Syllabus
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. BLAZE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Over several years, the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with respondent Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on several Indian reservations located in Arizona. At the end of the contracting period, petitioner Arizona Department of Revenue (Department) issued a tax deficiency assessment against Blaze for its failure to pay Arizonas transaction privilege tax on the proceeds from its contracts with the Bureau; that tax is levied on the gross receipts of companies doing business in the State. Blaze protested the assessment and prevailed in administrative proceedings, but the Arizona Tax Court granted the Department summary judgment. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting the Departments argument that United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720, controlled, and holding that federal law pre-empted the taxs application to Blaze.
Held:<unicode value="8194"> A State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private companys proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government, regardless of whether the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation. In New Mexico, supra, the Court announced a clear rule that tax immunity is appropriate only when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on its agency or closely connected instrumentality. Id., at 733. To expand that immunity beyond these narrow constitutional limits, Congress must expressly so provide. Id., at 737. Thus, absent a constitutional immunity or congressional exemption, federal law does not shield Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax. The incidence of the tax falls on Blaze, not the Government; nor has Congress exempted these contracts from taxation. Nevertheless, the Arizona Court of Appeals employed a balancing test weighing state, federal, and tribal interests, and held that a congressional intent to pre-empt the tax could be inferred from federal laws regulating Indian welfare. In cases involving taxation of on-reservation activity, this Court has undertaken such a particularized examination where the taxs legal incidence fell on a nontribal entity engaged in a transaction with tribes or tribal members. See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163. But the Court has never employed this balancing test where a State seeks to tax a transaction between the Government and a non-Indian private contractor, and declines to do so now. The need to avoid litigation and to ensure efficient tax administration counsels in favor of a bright-line standard for taxing federal contracts, regardless of whether the contracted-for activity takes place on Indian reservations. Moreover, the political process is uniquely adapted to accommodating the interests implicated by state taxation of federal contractors. New Mexico, supra, at 738. The decision whether to exempt Blaze from the tax rests with Arizona and Congress, not this Court. Pp. 26.
190 Ariz. 262, 947 P. 2d 836, reversed and remanded.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Opinion
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER
v.
BLAZE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In United States v. New Mexico , 455 U. S. 720 (1982) , we held that a State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private companys proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government. This case asks us to determine whether that same rule applies when the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation. We hold that it does.
I
Under the Federal Lands Highways Program, 23 U. S. C. §204, the Federal Government finances road construction and improvement projects on federal public roads, including Indian reservation roads. Various federal agencies oversee the planning of particular projects and the allocation of funding to them. §§202(d), 204. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs has the responsibility to plan, survey, design and construct Indian reservation roads. 25 CFR §170.3 (1998).
Over a several-year period, the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on the Navajo, Hopi, Fort Apache, Colorado River, Tohono OOdham, and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations in Arizona. Blaze is incorporated under the laws of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana and is owned by a member of that Tribe. But, as the company concedes, Blaze is the equivalent of a non-Indian for purposes of this case because none of its work occurred on the Blackfeet Reservation. Brief in Opposition 2, n. 1; see Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation , 447 U. S. 134, 160161 (1980) .
At the end of the contracting period, the Arizona Department of Revenue (Department) issued a tax deficiency assessment against Blaze for its failure to pay Arizonas transaction privilege tax on the proceeds from its contracts with the Bureau; that tax is levied on the gross receipts of companies doing business in the State. 1 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§421306, 421310.16 (1991). Blaze protested the assessment and prevailed at the end of administrative proceedings, but, on review, the Arizona Tax Court granted summary judgment in the Departments favor. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. 190 Ariz. 262, 947 P. 2d 836 (1997). It rejected the Departments argument that our decision in New Mexico, supra, controlled the case and held that federal law pre-empted the application of Arizonas transaction privilege tax to Blaze. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Departments petition for review, with one justice voting to grant the petition. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. ___ (1998), and now reverse.
