalf.
We may also share aggregated and/or anonymized data with others for their own uses.
Except as otherwise provided above, we do not disclose your personally identifiable information to third parties regarding your activities online while using our website unless you give consent for us to do so, or we are permitted to do so by law.
You should be aware that when you are on the Site, you can be directed to other websites that are beyond our control, and we are not responsible for the privacy practices of third parties or the content of linked websites.
Information Choices and Changes
Our marketing emails tell you how to "opt-out." If you opt out, we may still send you non-marketing emails. Non-marketing emails include emails about your accounts and our business dealings with you.
You may send requests about personal information to our Contact Information below. You can request to change contact choices, opt-out of our sharing with others, and update your personal information.
You can typically remove and reject cookies from our Site with your browser settings. Many browsers are set to accept cookies until you change your settings. If you remove or reject our cookies, it could affect how our Site works for you.
CONTACT INFORMATION
We welcome your comments or questions about this privacy policy. You may also contact us at our address:
Change Cancer, Inc
80 Sheffield Court
Mountain View, CA, 94040
CHANGES TO THIS PRIVACY POLICY
We may change this privacy policy. If we make any changes, we will change the Last Updated date above.


Whatever It Takes * * 1/2 (out of * * * * )
Directed by David Raynr. Cast: Shane West, Marla Sokoloff, Jodi Lyn O'Keefe, James Franco, Aaron Paul, Colin Hanks, Manu Intiraymi, Julia Sweeney, Richard Schiff, Kip Pardue, Scott Vickaryous, Christine Lakin. 2000 - 92 minutes Rated PG-13 (for profanity and sexual situations). Reviewed by Dustin Putman, March 25, 2000.
"Whatever It Takes" is the exact antithesis of "Here on Earth," this week's other teen-oriented movie. Whereas "Here on Earth" must be praised for its non-stereotypical view of teenage characters, "Whatever It Takes," directed by David Raynr, is a cliche-ridden high school comedy with few inventive ideas, but a fair amount of wit. Sort of a hybrid of "She's All That" and "Drive Me Crazy," and superior to the former, the film predictably follows two good-natured protagonists and their self-involved romantic counterparts, until the moment when...well...I think we both know how this one will end, folks. Because the ground rules for this genre have been so stringently laid out, its the "getting-there" that is more important than the actual payoff, and "Whatever It Takes," while certainly not one of the better teen comedies, is at least one of the more entertaining recent ones.
Ryan Woodman (Shane West) is an unpopular senior at Gilmore High School, with a long-time best friend and next-door neighbor in Maggie Carter (Marla Sokoloff), whose bedroom balconies conveniently face each other, so they can spend their free time talking between them. Maggie is seemingly nothing more than a sister to him, as he has eyes for the most popular (and superficial) girl in school, Ashley Grant (Jodi Lyn O'Keefe), even though she doesn't know he even exists. When jock Chris (James Franco) decides that he would like to have a chance with Maggie, he devises a plan with Ryan. Since Ashley is Chris' cousin, he will easily be able to get her to go out with Ryan, if Ryan helps him to win over Maggie. Pretty soon, it becomes apparent to Ryan that Ashley is nothing more than a shallow individual worried only about herself, and he slowly comes to the realization that his true feelings lie with Maggie. It sounds complicated, but it's really not; just another spin on the same old formula.
"Whatever It Takes," loosely based on "Cyrano de Bergerac," is a flawed movie in more ways than one, and it makes you long for the '80s John Hughes era, when teen movies like "Sixteen Candles," "Pretty in Pink," and "Some Kind of Wonderful" laid the groundwork for such '90s fare as this, but were done with a great deal more intelligence and overall heart. So why does "Whatever It Takes" fundamentally work? Easy. Going into a movie theater playing this film, you have it set in your mind exactly what is going to happen and how everything will be played out, and because it satisfies those expectations and doesn't resort to complete brainlessness, you come out happy. If you don't, then you really had no excuse for walking into the theater in the first place.
Shane West (TV's "Once and Again") and Marla Sokoloff (TV's "The Practice") are charming and likable as Ryan and Maggie. Their roles, like everyone else's, is a cliche, but they do their jobs professionally, and seem to be having fun in the process.
The standout in the cast, however, turns out to be Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (1998's "Halloween: H20"), who is basically playing the same stuck-up character that she did in 1999's "She's All That," but with a fresh spin.  It might have been nice had screenwriter Mark Schwahn attempted to tear down Ashley's thin facade and explore her as a real human being (as John Hughes did spectacularly with Lea Thompson's popular sexpot character in 1987's "Some Kind of Wonderful"), but at least she isn't purposefully cruel--only highly materialistic.
"Whatever It Takes" is light, fluffy, fast-paced, and through the sludge of overdone ideas are a couple original moments, particularly in the Prom finale, whose theme for the year is "Titanic Dreams." With the gymnasium set up to look like the Titanic, complete with fake icebergs and lifesavers, a plot development occurs that immediately turns the dance into a basic reenactment of the tragic sinking of the title ship. But who are we kidding? The movie is little more than a remake of countless other films, done occasionally better but often worse. The play's the thing, however, and "Whatever It Takes" is entertaining throughout the duration of its brisk 92 minutes.
- Copyright 2000 by Dustin Putman Http://www.young-hollywood.com Http://www.atnzone.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


@CryptoForge_cc The OTC trading in KMD discord, the last 48 hours has been flooring at 0.09 KMD per pirate.
There is a standing order for 100K or more at 0.1 KMD per pirate.
At 0.09 that is about $0.114 per.
One rig has averaged about 70-80 Pirate a day the last 2 days.
$7...


Quote No :{{quote.id}}
Your Quote Was Uploaded : {{quote.completeDate|dateCount}} Hours Ago
Upvote(s) : {{quote.upvotes}}
DownVote(s) : {{quote.downvotes}}


Northern Host Drum: Northern Cree Southern Host Drum: Buc Wild Northern MC: Howie Thomson Southern MC: Tom Phillips Arena Director: Kevin Kickingwoman Head Judge: Tonia Jo Hall
Head Man Dancer: Justin Goggles Jr. Head Woman Dancer: Celeste McGurk Sound Tech: David Begaye


It's just a test, not really usable.Works on IE > 8 and modern browsers
by @geoffreycroftesee also Custom input:file with CSS only


We use a public API (namely OpenLibrary) for the suggestions of the authors, therefore we can not guarantee good results to your search query.
Last search: {{ searchKeyword }}
You can find additional components in a storybook, that lets you interactively explore the library.
Go to AMSUI documentation


