Syllabus
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY et al. <font i="1">v. DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Among other things, Connecticuts Megans Law requires persons convicted of sexual offenses to register with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) upon their release into the community, and requires DPS to post a sex offender registry containing registrants names, addresses, photographs, and descriptions on an Internet Website and to make the registry available to the public in certain state offices.  The District Court granted respondent summary judgment, certified a class of individuals subject to the law, and permanently enjoined the laws public disclosure provisions. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a liberty interest, and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be currently dangerous.
Held: The Second Circuits judgment must be reversed because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the States statutory scheme. Mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693. But even assuming, arguendo, that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a factthat he is not currently dangerousthat is not material under the statute. Cf., e.g., Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433. As the DPS Website explains, the laws requirements turn on an offenders conviction alonea fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest. Unless respondent can show that the substantive rule of law is defective (by conflicting with the Constitution), any hearing on current dangerousness is a bootless exercise. Respondent expressly disavows any reliance on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendments protections, and maintains that his challenge is strictly a procedural one. But States are not barred by principles of procedural due process from drawing such classifications. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110 (plurality opinion). Such claims must ultimately be analyzed in terms of substantive due process. Id., at 121. Because the question is not properly before the Court, it expresses no opinion as to whether the States law violates substantive due process principles. Pp. 46.
271 F. 3d 38, reversed.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which OConnor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Stevens, J. (see No. 01729), filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Opinion
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
et al.
, PETITIONERS
v.
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticuts sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a liberty interest, and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be currently dangerous. Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the States statutory scheme.
Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. McKune v. Lile , 536 U. S. 24, 32 (2002) (plurality opinion).  Id ., at 3233.   Covered offenders must register with the Connecticut Department of Public Safety (DPS) upon their release into the community. Each must provide personal information (including his name, address, photograph, and DNA sample); notify DPS of any change in residence; and periodically submit an updated photograph. The registration requirement runs for 10 years in most cases; those convicted of sexually violent offenses must register for life. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54251, 54252, 54254 (2001).
The statute requires DPS to compile the information gathered from registrants and publicize it. In particular, the law requires DPS to post a sex offender registry on an Internet Website and to make the registry available to the public in certain state offices. §§54257, 54258. Whether made available in an office or via the Internet, the registry must be accompanied by the following warning: Any person who uses information in this registry to injure, harass or commit a criminal act against any person included in the registry or any other person is subject to criminal prosecution. §54258a.
Before the District Court enjoined its operation, the States Website enabled citizens to obtain the name, address, photograph, and description of any registered sex offender by entering a zip code or town name. The following disclaimer appeared on the first page of the Website:
The registry is based on the legislatures decision to facilitate access to publicly-available information about persons convicted of sexual offenses. [DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual. 271 F. 3d, at 44.
Petitioners include the state agencies and officials charged with compiling the sex offender registry and posting it on the Internet.  He filed this action pursuant to Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, on behalf of himself and similarly situated sex offenders, claiming that the law violates, inter alia , the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, respondent alleged that he is not a dangerous sexual offender, and that the Connecticut law deprives him of a liberty interesthis reputation combined with the alteration of his status under state lawwithout notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 271 F. 3d, at 4546. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent on his due process claim. 132 F. Supp. 2d 57 (Conn. 2001). The court then certified a class of individuals subject to the Connecticut law, and permanently enjoined the laws public disclosure provisions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 271 F. 3d 38 (CA2 2001), holding that the Due Process Clause entitles class members to a hearing to determine whether or not they are particularly likely to be currently dangerous before being labeled as such by their inclusion in a publicly disseminated registry. Id., at 62. Because Connecticut had not provided such a hearing, the Court of Appeals enjoined petitioners from disclosing or disseminating to the public, either in printed or electronic form (a) the Registry or (b) Registry information concerning [class members] and from identifying [them] as being included in the Registry. Ibid. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Connecticut law implicated a liberty interest because of: (1) the laws stigmatization of respondent by implying that he is currently dangerous, and (2) its imposition of extensive and onerous registration obligations on respondent. Id., at 57. From this liberty interest arose an obligation, in the Court of Appeals view, to give respondent an opportunity to demonstrate that he was not likely to be currently dangerous. Id ., at 62. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1077 (2002) .
In Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693 (1976) , we held that mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. Petitioners urge us to reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground that, under Paul v. Davis , respondent has failed to establish that petitioners have deprived him of a liberty interest. We find it unnecessary to reach this question, however, because even assuming, arguendo , that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the Connecticut statute.
In cases such as Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971) , and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975) , we held that due process required the government to accord the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular fact or set of facts. But in each of these cases, the fact in question was concededly relevant to the inquiry at hand. Here, however, the fact that respondent seeks to provethat he is not currently dangerousis of no consequence under Connecticuts Megans Law. As the DPS Website explains, the laws requirements turn on an offenders conviction alonea fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law (emphasis added)). No other fact is relevant to the disclosure of registrants information. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54257, 54258 (2001). Indeed, the disclaimer on the Website explicitly states that respondents alleged nondangerousness simply does not matter. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( [DPS] has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous ).
In short, even if respondent could prove that he is not likely to be currently dangerous, Connecticut has decided that the registry information of all sex offenderscurrently dangerous or notmust be publicly disclosed. Unless respondent can show that that substantive rule of law is defective (by conflicting with a provision of the Constitution), any hearing on current dangerousness is a bootless exercise. It may be that respondents claim is actually a substantive challenge to Connecticuts statute recast in procedural due process terms. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 308 (1993) . Nonetheless, respondent expressly disavows any reliance on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendments protections, Brief for Respondent 4445, and maintains, as he did below, that his challenge is strictly a procedural one. But States are not barred by principles of procedural due process from drawing such classifications. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110, 120 (1989) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original). See also id ., at 132 ( Stevens, J. , concurring in judgment). Such claims must ultimately be analyzed in terms of substantive, not procedural, due process. Id. , at 121. Because the question is not properly before us, we express no opinion as to whether Connecticuts Megans Law violates principles of substantive due process.
Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme. Respondent cannot make that showing here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Opinion
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
et al.
, PETITIONERS
v.
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticuts sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a liberty interest, and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be currently dangerous. Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the States statutory scheme.
Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. McKune v. Lile , 536 U. S. 24, 32 (2002) (plurality opinion).  Id ., at 3233.   Covered offenders must register with the Connecticut Department of Public Safety (DPS) upon their release into the community. Each must provide personal information (including his name, address, photograph, and DNA sample); notify DPS of any change in residence; and periodically submit an updated photograph. The registration requirement runs for 10 years in most cases; those convicted of sexually violent offenses must register for life. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54251, 54252, 54254 (2001).
The statute requires DPS to compile the information gathered from registrants and publicize it. In particular, the law requires DPS to post a sex offender registry on an Internet Website and to make the registry available to the public in certain state offices. §§54257, 54258. Whether made available in an office or via the Internet, the registry must be accompanied by the following warning: Any person who uses information in this registry to injure, harass or commit a criminal act against any person included in the registry or any other person is subject to criminal prosecution. §54258a.
Before the District Court enjoined its operation, the States Website enabled citizens to obtain the name, address, photograph, and description of any registered sex offender by entering a zip code or town name. The following disclaimer appeared on the first page of the Website:
The registry is based on the legislatures decision to facilitate access to publicly-available information about persons convicted of sexual offenses. [DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual. 271 F. 3d, at 44.
Petitioners include the state agencies and officials charged with compiling the sex offender registry and posting it on the Internet.  He filed this action pursuant to Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, on behalf of himself and similarly situated sex offenders, claiming that the law violates, inter alia , the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, respondent alleged that he is not a dangerous sexual offender, and that the Connecticut law deprives him of a liberty interesthis reputation combined with the alteration of his status under state lawwithout notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 271 F. 3d, at 4546. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent on his due process claim. 132 F. Supp. 2d 57 (Conn. 2001). The court then certified a class of individuals subject to the Connecticut law, and permanently enjoined the laws public disclosure provisions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 271 F. 3d 38 (CA2 2001), holding that the Due Process Clause entitles class members to a hearing to determine whether or not they are particularly likely to be currently dangerous before being labeled as such by their inclusion in a publicly disseminated registry. Id., at 62. Because Connecticut had not provided such a hearing, the Court of Appeals enjoined petitioners from disclosing or disseminating to the public, either in printed or electronic form (a) the Registry or (b) Registry information concerning [class members] and from identifying [them] as being included in the Registry. Ibid. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Connecticut law implicated a liberty interest because of: (1) the laws stigmatization of respondent by implying that he is currently dangerous, and (2) its imposition of extensive and onerous registration obligations on respondent. Id., at 57. From this liberty interest arose an obligation, in the Court of Appeals view, to give respondent an opportunity to demonstrate that he was not likely to be currently dangerous. Id ., at 62. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1077 (2002) .
In Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693 (1976) , we held that mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. Petitioners urge us to reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground that, under Paul v. Davis , respondent has failed to establish that petitioners have deprived him of a liberty interest. We find it unnecessary to reach this question, however, because even assuming, arguendo , that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the Connecticut statute.
In cases such as Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971) , and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975) , we held that due process required the government to accord the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular fact or set of facts. But in each of these cases, the fact in question was concededly relevant to the inquiry at hand. Here, however, the fact that respondent seeks to provethat he is not currently dangerousis of no consequence under Connecticuts Megans Law. As the DPS Website explains, the laws requirements turn on an offenders conviction alonea fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law (emphasis added)). No other fact is relevant to the disclosure of registrants information. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54257, 54258 (2001). Indeed, the disclaimer on the Website explicitly states that respondents alleged nondangerousness simply does not matter. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( [DPS] has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous ).
In short, even if respondent could prove that he is not likely to be currently dangerous, Connecticut has decided that the registry information of all sex offenderscurrently dangerous or notmust be publicly disclosed. Unless respondent can show that that substantive rule of law is defective (by conflicting with a provision of the Constitution), any hearing on current dangerousness is a bootless exercise. It may be that respondents claim is actually a substantive challenge to Connecticuts statute recast in procedural due process terms. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 308 (1993) . Nonetheless, respondent expressly disavows any reliance on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendments protections, Brief for Respondent 4445, and maintains, as he did below, that his challenge is strictly a procedural one. But States are not barred by principles of procedural due process from drawing such classifications. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110, 120 (1989) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original). See also id ., at 132 ( Stevens, J. , concurring in judgment). Such claims must ultimately be analyzed in terms of substantive, not procedural, due process. Id. , at 121. Because the question is not properly before us, we express no opinion as to whether Connecticuts Megans Law violates principles of substantive due process.
Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme. Respondent cannot make that showing here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Opinion
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
et al.
, PETITIONERS
v.
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticuts sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a liberty interest, and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be currently dangerous. Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the States statutory scheme.
Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. McKune v. Lile , 536 U. S. 24, 32 (2002) (plurality opinion).  Id ., at 3233.   Covered offenders must register with the Connecticut Department of Public Safety (DPS) upon their release into the community. Each must provide personal information (including his name, address, photograph, and DNA sample); notify DPS of any change in residence; and periodically submit an updated photograph. The registration requirement runs for 10 years in most cases; those convicted of sexually violent offenses must register for life. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54251, 54252, 54254 (2001).
The statute requires DPS to compile the information gathered from registrants and publicize it. In particular, the law requires DPS to post a sex offender registry on an Internet Website and to make the registry available to the public in certain state offices. §§54257, 54258. Whether made available in an office or via the Internet, the registry must be accompanied by the following warning: Any person who uses information in this registry to injure, harass or commit a criminal act against any person included in the registry or any other person is subject to criminal prosecution. §54258a.
Before the District Court enjoined its operation, the States Website enabled citizens to obtain the name, address, photograph, and description of any registered sex offender by entering a zip code or town name. The following disclaimer appeared on the first page of the Website:
The registry is based on the legislatures decision to facilitate access to publicly-available information about persons convicted of sexual offenses. [DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual. 271 F. 3d, at 44.