II
In New Mexico , we considered whether a State could impose gross receipts and use taxes on the property, income, and purchases of private federal contractors. To remedy the confusing nature of our precedents in this area, 455 U. S., at 733, we announced a clear rule:
[T]ax immunity is appropriate in only one circumstance: when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned. Id., at 735.
We reasoned that this narrow approach to the scope of governmental tax immunity accord[ed] with competing constitutional imperatives, by giving full range to each sovereigns taxing authority. Id. , at 735736 (citing Graves v. New York ex rel. OKeefe , 306 U. S. 466, 483 (1939) ). For that immunity to be expanded beyond these narrow constitutional limits, we explained that Congress must take responsibility for the decision, by so expressly providing as respects contracts in a particular form, or contracts under particular programs. 455 U. S., at 737 (emphasis added); see also Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co. , 342 U. S. 232, 234 (1952) . Applying those principles, we upheld each of the taxes at issue in that case because the legal incidence of the taxes fell on the contractors, not the Federal Government; the contractors could not be considered agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government; and Congress had not expressly exempted the contractors activities from taxation but, rather, had expressly repealed a pre-existing statutory exemption. See New Mexico , 455 U. S., at 743744.
These principles control the resolution of this case. Absent a constitutional immunity or congressional exemption, federal law does not shield Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax. See id., at 737; James v. Dravo Contracting Co. , 302 U. S. 134, 161 (1937) . The incidence of Arizonas transaction privilege tax falls on Blaze, not the Federal Government. Blaze does not argue that it is an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, and New Mexico s clear rule would have foreclosed any such argument under these circumstances. Nor has Congress exempted these contracts from taxation. Cf. Carson, supra, at 234.
Nevertheless, the Arizona Court of Appeals held (and Blaze urges here) that the tax cannot be applied to activities taking place on Indian reservations. 2 After it employed a balancing test weighing the respective state, federal, and tribal interests, Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico , 490 U. S. 163, 177 (1989) , the court below held that a congressional intent to pre-empt Arizonas tax could be inferred from federal laws regulating the welfare of Indians. In cases involving taxation of on-reservation activity, we have undertaken this particularized examination, Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832, 838 (1982) , where the legal incidence of the tax fell on a nontribal entity engaged in a transaction with tribes or tribal members. See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp., supra, at 176187 (state severance tax imposed on non-Indian lessees production of oil and gas); Ramah, supra, at 836846 (state gross receipts tax imposed on private contractors proceeds from contract with tribe for school construction); Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Commn , 448 U. S. 160, 165166 (1980) (tax imposed on sale of farm machinery to tribe); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker , 448 U. S. 136, 144153 (1980) (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on logging and hauling operations pursuant to contract with tribal enterprise). But we have never employed this balancing test in a case such as this one where a State seeks to tax a transaction between the Federal Government and its non-Indian private contractor.
We decline to do so now. Interest balancing in this setting would only cloud the clear rule established by our decision in New Mexico . The need to avoid litigation and to ensure efficient tax administration counsels in favor of a bright-line standard for taxation of federal contracts, regardless of whether the contracted-for activity takes place on Indian reservations. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commn v. Chickasaw Nation , 515 U. S. 450, 458459 (1995) ; County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation , 502 U. S. 251, 267268 (1992) . 3 Moreover, as we recognized in New Mexico , the political process is uniquely adapted to accommodating the interests implicated by state taxation of federal contractors. 455 U. S., at 738 (quoting Massachusetts v. United States , 435 U. S. 444, 456 (1978) (plurality opinion)). Accord, Washington v. United States , 460 U. S. 536, 546 (1983) . Whether to exempt Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax is not our decision to make; that deci- sion rests, instead, with the State of Arizona and with Congress.