ACF Fall
Last updated: August 19, 2022
ACF Fall is the premier easy tournament in college quizbowl. Designed as an introduction to college quizbowl for novices and players with limited high school quizbowl experience, over 200 teams compete on ACF Fall each year, making it the most widely-played set in the college calendar.
Table of Contents
2022 ACF Fall
2022 ACF Fall will be held on October 15, 2022.
Editors
2022 ACF Fall is head-edited by Arjun Nageswaran and Steven Liu. The subject breakdown by editor is:
| Editor | Subjects |
|---|---|
| Dean Ah Now | World History, European History |
| Raymond Chen | British Literature, World Literature |
| Jim Fan | American Literature, European Literature |
| Sean Farrell | Non-Abrahamic Religion, Mythology, Visual Fine Arts |
| Evan Knox | Abrahamic Religion, Current Events, Pop Culture |
| Daniel Ma | Other History, Auditory Fine Arts |
| Ned Tagtmeier | Philosophy, Social Science |
| Eric Yin | Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Other Science excluding Math/CS |
| Walter Zhang | American History, Math/CS, Geography |
Format
We hope that ACF Fall can be held in person. However, we acknowledge that many schools are uncertain about the possibility of allowing large events due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, it is possible that some mirrors of ACF Fall will be held online, and we will work to create the most authentic and engaging quizbowl experience possible under these circumstances. We will continue to post updates as we learn more.
Rules
This tournament will follow ACF’s official gameplay rules. Rules specifically pertaining to online tournaments are in blue.
Fees
| Team entry fee or discount | |
|---|---|
| Base fee per team | $120 |
| New to quizbowl discount | −$80 |
| Shorthanded discount (1–2 players) | −$60 |
| Staffers | −$25 per staffer with functional laptop. Staffers must register with ACF in advance. |
The minimum fee is $0 per team.
The “new to quizbowl” discount is for schools that did not send a team to any regular collegiate academic tournament (not counting exclusively novice tournaments) since September 2021, and which have no players who competed in non-novice collegiate tournaments during that same period.
Host sites will bill teams as soon as possible after the teams register. Teams should pay their host sites by whatever method is convenient for the hosts, who will in turn pay ACF by check, cash, or PayPal.
See below for packet submission discounts.
Packet submission
Like the 2021 edition of ACF Fall, no teams are required to submit questions in order to play the tournament. However, ACF still needs high-quality half-packet submissions from teams to complete the set.
If a team wishes to outsource part of its packet to a player not expected to play on that team (e.g., a student who has graduated), it must first receive approval from the head editors. Non-playing students are welcome and encouraged to help their newer club members write, especially for Fall, but it’s useful to know the contributors for both credit and logistical reasons.
Below is the submission schedule for ACF Fall. All deadlines are at 11:59 p.m. PT. The maximum packet discounts have increased since last year; furthermore, all submitting teams are eligible for an additional −$20 quality discount if their questions are particularly polished and usable, up to a maximum discount of −$60. Teams may submit a maximum of one half-packet.
| Submission deadline | Packet discount |
|---|---|
| August 21, 2022 | −$50 |
| August 28, 2022 | −$40 |
| September 4, 2022 | −$30 |
| September 11, 2022 | −$20 |
| September 18, 2022 | −$10 |
If you would like to submit a half-packet, fill out this form. ACF will respond with a half-packet template specifying which categories you are assigned to write.
Each submission consists of 12 tossups and 12 bonuses. Before writing, please review ACF’s packet submission guidelines and stick to the format provided. Answers should generally emphasize playability over creativity – aim for creative and interesting clues with straightforward answerlines. These 5 model tossups reflect the difficulty and style to aim for. When finished, submit your half-packet by emailing it to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Your assigned half-packet may ask you to write questions from specific categories within the distribution. For instance, instead of being assigned an “American Literature” tossup, you might be asked to write a question on a 20th-century American poem, or an Economics bonus instead of “Social Science/Philosophy.” This should reduce redundancy in submissions and maximize the number of submitted questions we can use, without being too constraining. The submission form offers space to indicate your writing interests in each category, which we will do our best to accommodate.
Distribution
ACF Fall uses the standard ACF distribution.
Eligibility
To make this tournament more accessible to new teams and players, ACF is enforcing eligibility guidelines for ACF Fall. Players are not eligible to compete at 2022 ACF Fall if, at any point, they met any of the following exclusion criteria:
- Scored more than 50 PPG in the prelims of a college mirror of ACF Fall
- Were the top scorer (highest overall PPG) on a team that finished in the top 15% of the field, rounded up, at ACF Fall
- Scored more than 40 PP20TUH in the prelims of HSNCT or 60 PPG in the prelims of PACE NSC
- Were the top scorer (highest overall PPG) on a team that finished in the top 30 at HSNCT or top 10 at PACE NSC
- Finished in the top 12 in IPNCT
- Scored more than 20 PPG in the prelims of ACF Nationals
The eligibility restrictions do not apply to high-school-only mirrors.
Players are responsible for determining their own eligibility. If you have questions, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Failure to abide by these eligibility guidelines may result in disqualification from ACF Fall and/or future ACF tournaments.
Hosting
If you are interested in hosting a mirror of ACF Fall, fill out this form. If you have any questions about hosting, email ACF’s Site Coordinator at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hosts must abide by ACF’s Hosting Guidelines.
Sites
Mirrors will by default be regional. ACF reserves the right to move teams and staffers between sites. ACF intends to mirror 2022 ACF Fall in the following regions:
| Region | Site |
|---|---|
| Northeast | Harvard |
| Upstate New York | Cornell |
| Upper Mid-Atlantic | Maryland |
| Lower Mid-Atlantic | UNC Chapel Hill |
| Southeast | Georgia Tech |
| Florida | University of Florida |
| Great Lakes | Michigan |
| Midwest | Missouri-Columbia |
| North | Minnesota |
| South Central | Oklahoma |
| Northwest | Washington |
| Northern California | Berkeley |
| Southern California | Claremont Colleges |
| Eastern Canada | Ottawa |
| United Kingdom | |
| Asia | Asian Quizbowl Alliance |
| High-school-only | Auburn High School (Rockford, IL) |
| High School (National online) | Northfield High School |
| High School (California teams, online) | Northern California Quizbowl Alliance |
| Overflow | Columbia |
Current sites with no bids: UK
High school teams and high-school-only mirrors
ACF is willing to provide the ACF Fall set for high-school-only tournaments. If you are interested in hosting a high-school-only mirror of 2022 ACF Fall, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and CC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>However, we do not plan to offer mixed mirrors that include high school and college teams.
If you have any questions, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Past tournaments
Sample questions from previous iterations of ACF Fall are on the Collegiate Quizbowl Packet Archive.
Announcements and information about previous iterations of ACF Fall are archived below:


Installs software from an MSI file.
Install-Msi [-Path] <String[]> [-Quiet] [-Force] [-WhatIf] [-Confirm] [<CommonParameters>]
Install-Msi
installs software from an MSI file. If the install fails, it writes an error. Installation is always done in quiet mode, i.e. you won't see any UI.
In Carbon 1.9 and earlier, this function was called Invoke-WindowsInstaller
.
Beginning with Carbon 2.0, Install-Msi
only runs the MSI if the software isn't installed. Use the -Force
switch to always run the installer.
| Name | Type | Description | Required? | Pipeline Input | Default Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Path | String[] | The path to the installer to run. Wildcards supported. |
true | true (ByValue, ByPropertyName) | |
| Quiet | SwitchParameter | OBSOLETE. Installers are run in quiet mode by default. This switch will be removed in a future major version of Carbon. |
false | false | False |
| Force | SwitchParameter | Install the MSI even if it has already been installed. Will cause a repair/reinstall to run. |
false | false | False |
| WhatIf | SwitchParameter | false | false | ||
| Confirm | SwitchParameter | false | false | ||
| CommonParameters | This cmdlet supports common parameters. For more information type Get-Help about_CommonParameters . |
Install-Msi -Path Path\to\installer.msi
Runs installer.msi, and waits untils for the installer to finish. If the installer has a UI, it is shown to the user.
Get-ChildItem *.msi | Install-Msi
Demonstrates how to pipe MSI files into Install-Msi
for installation.