Petitioners include the state agencies and officials charged with compiling the sex offender registry and posting it on the Internet.  He filed this action pursuant to Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, on behalf of himself and similarly situated sex offenders, claiming that the law violates, inter alia , the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, respondent alleged that he is not a dangerous sexual offender, and that the Connecticut law deprives him of a liberty interesthis reputation combined with the alteration of his status under state lawwithout notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 271 F. 3d, at 4546. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent on his due process claim. 132 F. Supp. 2d 57 (Conn. 2001). The court then certified a class of individuals subject to the Connecticut law, and permanently enjoined the laws public disclosure provisions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 271 F. 3d 38 (CA2 2001), holding that the Due Process Clause entitles class members to a hearing to determine whether or not they are particularly likely to be currently dangerous before being labeled as such by their inclusion in a publicly disseminated registry. Id., at 62. Because Connecticut had not provided such a hearing, the Court of Appeals enjoined petitioners from disclosing or disseminating to the public, either in printed or electronic form (a) the Registry or (b) Registry information concerning [class members] and from identifying [them] as being included in the Registry. Ibid. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Connecticut law implicated a liberty interest because of: (1) the laws stigmatization of respondent by implying that he is currently dangerous, and (2) its imposition of extensive and onerous registration obligations on respondent. Id., at 57. From this liberty interest arose an obligation, in the Court of Appeals view, to give respondent an opportunity to demonstrate that he was not likely to be currently dangerous. Id ., at 62. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1077 (2002) .
In Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693 (1976) , we held that mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. Petitioners urge us to reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground that, under Paul v. Davis , respondent has failed to establish that petitioners have deprived him of a liberty interest. We find it unnecessary to reach this question, however, because even assuming, arguendo , that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the Connecticut statute.
In cases such as Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971) , and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975) , we held that due process required the government to accord the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular fact or set of facts. But in each of these cases, the fact in question was concededly relevant to the inquiry at hand. Here, however, the fact that respondent seeks to provethat he is not currently dangerousis of no consequence under Connecticuts Megans Law. As the DPS Website explains, the laws requirements turn on an offenders conviction alonea fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law (emphasis added)). No other fact is relevant to the disclosure of registrants information. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54257, 54258 (2001). Indeed, the disclaimer on the Website explicitly states that respondents alleged nondangerousness simply does not matter. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( [DPS] has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous ).
In short, even if respondent could prove that he is not likely to be currently dangerous, Connecticut has decided that the registry information of all sex offenderscurrently dangerous or notmust be publicly disclosed. Unless respondent can show that that substantive rule of law is defective (by conflicting with a provision of the Constitution), any hearing on current dangerousness is a bootless exercise. It may be that respondents claim is actually a substantive challenge to Connecticuts statute recast in procedural due process terms. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 308 (1993) . Nonetheless, respondent expressly disavows any reliance on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendments protections, Brief for Respondent 4445, and maintains, as he did below, that his challenge is strictly a procedural one. But States are not barred by principles of procedural due process from drawing such classifications. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110, 120 (1989) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original). See also id ., at 132 ( Stevens, J. , concurring in judgment). Such claims must ultimately be analyzed in terms of substantive, not procedural, due process. Id. , at 121. Because the question is not properly before us, we express no opinion as to whether Connecticuts Megans Law violates principles of substantive due process.
Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme. Respondent cannot make that showing here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Opinion
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
et al.
, PETITIONERS
v.
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticuts sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a liberty interest, and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be currently dangerous. Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the States statutory scheme.
Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. McKune v. Lile , 536 U. S. 24, 32 (2002) (plurality opinion).  Id ., at 3233.   Covered offenders must register with the Connecticut Department of Public Safety (DPS) upon their release into the community. Each must provide personal information (including his name, address, photograph, and DNA sample); notify DPS of any change in residence; and periodically submit an updated photograph. The registration requirement runs for 10 years in most cases; those convicted of sexually violent offenses must register for life. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54251, 54252, 54254 (2001).
The statute requires DPS to compile the information gathered from registrants and publicize it. In particular, the law requires DPS to post a sex offender registry on an Internet Website and to make the registry available to the public in certain state offices. §§54257, 54258. Whether made available in an office or via the Internet, the registry must be accompanied by the following warning: Any person who uses information in this registry to injure, harass or commit a criminal act against any person included in the registry or any other person is subject to criminal prosecution. §54258a.
Before the District Court enjoined its operation, the States Website enabled citizens to obtain the name, address, photograph, and description of any registered sex offender by entering a zip code or town name. The following disclaimer appeared on the first page of the Website:
The registry is based on the legislatures decision to facilitate access to publicly-available information about persons convicted of sexual offenses. [DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual. 271 F. 3d, at 44.
Petitioners include the state agencies and officials charged with compiling the sex offender registry and posting it on the Internet.  He filed this action pursuant to Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, on behalf of himself and similarly situated sex offenders, claiming that the law violates, inter alia , the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, respondent alleged that he is not a dangerous sexual offender, and that the Connecticut law deprives him of a liberty interesthis reputation combined with the alteration of his status under state lawwithout notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 271 F. 3d, at 4546. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent on his due process claim. 132 F. Supp. 2d 57 (Conn. 2001). The court then certified a class of individuals subject to the Connecticut law, and permanently enjoined the laws public disclosure provisions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 271 F. 3d 38 (CA2 2001), holding that the Due Process Clause entitles class members to a hearing to determine whether or not they are particularly likely to be currently dangerous before being labeled as such by their inclusion in a publicly disseminated registry. Id., at 62. Because Connecticut had not provided such a hearing, the Court of Appeals enjoined petitioners from disclosing or disseminating to the public, either in printed or electronic form (a) the Registry or (b) Registry information concerning [class members] and from identifying [them] as being included in the Registry. Ibid. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Connecticut law implicated a liberty interest because of: (1) the laws stigmatization of respondent by implying that he is currently dangerous, and (2) its imposition of extensive and onerous registration obligations on respondent. Id., at 57. From this liberty interest arose an obligation, in the Court of Appeals view, to give respondent an opportunity to demonstrate that he was not likely to be currently dangerous. Id ., at 62. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1077 (2002) .
In Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693 (1976) , we held that mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. Petitioners urge us to reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground that, under Paul v. Davis , respondent has failed to establish that petitioners have deprived him of a liberty interest. We find it unnecessary to reach this question, however, because even assuming, arguendo , that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the Connecticut statute.
In cases such as Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971) , and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975) , we held that due process required the government to accord the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular fact or set of facts. But in each of these cases, the fact in question was concededly relevant to the inquiry at hand. Here, however, the fact that respondent seeks to provethat he is not currently dangerousis of no consequence under Connecticuts Megans Law. As the DPS Website explains, the laws requirements turn on an offenders conviction alonea fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law (emphasis added)). No other fact is relevant to the disclosure of registrants information. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54257, 54258 (2001). Indeed, the disclaimer on the Website explicitly states that respondents alleged nondangerousness simply does not matter. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( [DPS] has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous ).
In short, even if respondent could prove that he is not likely to be currently dangerous, Connecticut has decided that the registry information of all sex offenderscurrently dangerous or notmust be publicly disclosed. Unless respondent can show that that substantive rule of law is defective (by conflicting with a provision of the Constitution), any hearing on current dangerousness is a bootless exercise. It may be that respondents claim is actually a substantive challenge to Connecticuts statute recast in procedural due process terms. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 308 (1993) . Nonetheless, respondent expressly disavows any reliance on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendments protections, Brief for Respondent 4445, and maintains, as he did below, that his challenge is strictly a procedural one. But States are not barred by principles of procedural due process from drawing such classifications. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110, 120 (1989) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original). See also id ., at 132 ( Stevens, J. , concurring in judgment). Such claims must ultimately be analyzed in terms of substantive, not procedural, due process. Id. , at 121. Because the question is not properly before us, we express no opinion as to whether Connecticuts Megans Law violates principles of substantive due process.
Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme. Respondent cannot make that showing here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
Opinion
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
et al.
, PETITIONERS
v.
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit properly enjoined the public disclosure of Connecticuts sex offender registry. The Court of Appeals concluded that such disclosure both deprived registered sex offenders of a liberty interest, and violated the Due Process Clause because officials did not afford registrants a predeprivation hearing to determine whether they are likely to be currently dangerous. Doe v. Department of Public Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F. 3d 38, 44, 46 (2001). Connecticut, however, has decided that the registry requirement shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness. Indeed, the public registry explicitly states that officials have not determined that any registrant is currently dangerous. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the States statutory scheme.
Sex offenders are a serious threat in this Nation. McKune v. Lile , 536 U. S. 24, 32 (2002) (plurality opinion).  Id ., at 3233.   Covered offenders must register with the Connecticut Department of Public Safety (DPS) upon their release into the community. Each must provide personal information (including his name, address, photograph, and DNA sample); notify DPS of any change in residence; and periodically submit an updated photograph. The registration requirement runs for 10 years in most cases; those convicted of sexually violent offenses must register for life. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54251, 54252, 54254 (2001).
The statute requires DPS to compile the information gathered from registrants and publicize it. In particular, the law requires DPS to post a sex offender registry on an Internet Website and to make the registry available to the public in certain state offices. §§54257, 54258. Whether made available in an office or via the Internet, the registry must be accompanied by the following warning: Any person who uses information in this registry to injure, harass or commit a criminal act against any person included in the registry or any other person is subject to criminal prosecution. §54258a.
Before the District Court enjoined its operation, the States Website enabled citizens to obtain the name, address, photograph, and description of any registered sex offender by entering a zip code or town name. The following disclaimer appeared on the first page of the Website:
The registry is based on the legislatures decision to facilitate access to publicly-available information about persons convicted of sexual offenses. [DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual. 271 F. 3d, at 44.
Petitioners include the state agencies and officials charged with compiling the sex offender registry and posting it on the Internet.  He filed this action pursuant to Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, on behalf of himself and similarly situated sex offenders, claiming that the law violates, inter alia , the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, respondent alleged that he is not a dangerous sexual offender, and that the Connecticut law deprives him of a liberty interesthis reputation combined with the alteration of his status under state lawwithout notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 271 F. 3d, at 4546. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent on his due process claim. 132 F. Supp. 2d 57 (Conn. 2001). The court then certified a class of individuals subject to the Connecticut law, and permanently enjoined the laws public disclosure provisions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 271 F. 3d 38 (CA2 2001), holding that the Due Process Clause entitles class members to a hearing to determine whether or not they are particularly likely to be currently dangerous before being labeled as such by their inclusion in a publicly disseminated registry. Id., at 62. Because Connecticut had not provided such a hearing, the Court of Appeals enjoined petitioners from disclosing or disseminating to the public, either in printed or electronic form (a) the Registry or (b) Registry information concerning [class members] and from identifying [them] as being included in the Registry. Ibid. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Connecticut law implicated a liberty interest because of: (1) the laws stigmatization of respondent by implying that he is currently dangerous, and (2) its imposition of extensive and onerous registration obligations on respondent. Id., at 57. From this liberty interest arose an obligation, in the Court of Appeals view, to give respondent an opportunity to demonstrate that he was not likely to be currently dangerous. Id ., at 62. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 1077 (2002) .
In Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693 (1976) , we held that mere injury to reputation, even if defamatory, does not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest. Petitioners urge us to reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground that, under Paul v. Davis , respondent has failed to establish that petitioners have deprived him of a liberty interest. We find it unnecessary to reach this question, however, because even assuming, arguendo , that respondent has been deprived of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the Connecticut statute.
In cases such as Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971) , and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975) , we held that due process required the government to accord the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular fact or set of facts. But in each of these cases, the fact in question was concededly relevant to the inquiry at hand. Here, however, the fact that respondent seeks to provethat he is not currently dangerousis of no consequence under Connecticuts Megans Law. As the DPS Website explains, the laws requirements turn on an offenders conviction alonea fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law (emphasis added)). No other fact is relevant to the disclosure of registrants information. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§54257, 54258 (2001). Indeed, the disclaimer on the Website explicitly states that respondents alleged nondangerousness simply does not matter. 271 F. 3d, at 44 ( [DPS] has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous ).
In short, even if respondent could prove that he is not likely to be currently dangerous, Connecticut has decided that the registry information of all sex offenderscurrently dangerous or notmust be publicly disclosed. Unless respondent can show that that substantive rule of law is defective (by conflicting with a provision of the Constitution), any hearing on current dangerousness is a bootless exercise. It may be that respondents claim is actually a substantive challenge to Connecticuts statute recast in procedural due process terms. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 308 (1993) . Nonetheless, respondent expressly disavows any reliance on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendments protections, Brief for Respondent 4445, and maintains, as he did below, that his challenge is strictly a procedural one. But States are not barred by principles of procedural due process from drawing such classifications. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110, 120 (1989) (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original). See also id ., at 132 ( Stevens, J. , concurring in judgment). Such claims must ultimately be analyzed in terms of substantive, not procedural, due process. Id. , at 121. Because the question is not properly before us, we express no opinion as to whether Connecticuts Megans Law violates principles of substantive due process.
Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme. Respondent cannot make that showing here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.