Our conclusion in no way limits the Tribes ample opportunity to advance their interests when they choose to do so. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 88Stat. 2203, 25 U. S. C. §450, et seq. , (1994 ed. and Supp. III), a tribe may request the Secretary of Interior to enter into a self-determination contract to plan, conduct, and administer programs or portions thereof, including construction programs. §450f(a)(1). Where a tribe enters into such a contract, it assumes greater responsibility over the management of the federal funds and the operation of certain federal programs. See, e.g., 25 CFR §900.3(b)(4) (1998). Here, the Tribes on whose reservations Blazes work was performed have not exercised this option, and the Federal Government has retained contracting responsibility. Because the Tribes in this case have not assumed this responsibility, we have no occasion to consider whether the Indian preemption doctrine would apply when Tribes choose to take a more direct and active role in administering the federal funds. Therefore, we see no need to depart from the clear rule announced in New Mexico .
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
1 The Department initially also sought to tax Blazes proceeds from contracts with tribal housing authorities but eventually dropped its claim. We therefore have no occasion to consider Blazes tax liability with respect to those contracts.
2 Blaze also appears to argue that Arizonas tax infringes on the Tribes right to make their own decisions and be governed by them and that this is sufficient, by itself, to preclude application of Arizonas tax. See Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959) . Our decisions upholding state taxes in a variety of on-reservation settings squarely foreclose that argument. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 156 (1980) ; Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U. S. 463, 483 (1976) .
3 Indeed, a recent decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court illustrates the perils of a more fact-intensive inquiry. See Blaze Constr. Co., Inc. v. Taxation and Revenue Dept. of New Mexico, 118 N. M. 647, 884 P. 2d 803 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1016 (1995) . In that case, also involving the imposition of a tax on the gross receipts of Blazes federal contracts, the New Mexico Supreme Court applied the balancing test in Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989) and reached the exact opposite conclusion from the Arizona Court of Appeals. 118 N. M., at 652653, 884 P. 2d, at 808809.
Opinion
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER
v.
BLAZE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In United States v. New Mexico , 455 U. S. 720 (1982) , we held that a State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private companys proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government. This case asks us to determine whether that same rule applies when the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation. We hold that it does.
I
Under the Federal Lands Highways Program, 23 U. S. C. §204, the Federal Government finances road construction and improvement projects on federal public roads, including Indian reservation roads. Various federal agencies oversee the planning of particular projects and the allocation of funding to them. §§202(d), 204. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs has the responsibility to plan, survey, design and construct Indian reservation roads. 25 CFR §170.3 (1998).
Over a several-year period, the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on the Navajo, Hopi, Fort Apache, Colorado River, Tohono OOdham, and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations in Arizona. Blaze is incorporated under the laws of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana and is owned by a member of that Tribe. But, as the company concedes, Blaze is the equivalent of a non-Indian for purposes of this case because none of its work occurred on the Blackfeet Reservation. Brief in Opposition 2, n. 1; see Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation , 447 U. S. 134, 160161 (1980) .
At the end of the contracting period, the Arizona Department of Revenue (Department) issued a tax deficiency assessment against Blaze for its failure to pay Arizonas transaction privilege tax on the proceeds from its contracts with the Bureau; that tax is levied on the gross receipts of companies doing business in the State. 1 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§421306, 421310.16 (1991). Blaze protested the assessment and prevailed at the end of administrative proceedings, but, on review, the Arizona Tax Court granted summary judgment in the Departments favor. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. 190 Ariz. 262, 947 P. 2d 836 (1997). It rejected the Departments argument that our decision in New Mexico, supra, controlled the case and held that federal law pre-empted the application of Arizonas transaction privilege tax to Blaze. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Departments petition for review, with one justice voting to grant the petition. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. ___ (1998), and now reverse.
II
In New Mexico , we considered whether a State could impose gross receipts and use taxes on the property, income, and purchases of private federal contractors. To remedy the confusing nature of our precedents in this area, 455 U. S., at 733, we announced a clear rule:
[T]ax immunity is appropriate in only one circumstance: when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned. Id., at 735.