@helper.form(action = routes.Callouts.authenticate(), 'class -> "form-signin", 'role -> "form") {
Please sign in to Callouts
Sign in
Not a member?
Sign up
}


Hii Everyone! There are Dynamic and interior designers.We are currently 3rd year students pursuing bachelors in Architecture,Interior and Planning from NIT-Patna,PMCA, SPA-Bhopal respectively.
We have an immense interest in Contemporary, Neo futuristic & Parametric style of architecture and We designed in our projects based on such concepts. We work efficiently on software such as Revit, Auto-cad ,Sketch- Up ,Dynamo, Grass-hopper ,Rhino ,Lumion ,V-ray ,Twin-Motion etc.
Read more.. . . . .. .

Graphics Design
Web-Page
Visiting Card
Templates
Poster
Video Editing
Sign in to our newsletter and receive a coupon


📱 Simulator
A simctl wrapper in Swift.
Install 🛠
Using CocoaPods
Add the following line to your Podfile
and run pod install
:
pod "Simulator", "~> 0.3.0"
Using Swift Package Manager
Add the following dependency to your Package.swift
:
.package(url: "https://github.com/tuist/simulator.git", .upToNextMinor(from: "0.3.0")),
Using Carthage
Add the following line to your Cartfile
and link the Simulator.framework
from the project:
github "tuist/simulator" ~> 0.3.0
Note: Simulator is only compatible with macOS
Usage 🚀
Devices
// List devices
let devices = Device.list
Runtimes
// List runtimes
let runtimes = Runtime.list
// Get the latest runtime
let latestiOS = Runtime.latest(platform: .iOS)
Setup for development 👩💻
- Git clone:
git@github.com:tuist/simulator.git
- Generate Xcode project with
swift package generate-xcodeproj
. - Open
Simulator.xcodeproj
. - Have fun 🤖
Open source
Tuist is a proud supporter of the Software Freedom Conservacy


---
layout: post
title: The Paper's Done!
date: '2005-12-21T09:46:00.000-06:00'
author: Jabell
tags:
- School
modified_time: '2007-03-31T18:28:51.442-05:00'
blogger_id: tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19739956.post-113518026700710824
blogger_orig_url: http://theabellsix.blogspot.com/2005/12/papers-done.html
---
I clicked send on the email last night at 11:57 pm. The paper was not late if emailed by 11:59 pm. Barring any internet glitch, it was turned in on time. I really am thankful to God for the ability and priviledge of writing that paper. It was a joy to dig so deeply into Hebrews 10:26-31. As soon as I can figure out a way to post a link to the paper on this site, I will do it.
Thank you to all who have prayed for me. I have one more final tomorrow afternoon and then break for Christmas. It will be a wonderful time, I am sure.


RED A film review by Chad Polenz Copyright 1997 Chad Polenz
Chad'z Rating: *** (out of 4 = good) 1994, R, 99 minutes [1 hour, 39 minutes] [drama] starring: Irene Jacob (Valentine), Jean-Louis Trintisnant (The Judge), Frederique Feder (Karin), Jean-Pierre Lorit (Auguste), written by Krysztof Piesiewicz, Krzysztof Kielowski, produced by Marin Karmitz, directed by Krysztof Kielowski.
If we could interfere with fate, we would (or should we) do it? Perhaps the reason some people believe in fate is because of our sense of privacy. If everyone knew each others' business the world would be a much different place wouldn't it? "Red" tries to play up that theme through an encounter between two strangers.
Irene Jacob stars as Valentine, a fashion model who is likable and very sweet. We follow her around for a while, and at first the film seems a bit confusing as it's hard to tell where it's going. At the same time we also met a young, successful businessman named Auguste (Lorit). He doesn't have much, if anything, to do with Valentine, only that he lives near her. However, his entire character is a great technique in storytelling and filmmaking.
One day Valentine accidentally hits a dog with her car and when she returns it to its owner, a retired judge (Trintisnant), he seems totally apathetic. We can't help but be put off by his attitude, but at the same time he makes for an interesting character because of his bitterness. After several encounters Valentine realizes the judge listens in on his neighbors' telephone conversations for amusement. He doesn't seem so much perverted as he is curious.
Throughout the film the storytelling is breezy as it just tries to define the mood of their rather odd relationship. They discuss his habit of eavesdropping: Valentine claims it's a breach of privacy, but the judge doesn't seem to care anymore.  When she arrives at his house she meets the man's wife and child and knows if she were to tell them what is happening it would ruin their lives. This idea of interrupting with fate is the central theme of the film. The judge knows some day the wife will catch her husband and the family will be shattered, had Valentine told them she would have only sped up their misery.
There isn't much else to "Red." It's charming but not sappy. It could be enjoyed by almost anyone, but I would recommend it for mature audiences. Maybe Kielowski isn't trying to make a statement about love or fate, but just present them as he sees them. It's nice to know these kinds of things are relevant all over the world.
[Note: The film is rated R for a sex scene that last about four or five seconds. Besides that, there is no other sex, profanity, nor violence and the film should be suitable for ages 14 and up.]
Please visit Chad'z Movie Page @ http://members.aol.com/ChadPolenz
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


Undergrad
School: Lyncburg College
Degree: Bachelor of Science in Environmanel Science
Postbacc
School: Portland State University
Courses: Fundamentals of Accounting, Micro Economics
School: Portland Community College
Courses: Computer Programming I