The golden rule to design a good search string is to separate the keywords and synonyms with the boolean operator OR and separate the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes with parentheses and using the boolean operator AND, as following:
(population OR synonym-1 OR synonym-2 OR synonym-n) AND
(intervention OR synonym-1 OR synonym-2 OR synonym-n) AND
(comparison OR synonym-1 OR synonym-2 OR synonym-n) AND
(outcomes OR synonym-1 OR synonym-2 OR synonym-n)
Good example
(software OR application OR product OR Web OR WWW OR project) AND (development OR "cross company" OR "cross organisation" OR "cross organization" OR multiple-organizational) AND ("multiple-organisational model" OR within-organisation OR within-organization OR within-organizational OR within-organisational OR "single company") AND (Accuracy OR "Mean Magnitude" OR "Relative Error")
Bad example
software or application or product or Web or WWW or project and development or cross company or cross organisation or cross organization or multiple-organizational and multiple-organisational model or within-organisation or within-organization or within-organizational or within-organisational or single company and Accuracy or Mean Magnitude or Relative Error


The International Studies Association is one of the oldest interdisciplinary associations dedicated to understanding international, transnational and global affairs. They host a conference every year gathering all of their members together.
Our team of 6 was tasked with encouraging companies to exhibit, sponor and advertise at the conference. We created both digital and print media to accomplish this.
As a Project manager, I was in charge of overseeing our progress and communicating directly with the client. I was in charge of setting up a schedules, logging hours as well as working on the actual content.
For this project, we needed to understand both what would attract companies to the conference and how the ISA Members would interact with them.
We watched hours of interviews from past conferences to get a feel for the members and companies interests, hobbies, professional work, and interest in the conference.
One of our final deliverables was a Pamphlet for print and an alternate digital medium to post on their website. This enabled them to reach out to potential companies and give them an overall understanding of how they could benefit from joining ISA's conference.
ISA told our team from the start they were open to anything from a branding perspective. We created a new logo that incorporated who they were as an organization but reflected a modern and clean look.
ISA also sponsors and a Postdoctural Program that funds one Graduate Student to conduct research with the international Studies Field. We met with Efe Tokdemir and conducted an interview to raise awareness about the program.
At the end of the project, the team and I presented our work to the client in a professional presentation. They loved everything we had done for them and have since come back to UConn's Ation Agency for more work.