We reasoned that this narrow approach to the scope of governmental tax immunity accord[ed] with competing constitutional imperatives, by giving full range to each sovereigns taxing authority. Id. , at 735736 (citing Graves v. New York ex rel. OKeefe , 306 U. S. 466, 483 (1939) ). For that immunity to be expanded beyond these narrow constitutional limits, we explained that Congress must take responsibility for the decision, by so expressly providing as respects contracts in a particular form, or contracts under particular programs. 455 U. S., at 737 (emphasis added); see also Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co. , 342 U. S. 232, 234 (1952) . Applying those principles, we upheld each of the taxes at issue in that case because the legal incidence of the taxes fell on the contractors, not the Federal Government; the contractors could not be considered agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government; and Congress had not expressly exempted the contractors activities from taxation but, rather, had expressly repealed a pre-existing statutory exemption. See New Mexico , 455 U. S., at 743744.
These principles control the resolution of this case. Absent a constitutional immunity or congressional exemption, federal law does not shield Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax. See id., at 737; James v. Dravo Contracting Co. , 302 U. S. 134, 161 (1937) . The incidence of Arizonas transaction privilege tax falls on Blaze, not the Federal Government. Blaze does not argue that it is an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, and New Mexico s clear rule would have foreclosed any such argument under these circumstances. Nor has Congress exempted these contracts from taxation. Cf. Carson, supra, at 234.
Nevertheless, the Arizona Court of Appeals held (and Blaze urges here) that the tax cannot be applied to activities taking place on Indian reservations. 2 After it employed a balancing test weighing the respective state, federal, and tribal interests, Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico , 490 U. S. 163, 177 (1989) , the court below held that a congressional intent to pre-empt Arizonas tax could be inferred from federal laws regulating the welfare of Indians. In cases involving taxation of on-reservation activity, we have undertaken this particularized examination, Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832, 838 (1982) , where the legal incidence of the tax fell on a nontribal entity engaged in a transaction with tribes or tribal members. See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp., supra, at 176187 (state severance tax imposed on non-Indian lessees production of oil and gas); Ramah, supra, at 836846 (state gross receipts tax imposed on private contractors proceeds from contract with tribe for school construction); Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Commn , 448 U. S. 160, 165166 (1980) (tax imposed on sale of farm machinery to tribe); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker , 448 U. S. 136, 144153 (1980) (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on logging and hauling operations pursuant to contract with tribal enterprise). But we have never employed this balancing test in a case such as this one where a State seeks to tax a transaction between the Federal Government and its non-Indian private contractor.
We decline to do so now. Interest balancing in this setting would only cloud the clear rule established by our decision in New Mexico . The need to avoid litigation and to ensure efficient tax administration counsels in favor of a bright-line standard for taxation of federal contracts, regardless of whether the contracted-for activity takes place on Indian reservations. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commn v. Chickasaw Nation , 515 U. S. 450, 458459 (1995) ; County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation , 502 U. S. 251, 267268 (1992) . 3 Moreover, as we recognized in New Mexico , the political process is uniquely adapted to accommodating the interests implicated by state taxation of federal contractors. 455 U. S., at 738 (quoting Massachusetts v. United States , 435 U. S. 444, 456 (1978) (plurality opinion)). Accord, Washington v. United States , 460 U. S. 536, 546 (1983) . Whether to exempt Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax is not our decision to make; that deci- sion rests, instead, with the State of Arizona and with Congress.
Our conclusion in no way limits the Tribes ample opportunity to advance their interests when they choose to do so. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 88Stat. 2203, 25 U. S. C. §450, et seq. , (1994 ed. and Supp. III), a tribe may request the Secretary of Interior to enter into a self-determination contract to plan, conduct, and administer programs or portions thereof, including construction programs. §450f(a)(1). Where a tribe enters into such a contract, it assumes greater responsibility over the management of the federal funds and the operation of certain federal programs. See, e.g., 25 CFR §900.3(b)(4) (1998). Here, the Tribes on whose reservations Blazes work was performed have not exercised this option, and the Federal Government has retained contracting responsibility. Because the Tribes in this case have not assumed this responsibility, we have no occasion to consider whether the Indian preemption doctrine would apply when Tribes choose to take a more direct and active role in administering the federal funds. Therefore, we see no need to depart from the clear rule announced in New Mexico .