Gmail Program Policies
The Gmail Program Policies play an important role in maintaining a positive experience for everyone using Gmail. Be sure to check back from time to time, as these policies may change. Please also refer to Google’s Terms of Service for more information.
If you believe an account has violated our Program Policies, there are multiple ways to report it:- For general abuse use this form
- For child grooming use this form
- For copyright violations use this form
Make sure to read the policies below to understand how we define abusive behavior.
Google may disable accounts that are found to be in violation of our policies. If your account is disabled, and you believe it was a mistake, please follow the instructions on this page.
Spam and Bulk Mail
Don’t use Gmail to distribute spam or unsolicited commercial mail.
You are not allowed to use Gmail to send email in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act or other anti-spam laws; to send unauthorized email via open, third-party servers; or to distribute the email addresses of any person without their consent.
You are not allowed to automate the Gmail interface, whether to send, delete, or filter emails, in a manner that misleads or deceives users.
Please keep in mind that your definition of “unsolicited” or “unwanted” mail may differ from your email recipients’ perception. Exercise judgment when sending email to a large number of recipients, even if the recipients elected to receive emails from you in the past. When Gmail users mark emails as spam, it increases the likelihood that future messages you send will also be classified as spam by our anti-abuse systems.
The Creation and Use of Multiple Gmail Accounts
Don’t create or use multiple accounts to abuse Google policies, bypass Gmail account limitations, circumvent filters, or otherwise subvert restrictions placed on your account. (For example, if you’ve been blocked by another user or have had your Gmail account disabled due to abuse, don’t create a replacement account that engages in similar activity.)
You’re also not allowed to create Gmail accounts by automated means or buy, sell, trade, or re-sell Gmail accounts to others.
Malware
Don’t use Gmail to transmit viruses, malware, worms, defects, Trojan horses, corrupted files, or any other items of a destructive or deceptive nature. In addition, don’t distribute content that harms or interferes with the operation of networks, servers, or other infrastructure belonging to Google or others.
Fraud, Phishing, and other Deceptive Practices
You may not access another user’s Gmail account without their explicit permission.
Don’t use Gmail for phishing. Refrain from soliciting or collecting sensitive data, including but not limited to passwords, financial details, and Social Security numbers.
Don’t send messages to trick, mislead, or deceive other users into sharing information under false pretenses. This includes impersonating another person, company, or entity with the intent to deceive or mislead.
 If we become aware of such content, we will report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as required by law. We may also take disciplinary action, including termination, against the Gmail accounts of those involved.
Google prohibits the grooming of children using Gmail, defined as a set of actions aimed at establishing a connection with a child to lower the child's inhibitions in preparation for sexual abuse, trafficking, or other exploitation.
If you believe a child is in danger of or has been subject to abuse, exploitation, or been trafficked, contact your local law enforcement immediately.
If you have already made a report to law enforcement and still need help, or you have concerns a child is being or was endangered using Gmail, you can report the behavior to Google using this form. Please remember that you can always block any person you do not want to be contacted by on Gmail.
Copyright
Respect copyright laws. Don’t infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, including patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights. You are also not allowed to encourage or induce others to violate intellectual property rights. You can report copyright infringement to Google by using this form.
Harassment
Don’t use Gmail to harass, intimidate or threaten others. Anyone found to be using Gmail for these purposes may have their account disabled.
Illegal Activity
Keep it legal. Don’t use Gmail to promote, organize, or engage in unlawful activities.


Import time input module into your application
import { TimeInputModule } from '@sbb-esta/angular-public';
and then you can use the time input directive as seen below

Example

<form>
<input sbbTimeInput />
</form>
The time input field accepts any numeric values and one character (for example a "." or "," or "-") but automatically formats them in the correct format "hh:mm".
Attention, the time input doesn't apply any validation. This is up to the consumer.
To understand how the time input works, see the following cases:
| Input | Output |
|---|---|
| 16:30 | 16:30 |
| 1 | 01:00 |
| 12 | 12:00 |
| 123 | 12:30 |
| 1234 | 12:34 |
| 13567 | 13:56 |
| 3.56 | 03:56 |
| 23,40 | 23:40 |


Akan names are derived from Ghanaian culture. Frequently in Ghana, children are given their first name as a 'day name' which coresponds to the day in the week they were born. These 'day names have further meanings concerning the soul and character of the person. Middle names have considerably more variety and can refer to their bith order, twin status, or an ancestor's middle name.
Fill the form to get your Akan name.


| Programming |
不要做一个“永远没彻底搞懂”诸如递归等概念的程序员 |
SICP Book MIT 6.001: SICP |
| |
Easier |
HTDP CS61A Lecture |
| |
Harder |
Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming |
| |
|
Extra excersice |
| Computer Architecture |
如果你对于计算机如何工作没有具体的概念，那么你所做出的所有高级抽象都是空中楼阁 |
✨ Nand2teris ✨ Nand2teris Course |
| |
|
Computer Organization and Design CS61C: Great Ideas in Computer Architecture |
| Operating Systems |
你所写的代码，基本上都由操作系统来运行，因此你应当了解其运作的原理 |
✨ 汇编语言 👾 x86：从实模式到保护模式 👾 OSTEP |
| |
Explore the design decisions of specific operating systems |
Lion’s commentary on Unix The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System Mac OS X Internals |
| |
|
MIT 6.828: xv6 |
| Math for CS |
计算机科学基本上是应用数学的一个“失控的”分支，因此学习数学将会给你带来竞争优势(离散数学) |
lecture notes by László Lovász Mathematics for Computer Science Course: Mathematics for Computer Science |
| |
线性代数 |
Essence of linear algebra Gilbert Strang’s Book Gilbert Strang’s Video |
| Algorithms and Data Structures |
如果你不懂得如何使用栈、队列、树、图等常见数据结构，遇到有难度的问题时，你将束手无策 |
👾 The Algorithm Design Manual Lecture: The Algorithm Design Manual |
| |
|
How to Solve It Excersice: Leetcode |
| Databases |
对于多数重要程序，数据是其核心，然而很少人理解数据库系统的工作原理 |
CS186 Architecture of a Database System |
| |
|
Readings in Database Systems Data and Reality: A Timeless Perspective on Perceiving and Managing Information in Our Imprecise World |
| Computer Networking |
互联网已然势不可挡：理解工作原理才能解锁全部潜力 |
Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach Wireshark labs |
| |
|
Lectures: Introduction to Computer Networking course |
| |
|
Some Projects: an HTTP server, a UDP-based chat app, a mini TCP stack, a proxy or load balancer, and a distributed hash table |
| Distributed systems |
如今，多数系统都是分布式的 |
Distributed Systems, 3rd Edition MIT’s 6.824 |
| |
|
Papers |
| Languages and Compilers |
若你懂得编程语言和编译器如何工作，你就能写出更好的代码，更轻松地学习新的编程语言 |
Compilers: Principles, Techniques & Tools Lecture: Compilers: Principles, Techniques & Tools |
| |
|
Language Implementation Patterns |
| |
|
Project: Make a Lisp |
| Programing Language Theory |
|
practical foundations for programming languages |


WITNESS LIST State Affairs Committee March 23, 1999-11:00A SB 753 FOR: Schmitt, Cyndie (Texas Council of Community MHMR Centers, Inc.), Austin SB 757 ON: Gibson, Scott (Legislative Budget Board), Austin Taylor, Shelia B. (State Office of Administrative Hearings), Austin


The purpose of this project was to analyze how weather changes as you get closer to the equator. To accomplish this analysis, we first pulled data from the OpenWeather Map API to assemble a dataset on over 500 cities. After assembling the dataset, we used Matplotlib and Seaborn to plot various aspects of the weather vs latitude. Factors we looked at included: temperature, cloudiness, wind speed, and humidity. This site provides the source data and visualizations created as part of the analysis as well as explanations and descriptions of any trends and correlations witnessed.


Given
this component computes the fastest movement under the given constraints. This means, that:
The acceleration, constant velocity and deceleration phase are determined in such a way that the movement starts form the start angles and ends at the end angles. The output of this block are the computed angles, angular velocities and angular acceleration and this information is stored as reference motion on the controlBus of the r3 robot.