TWIN DRAGONS (1999)
A film review by Steve Kong Edited by Steve Kong Copyright 1999 Steve Kong
A review of a Jackie Chan film is something that no one really reads. Chan films are films in which you go, you sit, you enjoy the action, and you leave. There's no real story, acting, or character building. Chan films are all about the wow-effect of the action. And Twin Dragons has a lot of that wow-effect.
The story for Twin Dragons is pretty thin. A pair of twins separated at birth are finally reunited by accident. One twin, named Boomer (Jackie Chan), is a tough guy and the other, named John Ma (Jackie Chan), is a brilliant musician/composer. When John comes to Hong Kong to conduct one of his pieces, he bumps into Boomer by accident. What ensues is a whole lot of ridiculous plot, but that's not a big deal since Chan films are about the action and not the paper thin plots.
The action in Twin Dragons is non-stop. From the very start to the very last seconds Twin Dragons is packed with action. All of it amazing and all of it hilarious. Chan's action is what makes him stand out from other action movie stars - there is a sense of humour that accompanies his action. This humour along with Chan's natural onscreen charisma makes him the most likeable action star in the world. The only complaint I have with the action here is that there are some sequences where the use of handguns is too prevalent. In Chan films the fans go to see Chan's incredible dexterity and quick fists-of-fury in the fight sequences, not a John Woo double-fisted pistol gunfight -- this is a small complaint though. While on the subject of John Woo who as a child aspired to become a priest, look for Woo's cameo late in Twin Dragons as the priest performing a marriage.
As always, my reviews of Chan films are quite short, either you have already gone to see them on your own accord or you just don't have the motivation to go. So, my reviews are always the motivator for those of you in the second category to go see the latest Chan film. Don't Miss Jackie Chan's Twin Dragons. It's more action and comedy than his last film Rush Hour. One thing to mention is that sadly missing from the end of Twin Dragons is the familiar bloopers real.
--- Steve Kong<EMAIL_ADDRESS>a guy with a helluva attitude who loves the cinema. i'm your hard boiled movie guide.
http://boiledmovies.sbay.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


Today I finished uploading all recording I made from the NoSQL Live conference in Boston. They are now all located at COM.lounge TV (which I also reactivated for this). This also means that they are available in podcast form.
--- date: 2010-03-16T00:00:00Z published: true title: mrtopf.de » Blog Archive » All recordings from NoSQL Live Boston now online! url: /2010/03/16/mrtopf-de-blog-archive-all-recordings-from-nosql-live-boston-now-online-/ ---
All recordings from NoSQL Live Boston now online!
Today I finished uploading all recording I made from the NoSQL Live conference in Boston. They are now all located at COM.lounge TV (which I also reactivated for this). This also means that they are available in podcast form.


| DOSE: |
3 hits |
oral |
DMT |
(freebase) |
I lay back in the couch, feeling nervous anticipation and a little bit like a lab specimen, with everyone forming a semi-circle around me except for [...] who was 'packing' the pipe for me -- (with malice and forethought, I now realize :-)
He held the pipe while I toked, which turned out to be a wise move. The first toke produced nothing. I held it in for a few seconds and exhaled, and immediately went to take a second. As I started to draw the second hit, the effects of the first came down upon me. I felt stunned, and as [...] later accurately described, as if I had hold of a live wire. Christian was sitting cross legged on the floor in my field of vision, and a pattern like a single elongated slinky became part of all his limbs and the rest of his body. He was a spring man.
I became more disoriented as this picture began to fragment and reality rapidly started to vanish. From somewhere, [...] urged me to take the third hit (the cad!) and I somehow managed to start to inhale in the vicinity of the pipe. I was told later that this was a good one, but I didn't feel as if it was working. In another almost instantaneous jump, it all became too much and I had to sit upright in the chair. My eyes were said to have been completely wide open, although I was not aware of it. The last thing to make any sense was the sudden, surprised exhalation of the final lung-full of smoke.
What followed is difficult to describe because I'm sure that my brain was functioning normally enough for me to remember anything during only a small percentage of the time spent under the influence of the DMT. During that period I was not really aware of anything that makes sense now, and I'm not sure if it might have made sense at the time, but I doubt it. Time certainly had no meaning, because although I was spaced for ten minutes, I only have memories that might cover a few seconds here and there, and even those seemed to happen simultaneously in some instances.
The bits that did make sense enough for me to be aware of them were very, very strange indeed. DMT seems mainly to affect the sight, cognition and hearing. The only physical sensations I felt were a choking sensation for much of the time that I was aware, and towards the end of the experience, a feeling that I had had a bowel movement (I hadn't). It turned out later that I had merely been hyper-ventilating.
 In fact it didn't matter if I had my eyes open or closed -- I had to ask if my eyes had been open or closed during the main part of the trip, and was told they had been both at various stages. It was mostly intense flashes of solid pure colours -- no pastels or hues, just wham! I described it to Ronny as like being inside a cyber-simulation like 'The lawnmower man', only it had crashed and was throwing garbage at me from all directions.
Sound had more meaning when I was able to perceive it. At times I actually caught and understood a few phrases of conversation that were going on around me.  The nearest I can come is 'Bill and Ben' floblle-obble-lop language of a digital purity. I later confirmed that the snatches of conversation I interpreted as English did in fact occur. One was probably [...] saying something about choking, which was alarming because I felt as though I was having trouble breathing at the time. Whatever brain processes that are responsible for locating sound sources were also affected. Sound came from random directions, and from inside my head. Suprisingly, volume was not affected, other than that for most of the time I was not able to hear anything.
If I felt any emotion at all, it was detatched terror, and I was definitely sure that I wanted the experience to end. It was all the more frightening because it seemed to be going on forever, and yet it was over in an instant.
My impression is that while LSD and more familiar psychedelics alter the normal brain activity in some fashion or other, DMT works at a more fundamental level that alters brain chemistry to such an extent that it does not function as a thinking brain for a large part of the time (well at least not for me). Imagine that the part of your brain responsible for speech is connected to the part responsible for breathing, and the coordination part to your ears, and visuals to bowels, and that sort of thing -- completely differently arranged. The resulting state is distinctly alien, and goes someway to explaining to me what the absolute limits of psychosis must be before one actually ceases to be able to think.
After the instant/endless period of total craziness, normal cognitive reality started to come back in waves. The visuals returned back to 'spring land'; I became aware that I was now laying there with head thrown back, legs spread and mouth agape. People seemed to be asking me questions. I raised my head a few times and then let it fall back again as reality waxed and waned. For the next 5 minutes I gently returned to a shell-shocked state of normality, accompanied by the now trivial pattern hallucinations and distortions in surfaces like carpet and walls.
[...] asked me just before the first toke if I were ready for the trip, and I said that I was. Ha ha. He said 'Oh no you're not', and he was definitely right. Completely disregard this whole description because it cant begin to describe the experience in anything but the most vague terms.
Experience Reports are the writings and opinions of the individual authors who submit them.
Some of the activities described are dangerous and/or illegal and none are recommended by Erowid.