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
1 The Department initially also sought to tax Blazes proceeds from contracts with tribal housing authorities but eventually dropped its claim. We therefore have no occasion to consider Blazes tax liability with respect to those contracts.
2 Blaze also appears to argue that Arizonas tax infringes on the Tribes right to make their own decisions and be governed by them and that this is sufficient, by itself, to preclude application of Arizonas tax. See Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959) . Our decisions upholding state taxes in a variety of on-reservation settings squarely foreclose that argument. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 156 (1980) ; Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U. S. 463, 483 (1976) .
3 Indeed, a recent decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court illustrates the perils of a more fact-intensive inquiry. See Blaze Constr. Co., Inc. v. Taxation and Revenue Dept. of New Mexico, 118 N. M. 647, 884 P. 2d 803 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1016 (1995) . In that case, also involving the imposition of a tax on the gross receipts of Blazes federal contracts, the New Mexico Supreme Court applied the balancing test in Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989) and reached the exact opposite conclusion from the Arizona Court of Appeals. 118 N. M., at 652653, 884 P. 2d, at 808809.
Opinion
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER
v.
BLAZE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In United States v. New Mexico , 455 U. S. 720 (1982) , we held that a State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private companys proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government. This case asks us to determine whether that same rule applies when the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation. We hold that it does.
I
Under the Federal Lands Highways Program, 23 U. S. C. §204, the Federal Government finances road construction and improvement projects on federal public roads, including Indian reservation roads. Various federal agencies oversee the planning of particular projects and the allocation of funding to them. §§202(d), 204. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs has the responsibility to plan, survey, design and construct Indian reservation roads. 25 CFR §170.3 (1998).
Over a several-year period, the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on the Navajo, Hopi, Fort Apache, Colorado River, Tohono OOdham, and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations in Arizona. Blaze is incorporated under the laws of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana and is owned by a member of that Tribe. But, as the company concedes, Blaze is the equivalent of a non-Indian for purposes of this case because none of its work occurred on the Blackfeet Reservation. Brief in Opposition 2, n. 1; see Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation , 447 U. S. 134, 160161 (1980) .
At the end of the contracting period, the Arizona Department of Revenue (Department) issued a tax deficiency assessment against Blaze for its failure to pay Arizonas transaction privilege tax on the proceeds from its contracts with the Bureau; that tax is levied on the gross receipts of companies doing business in the State. 1 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§421306, 421310.16 (1991). Blaze protested the assessment and prevailed at the end of administrative proceedings, but, on review, the Arizona Tax Court granted summary judgment in the Departments favor. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. 190 Ariz. 262, 947 P. 2d 836 (1997). It rejected the Departments argument that our decision in New Mexico, supra, controlled the case and held that federal law pre-empted the application of Arizonas transaction privilege tax to Blaze. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Departments petition for review, with one justice voting to grant the petition. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. ___ (1998), and now reverse.
II
In New Mexico , we considered whether a State could impose gross receipts and use taxes on the property, income, and purchases of private federal contractors. To remedy the confusing nature of our precedents in this area, 455 U. S., at 733, we announced a clear rule:
[T]ax immunity is appropriate in only one circumstance: when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned. Id., at 735.
We reasoned that this narrow approach to the scope of governmental tax immunity accord[ed] with competing constitutional imperatives, by giving full range to each sovereigns taxing authority. Id. , at 735736 (citing Graves v. New York ex rel. OKeefe , 306 U. S. 466, 483 (1939) ). For that immunity to be expanded beyond these narrow constitutional limits, we explained that Congress must take responsibility for the decision, by so expressly providing as respects contracts in a particular form, or contracts under particular programs. 455 U. S., at 737 (emphasis added); see also Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co. , 342 U. S. 232, 234 (1952) . Applying those principles, we upheld each of the taxes at issue in that case because the legal incidence of the taxes fell on the contractors, not the Federal Government; the contractors could not be considered agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government; and Congress had not expressly exempted the contractors activities from taxation but, rather, had expressly repealed a pre-existing statutory exemption. See New Mexico , 455 U. S., at 743744.