Education |
University of Waterloo
September 2011 – August 2016
Honours Bachelor of Computer Science, Minor in Economics
Waterloo, ON
|
Work Experience |
Twitter
August–December 2015
Software Engineering Intern (Clients Team, iOS Core Services)
San Francisco, CA
Microsoft
January–April 2015
Software Engineering Intern (Microsoft Excel for iOS/OS X, Applications and Services Group)
Redmond, WA
Pivotal Labs (formerly Xtreme Labs)
January–April and September–December 2013
Agile Engineering Intern (iOS Development)
Toronto, ON
|
Skills |
Languages
|


Provides API that allows user to authenticate on KiiCloud through various social networks.
See Also: Inherited members from UnityEngine.MonoBehaviour.
|
|
Initializes a new instance of KiiSocialNetworkConnector. |
|
|
DisplayArea | UnityEngine.Rect . Display area of web page of social connector. |
|
|
LogIn
(Provider, KiiSocialCallback)Login with the social network. |
Initializes a new instance of KiiSocialNetworkConnector.Syntax
public KiiSocialNetworkConnector ()Remarks
This constructor is called by UnityGameEngine. Do not use it from your application.Requirements
Namespace: KiiCorp.Cloud.Storage.Connector
Assembly: plugin (in plugin.dll)
Assembly Versions: <IP_ADDRESS>
Display area of web page of social connector.Syntax
public UnityEngine.Rect DisplayArea { get; set; }Value
Display area.Remarks
Web page of social connector is displayed as full screen, if applications do not set this field. DisplayArea is only effective for iOS environment. In Android environment, web page is shown as alert dialog.Requirements
Namespace: KiiCorp.Cloud.Storage.Connector
Assembly: plugin (in plugin.dll)
Assembly Versions: <IP_ADDRESS>
Login with the social network.Syntax
Parameters
- provider
- Social network to use to login KiiCloud.
- callback
- callback notifies events asynchronously. must not be null.
Exceptions
Type Reason ArgumentException Exception is thrown when one or more arguments are invalid. ArgumentNullException Exception is thrown when one or more arguments are null. NotSupportedException Exception is thrown when the specified provider is not supported. Remarks
If there is already logged in user, perform logout and login with credentials given by user.Requirements
Namespace: KiiCorp.Cloud.Storage.Connector
Assembly: plugin (in plugin.dll)
Assembly Versions: <IP_ADDRESS>


Back in July 2012 Microsoft announced improvements to Azure Web Sites. One of those improvements was to Git publishing so when you pushed changes to your Github repository Azure would automatically pick that up and deploy the project. I even mentioned it in my DinnerParty blog post but have only just looked at implementing it.
As I said in my previous post Azure supported Git publishing but it was a two step process. You push to Github and then push to Azure and it gets deployed. If you already have Git setup on your Azure account there is nowhere in the dashboard that allows to you setup Github integration. I thought I was going to have reset my deployment credentials and set it all up again when I asked the question on Jabbr. Luckily David Fowler was online. Why is that lucky? He wrote the Github integration feature of Azure.
To setup your Azure account to enable Github integration you have to FTP into your Azure account and delete the deployment history by deleting all contents in the /site/deployments folder.
Deployment History
Once the history is deleted, if you go to the Deployments tab in the Azure account you will now see a link to “Deploy from my GitHub repository”.
Setup
By clicking the link it will inform you that you need to authorize Azure to have access to your Github repository and that if there is code already in your repository it will be deployed again.
Authorize
Once you authorize Azure to read your Github account you need to tell it which repository it should watch.
Repository
As stated earlier, if there is code in the repo it will begin to deploy automatically and confirm deployment once this has been done.
Deploying
Deployed
From now on, once you push changes to your Github repository Azure will pick them up and deploy the project to your web site! Could it get any easier?
UPDATE 7th Nov 2012: After speaking to David Fowler again he remembered that you could take the Git webservice hook and enter that into the Github repository account settings.
Go to the Configure tab in Azure and copy the Git hoook URL.
Azure Hook
Then go to your Github repo and into the Admin section and under Service Hooks enter the copied Azure URL
Github Hook
Away you go!


Nothing is known about clearance procedures for yachts here.
Last updated June 2015.
A passport is required and must be vaild for at least 3 months.
Bosnia & Herzegovina does not recognise passports issued by the Former Yugoslav Federation Republic (Serbia & Montenegro), which have a red cover.
No visa required for citizens of the EU, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Macau, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, USA and Venezuela for stays of up to 90 days.
All other citizens must apply for a visa prior to entry.
Ensure your passport is stamped on entry or you may be fined when you leave.
Last updated June 2015.
Firearms must be declared.
The export of works of art is prohibited.
Last updated June 2015.
Immunisation against typhoid and polio are recommended.
Hepatitis A occurs and vaccination is usually advised. Immunisation against hepatitis B, diphtheria, tuberculosis and tick-borne encephalitis is also recommended.
Medical and dental facilities outside Sarajevo and major towns are limited.
Landmines and other unexploded ordnance remain from the 1992-95 war. Highly populated areas and major routes are clear of mines and are safe to visit, but you should take special care near to the former lines of conflict. Although roads themselves may be clear on major routes, there are many landmines close to the edge of roads. Don’t stray from roads and paved areas. You should avoid the open countryside and especially destroyed or abandoned buildings, neglected land, un-tarred roads, woods and orchards, private property and abandoned villages. Abandoned buildings, even in towns and cities may be booby trapped with mines. For further information, check the Mine Action Centre website
Dogs and cats may be taken into Bosnia without any restrictions or quarantine. (Highly exotic pets may require an import licence) At the point of entry a Pets Passport and Health Certificate issued by recognised Veterinarian stating breed,colour, name, sex and name of owner must be produced. Dogs and cats must be vaccinated for Rabies more than 30 days and not more than 11 months prior to arrival. The certificate should indicate type, batch number and date of vaccination. Certificate should also show that pet is healthy to travel and is free from parasites such as flees and ticks and that it is currently on a prevention medication program. Microchip not required but recommended.


Class: RuboCop::Cop::Performance::StartWith
| Relationships & Source Files | |
| Super Chains via Extension / Inclusion / Inheritance | |
|
Class Chain:
self,
AutoCorrector,
Base
|
|
|
Instance Chain:
self,
::RuboCop::Cop::RegexpMetacharacter ,
Base
|
|
| Inherits: |
Base
|
| Defined in: | lib/rubocop/cop/performance/start_with.rb |
Overview
Identifies unnecessary use of a regex where String#start_with?
would suffice.
This cop has SafeMultiline
configuration option that true
by default because
^start
is unsafe as it will behave incompatible with start_with?
for receiver is multiline string.
Constant Summary
-
MSG =
# File 'lib/rubocop/cop/performance/start_with.rb', line 53'Use `String#start_with?` instead of a regex match anchored to the beginning of the string.'
-
RESTRICT_ON_SEND =
# File 'lib/rubocop/cop/performance/start_with.rb', line 54%i[match =~ match?].freeze
Instance Attribute Summary
Instance Method Summary
-
#on_csend(node)
Alias for #on_send.
-
#on_match_with_lvasgn(node)
Alias for #on_send.
- #on_send(node) (also: #on_csend, #on_match_with_lvasgn)
::RuboCop::Cop::RegexpMetacharacter
- Included
Instance Method Details
#on_csend(node)
Alias for #on_send.
# File 'lib/rubocop/cop/performance/start_with.rb', line 76
alias on_csend on_send
#on_match_with_lvasgn(node)
Alias for #on_send.
# File 'lib/rubocop/cop/performance/start_with.rb', line 77
alias on_match_with_lvasgn on_send
#on_send(node) Also known as: #on_csend, #on_match_with_lvasgn
[ GitHub ]# File 'lib/rubocop/cop/performance/start_with.rb', line 62
def on_send(node) return unless (receiver, regex_str = redundant_regex?(node)) add_offense(node) do |corrector| receiver, regex_str = regex_str, receiver if receiver.is_a?(String) regex_str = (regex_str) regex_str = interpret_string_escapes(regex_str) dot = node.loc.dot ? node.loc.dot.source : '.' new_source = "#{receiver.source}#{dot}start_with?(#{to_string_literal(regex_str)})" corrector.replace(node, new_source) end end


Tokyo Stock Exchange (Code: TSE)
End of day prices and additional information for companies trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange in Japan.