T-Shirts!
Dashboard
Products
Users
Orders
Hello Admin!
Log out
« Return to
Cool T-shirt
details page
Edit stock levels for
Cool T-shirt
Size
Amount
Actions
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Add another size
Save changes
Cancel


{% extends "base.html" %} {% block title %} Letter to the editor in response to {{article}} {% endblock %} {% block content %}
In contrast to comments, letters are only published if approved by our editors. Views expressed in letters are not necessarily endorsed by GroundUp, but they must meet our quality requirements. Letters are given more prominence than comments on the website.
Dear Editor
This is a letter in response to {{article.title|safe}}.
Letters may be edited by GroundUp for typos, grammar and style. We also may change the title of the letter.


Chevrolet Spark is the result of the work of leading designers from different countries.
The Spark, with its impressive two-tier radiator grill and sharp contours, will surely attract
attention wherever it is. In addition, due to its compact size and maneuverability, Spark is
able to "integrate" into any urban movement.
Spark's cabin is very spacious, which can accommodate a load of 170 liters, and when folding
the rear seats in a ratio of 60:40, this space increases to 568 liters. Outside, the Chevrolet
Spark looks very compact, but 5 people can easily accommodate in its spacious interior.
In the city it’s a compact and maneuverable car, on the highway it sensitively responds to all
the driver’s commands, and most importantly - wherever you are, it’s just nice to drive. In short,
the Chevrolet Spark is a new step in the automotive industry.
You did not expect this - the dashboard is in a motorcycle style! Moreover, the dashboard is
positioned so that it can be easily captured by the eye, while it is very compact and easy to use.
The analogue speedometer of the new Spark is complemented by a digital tachometer, which is
highlighted in blue when the side lights are turned on. In addition to aesthetic benefits,
expressive design should also bring practical benefits. Highly located taillights that not only
look great, but also contribute to safety in low visibility conditions. The raised wheel arches
help improve aerodynamics and reduce fuel consumption.
Chevrolet Gentra - this is the car whose appearance will not leave indifferent any car
enthusiast. The right proportions, streamlined shapes, embossed lines harmoniously combine
in this car, which has a respectable interior and exterior. Gentra comfortably accommodates
5 people in a modern, sleek interior. The dashboard has a sense of proportion and a variety
of options. The arrangement of the chrome-plated devices is carefully thought out. Its
driving performance has been thoroughly tested and perfected.
The streamlined, modern body design of the Chevrolet Gentra is a merit of the famous Italian
Pininfarina car studio. The 4-door Gentra with an elegant design and a spacious interior
is not just a family sedan, it is a clear confirmation that a practical car does not
require compromises. This is the embodiment of quality from and to, with a lot of additional
features and excellent handling.
The appearance of the car was created by Italian experts, so it looks pretty impressive.
The main feature of the model is smooth, rounded lines, thanks to which it seems much
larger and more voluminous than it actually is. At the same time, the appearance and
dynamics are noble inherent in cars of a more expensive class. All exterior details,
starting with 15-inch wheels and ending with the original side glazing, are distinguished
by quality and Italian sophistication.
An engine with a volume of 3 liters develops a power of 258 horsepower. A great choice for
those who value the versatility and practicality of a comfortable and safe SUV.
Maximum equipment with a high-quality interior will not leave indifferent even the most
demanding SUV fans.
The Chevrolet Captiva crossover is designed specifically for the modern family.
Captiva offers you a lot of bright features such as reliability, durability and spaciousness
of a real SUV.
Chevrolet Captiva is very roomy - you can not say otherwise. When the rear seats are folded,
the car’s impressive interior space reaches an impressive volume of 1,577 liters. The driver's
seat with lumbar support and electric drive can be adjusted in eight directions. Add to this
a spacious third row and many customization options that will allow you to place any luggage.
You can choose a 5- or 7-seater version to accommodate all passengers. Chevrolet Captiva is
also available with a skylight. All this will allow you to share any adventures with those whom
you take with you.
In terms of strength, the Chevrolet Malibu body is not inferior to other representatives of
the mid-size sedan segment in the world market, due to which precise handling and control over
the road are achieved. In addition, the steering gear of the premium level provides a smooth
ride, clear feedback and traction.
Salon Chevrolet Malibu - one of the most spacious and comfortable in its class. Thanks to the
large width of the body, Malibu offers more space for passengers and luggage. The design of
the car uses special sound-absorbing materials; McPherson front struts and multi-link independent
rear suspension, and the engine is located in a special insulated block, which prevents noise
from entering the cabin. This is embodied in the silhouette of the car, resembling a coupe,
and in every detail. You no longer have to spend time looking for a key in a bag or briefcase
- since you can remotely open the car's doors and start the engine, just by pressing a button
on the toolbar. This is standard equipment for the LTZ. The rigid Malibu body structure not
only contributes to better handling, but also protects car passengers. Wide, comfortable seats
and a spacious lounge with many storage compartments - all this creates a feeling of well-being.
Sound-absorbing materials used in the design of the car, independent suspension and an insulated
engine subframe make the interior of the new Malibu cozy and quiet.
Chevrolet Tracker 2018 is an updated (restyled) crossover model, which is part of the K1
category car group. Compactness and practicality are the qualities that distinguish this
car from others.
The Chevrolet Tracker includes all the qualities inherent in new crossovers - this is
railing, body trim, increased clearance and an extended track. The appearance of the
car, compared to previous models, looks more taut and looks harmonious, the front of
the new crossover looks very aggressive, due to optics.
The front of the Chevrolet Trax is equipped with LED daytime running lights, a beautiful
embossed bumper, a standard protective sponge, and an updated radiator grille, which
consists of two grilles. The protective lip reduces the distance between the car and the track.
The tracker also warns of leaving a busy lane and is equipped with a towing system and dynamic
stabilization of the car on the roads. A set of systems improves the comfort, stability and
reliability of the crossover on the highway and off-road.
Chevrolet Orlando is a five-door seven-seat family minivan (MPV). The car is intended for
family use and a corporate fleet of cars. Chevrolet Orlando is equipped with modern passive
and active safety systems.
The car is equipped with a four-channel anti-lock braking system (ABS), brake force
distribution (EBD), traction control (TCS), electronic stability control (ESP) and emergency
braking assistance (BreakAssist). All versions of the Chevrolet Orlando are equipped with front
and side airbags, as well as curtains for the first and second row.


The element jax is the bridge between the input and output jax, and contains the data produced by the input jax needed by the output jax to display the results. It is tied to the individual <script> tag that produced it, and is the object used by JavaScript programs to interact with the mathematics on the page.
An element jax is stored in the jax.js file in a subdirectory of the jax/element directory, with the subdirectory name being the name of the element jax. Currently, there is only one element jax class, the mml element jax, and it is stored in jax/element/mml.
The MathJax.ElementJax class is a subclass of the MathJax Jax class, and inherits the properties and methods of that class. Those listed below are the additional or overridden ones from that class.
The name of the jax.
The version number of the jax.
The directory where the jax files are stored (e.g., "[MathJax]/jax/element/mml").
A reference to the input jax that created the element. (In the future, this will be changed to the name of the input jax.)
A reference to the output jax that has processed this element. (In the future, this will be changed to the name of the output jax.)
The DOM id of the <script> tag that generated this element (if it doesn’t have one initially, the MathJax hub will supply one). Note that this is not a reference to the element itself; that element will have a reference to this element jax, and if inputID were a reference back, that would cause a reference loop, which some browsers would not free properly during trash collection, thus causing a memory leak.
A string indicating the original input text that was processed for this element. (In the future, this may be managed by the input jax rather than MathJax.Hub.)
The MIME-type of the element jax (jax/mml in the case of an mml element jax).
Other data specific to the element jax subclass may also appear here.
Sets the input text for this element to the given text and reprocesses the mathematics. (I.e., updates the equation to the new one given by text). When the processing is complete, the callback, if any, is called.
| Parameters : |
|
|---|---|
| Returns : | the callback object |
Removes the output and produces it again. This may be necessary if there are changes to the CSS styles that would affect the layout of the mathematics, for example. The callback, if any, is called when the process completes.
| Parameters : |
|
|---|---|
| Returns : | the callback object |
Removes the output for this element from the web page (but does not remove the original <script>). The <script> will be considered unprocessed, and the next call to MathJax.hub.Typeset() will re-display it.
| Returns : | null |
|---|
Returns a reference to the original <script> DOM element associated to this element jax.
| Returns : | the <script> element |
|---|
Output jax may add new methods to the base element jax class to perform exporting to other formats. For example, a MathML output jax could add toMathML(), or an accessibility output jax could add toAudible(). These could be made available via the MathJax contextual menu.