These principles control the resolution of this case. Absent a constitutional immunity or congressional exemption, federal law does not shield Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax. See id., at 737; James v. Dravo Contracting Co. , 302 U. S. 134, 161 (1937) . The incidence of Arizonas transaction privilege tax falls on Blaze, not the Federal Government. Blaze does not argue that it is an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, and New Mexico s clear rule would have foreclosed any such argument under these circumstances. Nor has Congress exempted these contracts from taxation. Cf. Carson, supra, at 234.
Nevertheless, the Arizona Court of Appeals held (and Blaze urges here) that the tax cannot be applied to activities taking place on Indian reservations. 2 After it employed a balancing test weighing the respective state, federal, and tribal interests, Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico , 490 U. S. 163, 177 (1989) , the court below held that a congressional intent to pre-empt Arizonas tax could be inferred from federal laws regulating the welfare of Indians. In cases involving taxation of on-reservation activity, we have undertaken this particularized examination, Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832, 838 (1982) , where the legal incidence of the tax fell on a nontribal entity engaged in a transaction with tribes or tribal members. See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp., supra, at 176187 (state severance tax imposed on non-Indian lessees production of oil and gas); Ramah, supra, at 836846 (state gross receipts tax imposed on private contractors proceeds from contract with tribe for school construction); Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Commn , 448 U. S. 160, 165166 (1980) (tax imposed on sale of farm machinery to tribe); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker , 448 U. S. 136, 144153 (1980) (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on logging and hauling operations pursuant to contract with tribal enterprise). But we have never employed this balancing test in a case such as this one where a State seeks to tax a transaction between the Federal Government and its non-Indian private contractor.
We decline to do so now. Interest balancing in this setting would only cloud the clear rule established by our decision in New Mexico . The need to avoid litigation and to ensure efficient tax administration counsels in favor of a bright-line standard for taxation of federal contracts, regardless of whether the contracted-for activity takes place on Indian reservations. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commn v. Chickasaw Nation , 515 U. S. 450, 458459 (1995) ; County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation , 502 U. S. 251, 267268 (1992) . 3 Moreover, as we recognized in New Mexico , the political process is uniquely adapted to accommodating the interests implicated by state taxation of federal contractors. 455 U. S., at 738 (quoting Massachusetts v. United States , 435 U. S. 444, 456 (1978) (plurality opinion)). Accord, Washington v. United States , 460 U. S. 536, 546 (1983) . Whether to exempt Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax is not our decision to make; that deci- sion rests, instead, with the State of Arizona and with Congress.
Our conclusion in no way limits the Tribes ample opportunity to advance their interests when they choose to do so. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 88Stat. 2203, 25 U. S. C. §450, et seq. , (1994 ed. and Supp. III), a tribe may request the Secretary of Interior to enter into a self-determination contract to plan, conduct, and administer programs or portions thereof, including construction programs. §450f(a)(1). Where a tribe enters into such a contract, it assumes greater responsibility over the management of the federal funds and the operation of certain federal programs. See, e.g., 25 CFR §900.3(b)(4) (1998). Here, the Tribes on whose reservations Blazes work was performed have not exercised this option, and the Federal Government has retained contracting responsibility. Because the Tribes in this case have not assumed this responsibility, we have no occasion to consider whether the Indian preemption doctrine would apply when Tribes choose to take a more direct and active role in administering the federal funds. Therefore, we see no need to depart from the clear rule announced in New Mexico .
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
1 The Department initially also sought to tax Blazes proceeds from contracts with tribal housing authorities but eventually dropped its claim. We therefore have no occasion to consider Blazes tax liability with respect to those contracts.