@* * Copyright 2023 HM Revenue & Customs * * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. * You may obtain a copy of the License at * * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and * limitations under the License. *@ @import helpers._ @(fields: Seq[Field], id: String, showGroupedError: Boolean, classes: String* )(content: Html)(implicit messages: Messages) @defining(_root_.template.HtmlSupport.getErrors(fields)) { combinedErrors =>


Chevrolet has built the last front-engine Corvette
by Gary GasteluThe Corvette has left the building … for now.
The last front-engine Chevrolet Corvette was built at GM’s Bowling Green, Ky., factory on Thursday, according to the automaker.
The 2019 Z06 rolled off the line a few weeks later than planned due to the 40-day UAW strike. The black-over-red coupe already has a buyer who paid a whopping $2.7 million for it at a charity auction in June supporting the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation.
Chevrolet will now finish reengineering the plant to manufacture the all-new mid-engine 2020 Corvette Stingray. Production of the $59,995 Stingray coupe is set to begin in February with a convertible to follow later in the year.


Syllabus
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Respondents, Illinois for-profit fundraising corporations and their owner (collectively Telemarketers), were retained by VietNow National Headquarters, a charitable nonprofit corporation, to solicit donations to aid Vietnam veterans. The contracts between those parties provided, among other things, that Telemarketers would retain 85 percent of the gross receipts from Illinois donors, leaving 15 percent for VietNow. The Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint in state court, alleging, inter alia , that Telemarketers represented to donors that a significant amount of each dollar donated would be paid over to VietNow for specifically identified charitable endeavors, and that such representations were knowingly deceptive and materially false, constituted a fraud, and were made for Telemarketers private pecuniary benefit. The trial court granted Telemarketers motion to dismiss the fraud claims on First Amendment grounds. In affirming, the Illinois Appellate and Supreme Courts placed heavy weight on Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620, Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U. S. 947, and Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781. Those decisions held that certain regulations of charitable solicitation barring fees in excess of a prescribed level effectively imposed prior restraints on fundraising, and were therefore incompatible with the First Amendment. The state high court acknowledged that this case involved no such prophylactic proscription of high-fee charitable solicitation. Instead, the court noted, the Attorney General sought to enforce the States generally applicable antifraud laws against Telemarketers for specific instances of deliberate deception. However, the Illinois Supreme Court said, Telemarketers solicitation statements were alleged to be false only because Telemarketers contracted for 85% of the gross receipts and failed to disclose this information to donors. The court concluded that the Attorney Generals complaint was, in essence, an attempt to regulate Telemarketers ability to engage in a protected activity based upon a percentage-rate limitationthe same regulatory principle rejected in Schaumburg , Munson , and Riley .
Held: Consistent with this Courts precedent and the First Amendment, States may maintain fraud actions when fundraisers make false or misleading representations designed to deceive donors about how their donations will be used. The Illinois Attorney Generals allegations against Telemarketers therefore state a claim for relief that can survive a motion to dismiss. Pp. 821.
(a) The First Amendment protects the right to engage in charitable solicitation, see, e.g., Schaumburg , 444 U. S., at 632, but does not shield fraud, see, e.g. , Donaldson v. Read Magazine, Inc., 333 U. S. 178. Like other forms of public deception, fraudulent charitable solicitation is unprotected speech. See, e.g. , Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147. This Court has not previously addressed the First Amendments application to individual fraud actions of the kind at issue here. It has, however, three times held unconstitutional prophylactic laws designed to combat fraud by imposing prior restraints on solicitation when fundraising fees exceeded a specified reasonable level. Pp. 813.
(b) In those cases , Schaumburg , Munson , and Riley, the Court took care to leave a corridor open for fraud actions to guard the public against false or misleading charitable solicitations. See, e.g., Schaumburg , 444 U. S., at 637. As those decisions recognized, there are differences critical to First Amendment concerns between fraud actions trained on representations made in individual cases and statutes that categorically ban solicitations when fundraising costs run high. Simply labeling an action one for fraud, of course, will not carry the day. Had the State Attorney Generals complaint charged fraud based solely on the percentage of donations the fundraisers would retain, or their failure to alert donors to fee arrangements at the start of each call, Riley would support swift dismissal. Portions of the Attorney Generals complaint against Telemarketers were of this genre. But the complaint and annexed affidavits, in large part, alleged not simply what Telemarketers failed to convey. They also described what Telemarketers misleadingly represented. Taking into account the affidavits, and reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the Attorney General, that pleading described misrepresentations this Courts precedent does not place under the First Amendments cover. First, the complaint asserted that Telemarketers affirmatively represented that a significant amount of each dollar donated would be paid over to VietNow to be used for specific charitable purposes while in fact Telemarketers knew that 15 cents or less of each dollar would be available for those purposes. Second, the complaint essentially alleged that the charitable solicitation was a façade: Although Telemarketers represented that donated funds would go to VietNows charitable purposes, the amount of funds paid over to the charity was merely incidental to the fundraising effort, which was made for Telemarketers private pecuniary benefit. Fraud actions so tailored, targeting misleading affirmative representations about how donations would be used, are unlike the prophylactic measures invalidated in Schaumburg , Munson , and Riley : So long as the emphasis is on what the fundraisers misleadingly convey, and not on percentage limitations on solicitors fees per se , fraud actions need not impermissibly chill protected speech. Pp. 1316.
(c) The prohibitions invalidated in Schaumburg , Munson , and Riley turned solely on whether high percentages of donated funds were spent on fundraising. Their application did not depend on whether the fundraiser made fraudulent representations to potential donors. In contrast to the prior restraints inspected in those cases, a properly tailored fraud action targeting specific fraudulent representations employs no [b]road prophylactic rul[e], Schaumburg , 444 U. S., at 637 (citation omitted), lacking any nexus … [to] the likelihood that the solicitation is fraudulent, Riley , 487 U. S., at 793. Such an action thus falls on the constitutional side of the line between regulation aimed at fraud and regulation aimed at something else in the hope that it would sweep fraud in during the process. Munson , 467 U. S., at 969970. The Attorney Generals complaint has a solid core in allegations that home in on Telemarketers affirmative statements designed to mislead donors regarding the use of their contributions. Of prime importance, to prove a defendant liable for fraud under Illinois case law, the State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knowingly made a false representation of a material fact, that such representation was made with the intent to mislead the listener, and that the representation succeeded in doing so. In contrast to a prior restraint on solicitation, or a regulation that imposes on fundraisers an uphill burden to prove their conduct lawful, the State bears the full burden of proof in an individualized fraud action. Exacting proof requirements of this order, in other contexts, have been held to provide sufficient breathing room for protected speech. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254. As an additional safeguard responsive to First Amendment concerns, an appellate court could independently review the trial courts findings. Cf. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485. What the First Amendment and this Courts case law emphatically do not require, however, is a blanket exemption from fraud liability for a fundraiser who intentionally misleads in calls for donations. While the percentage of fundraising proceeds turned over to a charity is not an accurate measure of the amount of funds used for a charitable purpose, Munson , 467 U. S., at 967, n. 16, the gravamen of the fraud action in this case is not high costs or fees, but particular representations made with intent to mislead. The Illinois Attorney General has not suggested that a charity must desist from using donations for legitimate purposes such as information dissemination, advocacy, and the like. Rather, the Attorney General has alleged that Telemarketers attracted donations by misleading potential donors into believing that a substantial portion of their contributions would fund specific programs or services, knowing full well that was not the case. Such representations remain false or misleading, however legitimate the other purposes for which the funds are in fact used. The Court does not agree with Telemarketers that the Attorney Generals fraud action is simply an end run around Riley s holding that fundraisers may not be required, in every telephone solicitation, to state the percentage of receipts the fundraiser would retain. It is one thing to compel every fundraiser to disclose its fee arrangements at the start of a telephone conversation, quite another to take fee arrangements into account in assessing whether particular affirmative representations designedly deceive the public. Pp. 1619.
(d) Given this Courts repeated approval of government efforts to enable donors to make informed choices about their charitable contributions, see, e.g., Schaumburg , 444 U. S., at 638, almost all States and many localities require charities and professional fundraisers to register and file regular reports on their activities, particularly their fundraising costs. These reports are generally available to the public and are often placed on the Internet. Telemarketers do not object on First Amendment grounds to these disclosure requirements. Just as government may seek to inform the public and prevent fraud through such requirements, so it may vigorously enforce antifraud laws to prohibit professional fundraisers from obtaining money on false pretenses or by making false statements. Riley , 487 U. S., at 800. High fundraising costs, without more, do not establish fraud, see id ., at 793, and mere failure to volunteer the fundraisers fee when contacting a potential donee, without more, is insufficient to state a claim for fraud, id ., at 795801. But these limitations do not disarm States from assuring that their residents are positioned to make informed choices about their charitable giving. Pp. 1921.
198 Ill. 2d 345, 763 N. E. 2d 289, reversed and remanded.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.
Concurrence
ILLINOIS
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER
v.
TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated. Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Courts opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (that donations will be used for charitable purposes), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated), the answer to the question would be yes.
It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc ., 487 U. S. 781, 793 (1988) , and Secretary of State of Md . v. Joseph H. Munson Co ., 467 U. S. 947, 966 (1984) , that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Todays judgment, however, rests upon a solid core of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.