Actual source code: dmouse.c
petsc-3.8.0 2017-09-26
2: /*
3: Provides the calling sequences for all the basic PetscDraw routines.
4: */
5: #include <petsc/private/drawimpl.h>
7: /*@
8: PetscDrawGetMouseButton - Returns location of mouse and which button was
9: pressed. Waits for button to be pressed.
11: Collective over PetscDraw
13: Input Parameter:
14: . draw - the window to be used
16: Output Parameters:
17: + button - one of PETSC_BUTTON_LEFT, PETSC_BUTTON_CENTER, PETSC_BUTTON_RIGHT, PETSC_BUTTON_WHEEL_UP, PETSC_BUTTON_WHEEL_DOWN
18: . x_user, y_user - user coordinates of location (user may pass in NULL).
19: - x_phys, y_phys - window coordinates (user may pass in NULL).
21: Notes: Only processor 0 actually waits for the button to be pressed.
23: Level: intermediate
24: @*/
25: PetscErrorCode PetscDrawGetMouseButton(PetscDraw draw,PetscDrawButton *button,PetscReal *x_user,PetscReal *y_user,PetscReal *x_phys,PetscReal *y_phys)
26: {
27: PetscReal bcast[4] = {0,0,0,0};
33: *button = PETSC_BUTTON_NONE;
34: if (!draw->ops->getmousebutton) return(0);
36: (*draw->ops->getmousebutton)(draw,button,x_user,y_user,x_phys,y_phys);
38: MPI_Bcast((PetscEnum*)button,1,MPIU_ENUM,0,PetscObjectComm((PetscObject)draw));
39: if (x_user) bcast[0] = *x_user;
40: if (y_user) bcast[1] = *y_user;
41: if (x_phys) bcast[2] = *x_phys;
42: if (y_phys) bcast[3] = *y_phys;
43: MPI_Bcast(bcast,4,MPIU_REAL,0,PetscObjectComm((PetscObject)draw));
44: if (x_user) *x_user = bcast[0];
45: if (y_user) *y_user = bcast[1];
46: if (x_phys) *x_phys = bcast[2];
47: if (y_phys) *y_phys = bcast[3];
48: return(0);
49: }


class
RInputManagerThe Input manager. Manages key strokes, mouse buttons, and cursor/scroll inputs.
Contents
Base classes
- class RMasterComponent
- A master component. Serves as parent class for all components.
Public static variables
- static std::unordered_map<int, bool> KeyMap
- Mapping of all keys and the bool value of whether they are being pressed.
- static std::unordered_map<int, bool> MouseButtonMap
- Mapping of all mouse buttons and the bool value of whether they are being pressed.
-
static RML::
Vector2D MousePosition - Mouse position of the current active cursor.
-
static RML::
Vector2D MouseScroll - Scroll value being inputted to input manager.
Constructors, destructors, conversion operators
-
RInputManager(const GraphicComponents::
RWindowComponent* window) - Constructor.
- ~RInputManager() virtual
- Destructor.
Public functions
- void addKeyToKeyBinding(const std::string& keyBinding, const EKeyboardKeys& keyName)
- Add a key to a keybinding.
- void addKeysToKeyBinding(const std::string& keyBinding, const std::vector<EKeyboardKeys>& keyNames)
- Add an array of keys to a keybinding.
- void activate(const std::string& keyBinding)
- Activate a keybinding.
- void deactivate(const std::string& keyBinding)
- Deactivate a keybinding.
- auto isKeyBindingPressed(const std::string& keyBinding) -> bool
- Check if a key corresponding to a keybinding is being used.
- auto isKeyPressed(const EKeyboardKeys& keyName) -> bool
- Check whether a key is being pressed.
- auto isMouseButtonPressed(const EMouseButtons& buttonName) -> bool
- Check whether a mouse button is being pressed.
-
auto getMousePosition() const -> const RML::
Vector2D& - Get the current mouse position.
-
auto getMouseScroll() const -> const RML::
Vector2D& - Get the current mouse scroll values.
- void enable()
- Enable the Input Manager. All input queries will function normally.
- void disable()
- Disable the Input Manager. All input queries will return false.
- void InputManager_ok(var data = NULL)
- Checks if input manager is ready for use.
Function documentation
Rubeus:: RInputManager:: RInputManager(const GraphicComponents:: RWindowComponent* window)
Constructor.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| window | The window object in current use. |
void Rubeus:: RInputManager:: addKeyToKeyBinding(const std::string& keyBinding,
const EKeyboardKeys& keyName)
Add a key to a keybinding.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| keyBinding | Name of the keybinding. |
| keyName | Name of the key. |
void Rubeus:: RInputManager:: addKeysToKeyBinding(const std::string& keyBinding,
const std::vector<EKeyboardKeys>& keyNames)
Add an array of keys to a keybinding.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| keyBinding | Name of the keybinding. |
| keyNames | Array of names of the keys. |
void Rubeus:: RInputManager:: activate(const std::string& keyBinding)
Activate a keybinding.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| keyBinding | The keybinding to be activated. |
void Rubeus:: RInputManager:: deactivate(const std::string& keyBinding)
Deactivate a keybinding.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| keyBinding | The keybinding to be deactivated. |
bool Rubeus:: RInputManager:: isKeyBindingPressed(const std::string& keyBinding)
Check if a key corresponding to a keybinding is being used.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| keyBinding | The keybinding to be checked for use. |
| Returns | Whether any of the keys linked with the keybinding are being pressed. |
bool Rubeus:: RInputManager:: isKeyPressed(const EKeyboardKeys& keyName)
Check whether a key is being pressed.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| keyName | The key to be checked for presses. |
| Returns | Whether the key is being pressed. |
bool Rubeus:: RInputManager:: isMouseButtonPressed(const EMouseButtons& buttonName)
Check whether a mouse button is being pressed.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| buttonName | The button to be checked for presses. |
| Returns | Whether the mouse button is being pressed. |
const RML:: Vector2D& Rubeus:: RInputManager:: getMousePosition() const
Get the current mouse position.
| Returns | Vector2D of the mouse position. |
|---|
const RML:: Vector2D& Rubeus:: RInputManager:: getMouseScroll() const
Get the current mouse scroll values.
| Returns | Vector2D of the mouse scroll values. |
|---|
void Rubeus:: RInputManager:: enable()
Enable the Input Manager. All input queries will function normally.
void Rubeus:: RInputManager:: disable()
Disable the Input Manager. All input queries will return false.
void Rubeus:: RInputManager:: InputManager_ok(var data = NULL)
Checks if input manager is ready for use.
| Parameters | |
|---|---|
| data | NULL |


Press letter keys. Number is average miliseconds between displaying letter and keypress. SPACEBAR resets stats.