2 Blaze also appears to argue that Arizonas tax infringes on the Tribes right to make their own decisions and be governed by them and that this is sufficient, by itself, to preclude application of Arizonas tax. See Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959) . Our decisions upholding state taxes in a variety of on-reservation settings squarely foreclose that argument. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 156 (1980) ; Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U. S. 463, 483 (1976) .
3 Indeed, a recent decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court illustrates the perils of a more fact-intensive inquiry. See Blaze Constr. Co., Inc. v. Taxation and Revenue Dept. of New Mexico, 118 N. M. 647, 884 P. 2d 803 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1016 (1995) . In that case, also involving the imposition of a tax on the gross receipts of Blazes federal contracts, the New Mexico Supreme Court applied the balancing test in Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989) and reached the exact opposite conclusion from the Arizona Court of Appeals. 118 N. M., at 652653, 884 P. 2d, at 808809.
Opinion
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER
v.
BLAZE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In United States v. New Mexico , 455 U. S. 720 (1982) , we held that a State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private companys proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government. This case asks us to determine whether that same rule applies when the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation. We hold that it does.
I
Under the Federal Lands Highways Program, 23 U. S. C. §204, the Federal Government finances road construction and improvement projects on federal public roads, including Indian reservation roads. Various federal agencies oversee the planning of particular projects and the allocation of funding to them. §§202(d), 204. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs has the responsibility to plan, survey, design and construct Indian reservation roads. 25 CFR §170.3 (1998).
Over a several-year period, the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on the Navajo, Hopi, Fort Apache, Colorado River, Tohono OOdham, and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations in Arizona. Blaze is incorporated under the laws of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana and is owned by a member of that Tribe. But, as the company concedes, Blaze is the equivalent of a non-Indian for purposes of this case because none of its work occurred on the Blackfeet Reservation. Brief in Opposition 2, n. 1; see Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation , 447 U. S. 134, 160161 (1980) .
At the end of the contracting period, the Arizona Department of Revenue (Department) issued a tax deficiency assessment against Blaze for its failure to pay Arizonas transaction privilege tax on the proceeds from its contracts with the Bureau; that tax is levied on the gross receipts of companies doing business in the State. 1 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§421306, 421310.16 (1991). Blaze protested the assessment and prevailed at the end of administrative proceedings, but, on review, the Arizona Tax Court granted summary judgment in the Departments favor. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. 190 Ariz. 262, 947 P. 2d 836 (1997). It rejected the Departments argument that our decision in New Mexico, supra, controlled the case and held that federal law pre-empted the application of Arizonas transaction privilege tax to Blaze. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Departments petition for review, with one justice voting to grant the petition. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. ___ (1998), and now reverse.
II
In New Mexico , we considered whether a State could impose gross receipts and use taxes on the property, income, and purchases of private federal contractors. To remedy the confusing nature of our precedents in this area, 455 U. S., at 733, we announced a clear rule:
[T]ax immunity is appropriate in only one circumstance: when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned. Id., at 735.
We reasoned that this narrow approach to the scope of governmental tax immunity accord[ed] with competing constitutional imperatives, by giving full range to each sovereigns taxing authority. Id. , at 735736 (citing Graves v. New York ex rel. OKeefe , 306 U. S. 466, 483 (1939) ). For that immunity to be expanded beyond these narrow constitutional limits, we explained that Congress must take responsibility for the decision, by so expressly providing as respects contracts in a particular form, or contracts under particular programs. 455 U. S., at 737 (emphasis added); see also Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co. , 342 U. S. 232, 234 (1952) . Applying those principles, we upheld each of the taxes at issue in that case because the legal incidence of the taxes fell on the contractors, not the Federal Government; the contractors could not be considered agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government; and Congress had not expressly exempted the contractors activities from taxation but, rather, had expressly repealed a pre-existing statutory exemption. See New Mexico , 455 U. S., at 743744.