Welcome
Projects
Footer
Hii! My name is
Fabricio
I am a Web Developer
My projects
View more
View more
View more
View more


Cars
Deals
My Account
Logout
Leave Us Review
Give us your rating
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
Type here your review
Send


A peer reviewed, open access journal of De La Salle University, Manila
All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence.
Authors must not use the words, figures, or ideas of others without attribution. All sources must be cited at the point they are used, and reuse of wording must be limited and be attributed or quoted in the text.
Manuscripts submitted must not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration and must be withdrawn before being submitted elsewhere. Authors whose articles are found to have been simultaneously submitted elsewhere may incur sanctions.
Authors whose submitted manuscripts are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, may incur sanctions.
The authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles that are found to have fabricated or falsified the results, including the manipulation of images, may incur sanctions, and published articles may be retracted.
All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript, approved its claims, and agreed to be an author. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution.


In many projects Ninja’s default routing is just fine. As well as the way Ninja handles and reacts to errors and exceptions.
But sometimes you need just more flexibility and control. Let’s say you want to add extensive reporting to your application.
You can try to tackle the issue by using a Filter. But there’s a more powerful way.
Center stage for conf.Ninja.
The whole request cycle - and the response to errors and exceptions is handled by Ninja itself by default. But by creating a class at location conf.Ninja you can modify, extend and tweak the default handling.
The best way to start is to extend ninja.NinjaDefault. NinjaDefault is the default class handling all events - and therefore you can simply overwrite the behavior you want to tweak without writing much code.
package conf; public class Ninja extends NinjaDefault { @Inject CustomReportingMachine customReportingMachine; @Override public void onRouteRequest(Context.Impl context) { customReportingMachine.report(context); super.onRouteRequest(context); } }
In the case above you can see that we are injecting a customReportingMachine that can log every request. We then simply call super.onRouteRequest(context); and continue the route handling as usual.
You can of course overwrite all essential methods Ninja uses during the request lifecycle. From onRouteRequest(…) to onError(…) to onFrameworkStop(…) and more.
NinjaDefault is really nice, but you can also start from scratch and customize everything yourself. The only thing to keep in mind is that your conf.Ninja class has to extend ninja.Ninja (That’s an interface within the Ninja framework).
package ninja; public interface Ninja { /** * When a route is requested this method is called. */ void onRouteRequest(Context.Impl context); /** * This result should be used when an error occurs. * * @param context The context for this request * @param exception The exception to handle. Can be used to customize error message. * @return a result you can use to render the error. */ Result onException(Context context, Exception exception); /** * Should handle cases where an exception is thrown * when handling a route that let to an internal server error. * * Should lead to a html error 500 - internal sever error * (and be used with the same mindset). * * Usually used by onRouteRequest(...). */ Result getInternalServerErrorResult(Context context, Exception exception); /** * Should handle cases where the client sent strange date that * led to an error. * * Should lead to a html error 400 - bad request * (and be used with the same mindset). * * Usually used by onRouteRequest(...). */ Result getBadRequestResult(Context context, Exception exception); /** * Should handle cases where no route can be found for a given request. * * Should lead to a html error 404 - not found * (and be used with the same mindset). * * Usually used by onRouteRequest(...). */ Result getNotFoundResult(Context context); /** * Should handle cases where access is forbidden * * Should lead to a html error 403 - not found * (and be used with the same mindset). * * Usually used by SecureFilter for instance(...). */ Result getForbiddenResult(Context context); /** * Invoked when the framework starts. Usually inits stuff like the scheduler * and so on. */ void onFrameworkStart(); /** * Invoked when the server hosting Ninja is being stopped. Usually * shuts down the guice injector and stopps all services. */ void onFrameworkShutdown(); /** * Should be used to render an error. Any errors should be catched * and not reported in any way to the request. * * For instance if your application catches a sever internal computation * error use this method and its implementations to render out * an error html page. */ void renderErrorResultAndCatchAndLogExceptions(Result result, Context context); }
ninja.Ninja nicely shows all the options you can tweak regarding the request lifecycle. It does not really matter if you implement ninja.Ninja yourself or if you simply extend ninja.NinjaDefault. But in general extending ninja.NinjaDefault is a very good starting point.