-
disabilty benefits cerebral palsy
Monarch Butterfly - EnchantedLearning.com
Butterflies and moths undergo complete metamorphosis in which they go . The Monarch is considered a beneficial insect because its caterpillar eats the .
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/butterfly/species/Monarch.shtml
-
plumbers in albuquerque nm
Beneficial insects in the landscape: #66 Butterflies & Pollination
Butterflies are diurnal, pollinating a wide variety of flowers that open during the day. They frequent big, beautiful, brightly colored blooms. Butterflies have good .
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/galveston/beneficials/beneficial-66_pollinators-butterflies.htm
-
honolulu greek fest details
Moths and Butterflies
Many moths and butterflies are beneficial because they insure the pollination of favored plants by carrying pollen from one flower to another as they visit them to .
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/100-199/nb192.htm
-
love wolves baked broiled
Wildlife Value - Marin Master Gardeners
Below is a list of plants categorized by various animals which they attract. . Yarrow. Attracts Beneficial Insects, Bees, Butterfly & Other Insect Nectar .
http://ucanr.edu/sites/MarinMG/Plant_Guide/Reports/Wildlife_Value
-
horse and stable for kids
Butterfly-Friendly Landscaping - Articles :: Networx
Jul 19, 2011 . Attract beautiful and beneficial butterflies to your yard and garden! There is something magical about butterflies as they flit from flower to flower .
http://www.networx.com/article/butterfly-friendly-landscaping
-
campbell river travel lidge
What Are the Benefits of Butterfly Gardens to the Environment ...
Butterflies are among the most beautiful and attractive creatures on the planet. . sustains a healthy population of butterflies and other beneficial insects and organisms, . you see them (time of day, month, season) and how numerous they are.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6863598_benefits-butterfly-gardens-environment_.html
-
on stage speaker stands
Attracting Bees & Butterflies to the Backyard Garden
There are other considerations when planning a garden for bees, butterflies, and beneficial insects, including providing places for nesting and hiding from .
http://www.gardensablaze.com/BackyardHabitat/BackyardBees.htm
-
gasoline engine saw rail cutter
Attracting Beneficial Insects
Mar 8, 2008 . They also aerate the soil as they move through it. Attracting Beneficial Insects. It is fairly easy to lure beneficial insects such as bees, butterflies .
http://suite101.com/article/attracting-beneficial-insects-a47037
-
job burn out syptoms
Eight Gorgeous Flowers to Attract Butterflies
Butterfly Weed or Milkweed (Asclepias) This hardy perennial will be appreciated by more . They are known to attract the Zebra Longwing, the Cloudless Sulphur, the Painted Lady, and . Read more articles about Beneficial Garden Friends.
http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/beneficial/how-to-attract-more-butterflies-to-your-garden-with-eight-gorgeous-flowers.htm
-
food drive and long island
Beneficial Insect Files: Checkered White Butterfly | A Round Rock ...
Apr 20, 2010 . Beneficial Insect Spotlight: Checkered White butterfly. The Checkered . They are often almost completely white butterflies. Males are less .
http://roundrockgarden.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/checkered-white-pontia-protodice/
-
kewitt koonce and ecu
Beneficial Insects | Birds & Blooms
When we think of beneficial insects in the garden, butterflies are usually at the . In addition, they enhance the garden experience with their beautiful colors or .
http://www.birdsandblooms.com/Gardening/Summer/Beneficial-Insects
-
s'express original soundtrack torrent
Butterflies, Bees and Ladybugs! - Duncraft's Wild Bird Blog
Jun 3, 2010 . And they eat many other types of little chewing pests that you may not . The first step in keeping butterflies, bees and other beneficial bugs in .
http://blog.duncraft.com/2010/06/03/butterflies-bees-and-ladybugs/
-
art carved palladium rings
Why are butterflies and moths such good insects? - the Children's ...
Why are butterflies and moths such good insects? Butterflies are obvious bright- colored objects in our environment. They are believed to be free spirits in their .
http://www.kidsbutterfly.org/faq/general/7
-
maureen bunun on the news
Flowers for Beneficial Insects
Not only are beneficial insects good for your garden, but they're also nice to have around when . Dill -- A favorite food of the Eastern black swallowtail butterfly.
http://www.dianeseeds.com/flowers/beneficial-insects.html
-
2001 nissan pathfinder mil
Butterfly Bush: a rainbow of colors and uses | The Best Gardening
But butterfly bushes attract not only butterflies, but other beneficial insects such . The flowers are aromatic, and they work well as a cut flower as well, bringing .
http://thebestgardening.com/butterfly-bush/
-
increace claflin family tree
Help Attract Beneficial Bees and Butterflies Fort Collins Nursery
Help Attract Beneficial Bees and Butterflies. Make your garden more hospitable to bees and butterflies! . They also produce areas of webbing, which [...] .
http://fortcollinsnursery.com/seasonal-tips/help-attract-beneficial-bees-and-butterflies/
-
time to build a police car
Organic Gardening - The Butterfly WebSite - butterfly gardening ...
The Butterfly WebSite - butterfly gardening, butterfly photos, butterfly checklists . There are many beneficial animals that feed on insects harming your plants.
http://butterflywebsite.com/organicgardening.cfm
-
gst rebate forms for housing cooperatives
Facts About Butterflies
Includes: facts about how butterflies develop, fun butterfly facts, more facts about butterflies, and butterflies help man. . Some of the most mysterious facts about butterflies have to do with how they grow and develop. . Beneficial Garden Bugs .
http://garden.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Facts_About_Butterflies
-
.40 caliber beretta used price
Learn about Florida Panhandle Butterflies
There is really no way to separate any part of the intricate and complex food . Garden sprays of all kinds are harmful to butterflies, birds and beneficial insects.
http://www.dfsgardenclub.org/wildlife/butterflies.htm
-
oxford golf club michigan
Visit the Rosine Smith Sammons Butterfly House & Insectarium
The amount of butterflies to release varies daily, based on how quickly they emerge after we . There are many beneficial insects inside the butterfly house.
http://texasdiscoverygardens.org/butterfly_house.php


HTML specifications such as HTML5
define a set of rules that a document must adhere to in order to be “valid” according to that specification. In addition, a specification provides instructions on how a browser must interpret and render such a document.
A browser is said to “support” a specification if it handles valid documents according to the rules of the specification. As of yet, no browser supports all aspects of the HTML5
specification (although all of the major browser support most of it), and as a result, it is necessary for the developer to confirm whether the aspect they are making use of will be supported by all of the browsers on which they hope to display their content. This is why cross-browser support continues to be a headache for developers, despite the improved specificiations.
HTML5
defines some rules to follow for an invalid HTML5
document (i.e., one that contains syntactical errors)


{% extends "base.html" %} {% load staticfiles %} {% block content %}
Monitor pollution and air quality in Delhi using our air quality data. We display the Air Quality index for the past 24 hours
for various pollutants. The values are displayed to display the trends in the past 24 hours to help you
make informed decisions about what activities you do outside, when and for how much time.
| Date | PM 2.5 | PM 10 | Nitrogen dioxide | Sulpher dioxide | Carbon monoxide | Humidity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{record.date}} | {{record.pm25}} | {{record.pm10}} | {{record.no2}} | {{record.so2}} | {{record.co}} | {{record.hum}} |
| Pollution | Abbreviation | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon Monoxide | CO | Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, very toxic gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, most notably by gasoline powered engines, power plants, and wood fires. CO can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen delivery to the body's organs (like the heart and brain) and tissues. At extremely high levels, CO can cause death. |
| Sulphuer Dioxide | SO2 | Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as "oxides of sulfur." The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73%) and other industrial facilities (20%). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore, and the burning of high sulfur containing fuels by locomotives, large ships, and non-road equipment. SO2 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system. |
| Nitrogden Dioxide | NO2 | Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as "oxides of nitrogen", or "nitrogen oxides (NOx)". Other nitrogen oxides include nitrous acid and nitric acid. While EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard covers this entire group of NOx, NO2 is the component of greatest interest and the indicator for the larger group of nitrogen oxides. NO2 forms quickly from emissions from cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off-road equipment. In addition to contributing to the formation of ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution, NO2 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system. |
| Particulate Matter | PM2.5and PM10 | Particle pollution (also called particulate matter or PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Particle pollution includes inhalable coarse particles, with diameters larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers and fine particles, with diameters that are 2.5 micrometers and smaller. Some particles, known as primary particles, are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires. |
The Air quality index is an index for reporting daily air quality. It tells you how clean or polluted your air is, and what associated health effects might be a concern for you. The AQI focuses on health effects you may experience within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air.
The higher the AQI value, the greater the level of air pollution and the greater the health concern. For example, an AQI value of 50 represents good air quality with little potential to affect public health, while an AQI value over 300 represents hazardous air quality.
We display grouped bar charts and pie charts for different pollutants including PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2. The graphs are displayed at an interval of 4 hours of a day
to help you observe different trends during the day to keep you safe for the next.
| AQI | Air pollution level | Health Implications | Cautionary Statement (For PM 2.5) |
| 0 - 50 | Good | Air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk | None |
| 51 - 100 | Moderate | Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people who are unusually sensitive to air pollution. | Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion. |
| 101 - 150 | Unhealthy for sensitive groups | Members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. The general public is not likely to be affected. | Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion. |
| 151 - 200 | Unhealthy | Everyone may begin to experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects | Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion |
| 201-300 | Very Unhealthy | Health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected. | Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion. |
| 300+ | Hazardous | Health alert: everyone may experience more serious health effects | Everyone should avoid all outdoor exertion |
| Pollutants | PM 2.5 | SO2 | NO2 | PM10 |
| PM 2.5 | Good | Moderate | Hazardous | Hazardous |
| NO2 | Good | Moderate | Hazardous | Hazardous |
| CO | Good | Moderate | Hazardous | Hazardous |
| SO2 | Good | Moderate | Hazardous | Hazardous |


If your website is in need of forms you may have found that customizing them can be really difficult. Tuxedo has taken care of most of the heavy lifting. You can use our forms straight out of the box or add custom styling to them with the well commented code. in the _forms.scss file.
For any form make sure to place your code inside a form
tag for proper display and styling.
Form inputs are the most basic of form elements. Get your form started with the input snippet below.
A textarea is a great way to allow your user to write more information and provide a longer answer. Tuxedo's built in features preserve your design by not allowing a user to drag a textarea to the ends of the earth. Try it out below.
Selects by default are not pretty. Tuxedo has taken the select - and applied a style that matches Tuxedo's clean design. The best part is, the code is clearly commented so you know just what to change to adapt the select for you project design.
Checkboxes are another form element that makes it difficult to apply your own styles. Use Tuxedo's design straight out of the box or read through the commented code to change just what you need.
With radio buttons you can use Tuxedo's design straight out of the box or read through the commented code to change only what you need.
Each form element comes in several different styling states. Inputs, selects, textareas, and form-divides can all be styled in dark, light, or pop. Checkboxes, radio buttons, and form-headers can all be styled in dark and light variations. Simple change the ending of their classes to see the changes. For example, change textarea-light
to textarea-pop
or textarea-dark
to change the styling.
Want a basic form setup right away? The following form examples will get you up and running in no time. Simply use the parts you need and discard the parts you don't.


Seven O’Clock Stories
by Robert Gordon Anderson
Seven O’Clock Stories is a collection of children’s stories about Marmaduke, the Jehosophat, and the Toyman.
Source: Anderson, R. G. (1920). Seven O’Clock Stories. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons: The Knickerbocker Press.
- “First Night: The Three Happy Children”
- An introduction to the family in the story, which focuses on the three children Jehosophat, Marmaduke, and Hepzebiah.
- “Second Night: The Playmates of the Three Happy Children”
- An introduction to the animals on the family’s farm. They are considered part of the family because they are the playmates of the children.
- “Third Night: Noisy Folks”
- The description of the first and second cousins of chickens: ducks and geese. These are part of the barnyard friends that are playmates to the three children.
- “Fourth Night: Just Before Supper”
- The story continues in its description of the cows and horses in the barnyard with anecdoctes from the children.
- “Fifth Night: The Toyman”
- The story continues with the description of the beloved Toyman. He is a hired hand of the barnyard that makes toys for the children by the fire and takes them on fun adventures. In this short story the Toyman takes the children fishing.
- “Sixth Night: The Willow Whistle”
- The Toyman makes the three children whistles from a weeping willow and they serve as a bird call for Orioles.
- “Seventh Night: Mr. Scarecrow”
- The Toyman teaches the function of a scarecrow and why crows are bad for the corn crops.
- “Eighth Night: The Prettiest Fairy Story in the World”
- Mother teaches the three children how to garden and describes it as a fairy story to peak their interest. When their hard work is finished, the reap the benefits from their personal gardens.
- “Ninth Night: Another True Fairy Story”
- The three children ask Mother to show them another story. She shows them the Orioles as they return from the south in mid-May to build their nest.
- “Tenth Night: The Happy Ending of the Oriole’s Story”
- Mother and the children continue to watch the life of the Orioles and other neighboring bird families.
- “Eleventh Night: Mother Hen and Robber Hawk”
- The children watch the growth of baby chicks until a hawk comes to prey on them. The Toyman shoots the hawk and buries him next to the dead crow as a warning to evil-doers.
- “Twelfth Night: About Duckie the Stepchild and the Little Ship”
- The three children watch the Toyman make a boat for them to play with. As they play they also hear the commentary of the various animals in the barnyard.
- “Thirteenth Night: The Tall Enemy”
- The three children play a war game in the first snow of the winter. The Toyman builds six snow men and the children fight them with snow balls.
- “Fourteenth Night: The Sleigh and the Tiny Reindeer”
- Marmaduke is sick and has to stay in bed. He becomes very lonely because his siblings were sent to visit their uncle until he Marmaduke recovers. The Toyman visits him and sings to him while making him a special toy to help cheer him up.
- “Fifteenth Night: Jack Frost and the Man-in-the-Moon”
- Marmaduke has a dream while he is ill and meets Jack Frost, who takes him on a fun adventure in his toy sleigh.
- “Sixteenth Night: Sloshin’”
- Jehosophat disobeys Mother by sloshing through muddy water when she told him not to. He is overcome with guilt and eventually apologizes to her for disobeying her orders.
- “Seventeenth Night: The Circus Comes to Town”
- In this story the circus comes to town and the three children enjoy the spectacle.
- “Eighteenth Night: The Jolly Clown”
- This story continues the adventure of the circus from the previous chapter. Marmaduke gets lost and meets many different characters in the circus. He meets Tody the Clown who helps him find the Toyman.
- “Nineteenth Night: Wienerwurst’s Brave Battle”
- On Jehosophat’s birthday, he receives a pony and a dog-cart. Wienerwurst and a bad dog get into a fight and both dogs are injured, but Wienerwurst recovers.
- “Twentieth Night: The Lions of the North Wind”
- Marmaduke becomes frightened in the night by the sound of the North Wind. The Toyman comforts him and tells him a story to calm his fears that will allow him to sleep. Marmaduke and the Toyman recognize a special friendship between them as he drifts off to sleep.


This template is preconfigured with Material Design Lite. So, content pages can include any component or style that is part of MDL.
Inclusion of custom fonts and MDL files are, as usual, located in the head
section of the ./source/index.html
file.
There you can edit fonts and MDL css style to suite your need.
To apply fonts or other custom style classes, use the ./source/index.css file.


For more information on the Machine Perceptions Primitives contained in NMPT, please refer to the following publications.
- Nicholas J. Butko, Lingyun Zhang, Garrison W. Cottrell, and Javier R. Movellan, “Visual Saliency Model for Robot Cameras”, Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2398–2403, Pasadena, CA, USA, May 19–23, 2008 http://mplab.ucsd.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/icra2008.pdf
- Lingyun Zhang, Matthew H. Tong, Timothy K. Marks, Honghao Shan, and Garrison W. Cottrell, "SUN: A Bayesian Framework for SaliencyUsing Natural Statistics." Journal of Vision, 2008. http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/~gary/pubs/Zhang-et-al-2008-accepted.pdf
- Nicholas J. Butko and Javier R. Movellan, "Optimal Scanning for Faster Object Detection", Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2009. http://mplab.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2139.pdf
- Nicholas J. Butko and Javier R. Movellan, "I-POMDP: An Infomax Model of Eye Movement", Proceedings of the International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL) 2008. http://mplab.ucsd.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/icdl2008.pdf
- Jiri Najemnik and Wilson S. Geisler, "Optimal eye movment strategies in visual search", Nature, 434, 387-391, 2005.
- Ian R. Fasel, "Learning Real-Time Detectors: Probabilistic Generative
Approaches," Ph.D. Thesis, UC San Diego, 2006.


{% extends "base.html" %} {% block title %}
Medieval catalogues > UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE LIBRARIES OF CAMBRIDGE > University > Indenture referring to books in the common chest, 1363
{% endif %}4 identified entries found.
All data was derived from the List of Identifications by Professor Richard Sharpe.
{% if not printing %}
A key to codes used in the List is available (opens in new tab).{% endif %}


Video
Slider
Audio
Insert Audio Title Here
Progress Bars
Counters
0%
AC Repair
0%
AC Installation
0
Happy Customers
0
Best Engineers
0
Professionals