Prepare Month 9 claim
Firm: Shelter Cymru | Account number: 2M282N | Scheme: Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypridd
Month 9 period
This is for claims between 1 to 31 December.
Upload and check your contract report form
| File name | Status | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HPCDS_Jan_2018_Claim.xls | Data error | Show corrections | Remove |


Design of a Novel Many-Core Crypto Processor
Clément Humbert, Tristan Overney
November 21st, 2014
- Goal of the project
- Cryptography on GPU
- First approach
- Microbenchmarking
- Fermi
- Microbenchmarking results
- Conclusions
- What's next
- Questions
- Increase GPU performance for cryptographic applications.
- Understanding current limitations of cryptography on GPUs
- Understanding the microarchitecture of currently used GPUs
- Find a way to change this architecture to improve performances of cryptographic applications
Pro
- High level of parallelism, ideal for cryptographic algorithms.
Cons
- Focused on single-precision floating-point operations.
- Lack of large multipliers for integers.
Why Nvidia & Fermi architecture
- Nividia's GPU are build around CUDA core.
- Fermi is their most recent architecture with decent integer multiplication throughput.
- First approach was to build hardware components
- Montgomery multiplier
- Larger multiplier
- And mimic the Fermi's architecture
- We tinkered on a simulator (gpgpu sim) to be able to test custom opcodes
There was just too much things we didn’t know about Fermi.
- We need to have a better understanding of the Fermi architecture
- Fermi is closed and there is little to no precise informations about its microarchitecture
- We had a Fermi card ready for some live measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_(microarchitecture)#mediaviewer/File:Fermi.svg
http://www.nvidia.com/content/pdf/fermi_white_papers/nvidiafermicomputearchitecturewhitepaper.pdf
- A block of threads runs on a dedicated SM and has a maximum size of 1024
- A warp consists of 32 threads
- Each scheduling cycle, a half of two different warps are scheduled
- Are (single-precision) floating-point and integer units really present in each core ?
- How can the inferior integer operations throughput compared to floating-points be explained ?
- How is the scheduling performed ?
- Running a million of operations
- Once for integer multiplication
- Once for floating point multiplication
- Expecting lower performances for integer
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_a) : "r"(op_b));
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_a) : "r"(op_b));
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_a) : "r"(op_b));
}
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
a = a * b;
a = a * b;
a = a * b;
}
- 18 stages pipeline
- Only half of the cores have integer ALUs
- Need to check the for-loop cost to validate
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_a) : "r"(op_b));
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_c) : "r"(op_d));
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_a) : "r"(op_b));
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_c) : "r"(op_d));
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_a) : "r"(op_b));
asm volatile("mul.lo.u32 %0, %0, %1;" : "+r"(op_c) : "r"(op_d));
}
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
a = a * b;
c = c * d;
a = a * b;
c = c * d;
a = a * b;
c = c * d;
}
- We can gain space by removed/replacing SFUs
- Only 16 cores have integer multiplication capabilities, so 16 can be replaced
- New components don't need to be optimized in term of latency (up to 18 cycles)
- Understand scheduling mechanism for a mix of operation types
- Hardware implementation of specific algorithms in less than 18 cycles
- Simulation of changes using a modified version of gpgpu-sim
http://inotternews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/190_1jeross_pb02_29.jpg


US Laboratory Order Implementation
The US Laboratory Order Implementation (USLabOrder) consists of the guidance documentation, profiles, operations, value sets and conformance
statements it defines. This implementation has been prepared as a U.S. Realm Specification on behalf of the HL7 Orders and Observation Workgroup.
Laboratory Test Ordering in the US Realm ambulatory care setting (USLabOrder)- This use case is based upon existing regulatory requirements for Laboratories and Electronic Health Record Systems (EHR-S) for ordering clinical laboratory tests. The content has been modeled after the joint HL7 and
The Standards and Interoperability (S&I) Framework Laboratory Orders Interface (LOI) Initiative and the
HL7 Lab Order Conceptual Specification .
However, much of the content is likely to be usable outside the ambulatory space and in other jurisdictions.
- Purpose- How this project came to be and what it is trying to achieve
- Use case- Describes the Scope, Assumptions, Pre and Post Conditions and Use Cases for this guide
- Key Technical Decisions- List of key technical decisions in creating this guide
- Additional Guidance-Information on CLIA and Glossary of laboratory terms defined for this implementation
Specification
The USLabOrder is built on top of the HL7 FHIR standard.
Basic aspects of the FHIR protocol, including RESTful operations,
data types, search, etc. apply.
Profiles -The current focus of implementing USLabOrder is using a FHIR Bundle Resource to exchange a DiagnosticOrder Profile and the Resource Profiles it references. This FHIR bundle completely defines the laboratory order. The Resource Profiles that may be used in the bundle are outlined below: (This list is not meant to be exhaustive as additional resources may also to be used)
-
US Lab DiagnosticOrder constrains and extends DiagnosticOrder which is used to define the laboratory order. This Resources references the following profiles:
- USlabPatient constrains and extends Patient which is used the subject of the order. .
- USlabPHPatient constrains and extends Patient which is used the subject of the order for use cases where additional patient information is needed, such as for tests that may be reportable to public health and when the orderer instructs the laboratory to send copy of the results to the patient.
- USlabPractitioner constrains and extends Practitioner which is used to define the provider who ordered the lab test(s) or a non-ordering provider to whom the orderer instructs the laboratory to send the results.
- USlabPHPractitioner constrains and extends Practitioner which is defined for use cases where additional provider information is needed, such as for tests that may be reportable to public health. This Resource references the following profile:
- USLabObsCode | USLabObsQuantity | USLabObsOther | USLabObsRatio | USLabObsPanel constrains and extends Observation which are used to support the various result types for record supporting information or other clinically relevant observations such as previous lab results and ask at order questions (AOE). These Resources reference the following profile:
- USlabReasonForStudy constrains and extends Condition which is used to record reasons for performing the requested test.
- USlabCond constrains and extends Condition which is used to provide other clinically relevant information to the laboratorian or pathologist.
- USlabSpec constrains and extends Specimen which is used to define what, when, and how the specimen was collected.
- USLabCCTarget constrains and extends Organization which is used to define a third party organization to which the orderer instructs the laboratory to send the results.
In addition to defining the USLabOrder bundle this implementation consists of the following components:
-
Operations - None
-
Conformance statements - Definitions for the expected capabilities of each of the actors involved supporting USLabOrder functionality:
-
Value Sets - USLab Value Sets
-
Mappings - are translation of the concept codes for LOI to USLabOrder - Note this is a stub entry for future work.
-
Examples - Example instances of USLabReport Resources: Note these have not yet been validated by profile specific schema and schematrons and are provided as informational only:
Published by: HL7 Orders and Observations Workgroup
Primary Author/Editor: Eric M Haas, Health eData Inc.