These principles control the resolution of this case. Absent a constitutional immunity or congressional exemption, federal law does not shield Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax. See id., at 737; James v. Dravo Contracting Co. , 302 U. S. 134, 161 (1937) . The incidence of Arizonas transaction privilege tax falls on Blaze, not the Federal Government. Blaze does not argue that it is an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, and New Mexico s clear rule would have foreclosed any such argument under these circumstances. Nor has Congress exempted these contracts from taxation. Cf. Carson, supra, at 234.
Nevertheless, the Arizona Court of Appeals held (and Blaze urges here) that the tax cannot be applied to activities taking place on Indian reservations. 2 After it employed a balancing test weighing the respective state, federal, and tribal interests, Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico , 490 U. S. 163, 177 (1989) , the court below held that a congressional intent to pre-empt Arizonas tax could be inferred from federal laws regulating the welfare of Indians. In cases involving taxation of on-reservation activity, we have undertaken this particularized examination, Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832, 838 (1982) , where the legal incidence of the tax fell on a nontribal entity engaged in a transaction with tribes or tribal members. See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp., supra, at 176187 (state severance tax imposed on non-Indian lessees production of oil and gas); Ramah, supra, at 836846 (state gross receipts tax imposed on private contractors proceeds from contract with tribe for school construction); Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Commn , 448 U. S. 160, 165166 (1980) (tax imposed on sale of farm machinery to tribe); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker , 448 U. S. 136, 144153 (1980) (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on logging and hauling operations pursuant to contract with tribal enterprise). But we have never employed this balancing test in a case such as this one where a State seeks to tax a transaction between the Federal Government and its non-Indian private contractor.
We decline to do so now. Interest balancing in this setting would only cloud the clear rule established by our decision in New Mexico . The need to avoid litigation and to ensure efficient tax administration counsels in favor of a bright-line standard for taxation of federal contracts, regardless of whether the contracted-for activity takes place on Indian reservations. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commn v. Chickasaw Nation , 515 U. S. 450, 458459 (1995) ; County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation , 502 U. S. 251, 267268 (1992) . 3 Moreover, as we recognized in New Mexico , the political process is uniquely adapted to accommodating the interests implicated by state taxation of federal contractors. 455 U. S., at 738 (quoting Massachusetts v. United States , 435 U. S. 444, 456 (1978) (plurality opinion)). Accord, Washington v. United States , 460 U. S. 536, 546 (1983) . Whether to exempt Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax is not our decision to make; that deci- sion rests, instead, with the State of Arizona and with Congress.
Our conclusion in no way limits the Tribes ample opportunity to advance their interests when they choose to do so. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 88Stat. 2203, 25 U. S. C. §450, et seq. , (1994 ed. and Supp. III), a tribe may request the Secretary of Interior to enter into a self-determination contract to plan, conduct, and administer programs or portions thereof, including construction programs. §450f(a)(1). Where a tribe enters into such a contract, it assumes greater responsibility over the management of the federal funds and the operation of certain federal programs. See, e.g., 25 CFR §900.3(b)(4) (1998). Here, the Tribes on whose reservations Blazes work was performed have not exercised this option, and the Federal Government has retained contracting responsibility. Because the Tribes in this case have not assumed this responsibility, we have no occasion to consider whether the Indian preemption doctrine would apply when Tribes choose to take a more direct and active role in administering the federal funds. Therefore, we see no need to depart from the clear rule announced in New Mexico .
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
1 The Department initially also sought to tax Blazes proceeds from contracts with tribal housing authorities but eventually dropped its claim. We therefore have no occasion to consider Blazes tax liability with respect to those contracts.
2 Blaze also appears to argue that Arizonas tax infringes on the Tribes right to make their own decisions and be governed by them and that this is sufficient, by itself, to preclude application of Arizonas tax. See Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959) . Our decisions upholding state taxes in a variety of on-reservation settings squarely foreclose that argument. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 156 (1980) ; Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U. S. 463, 483 (1976) .
3 Indeed, a recent decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court illustrates the perils of a more fact-intensive inquiry. See Blaze Constr. Co., Inc. v. Taxation and Revenue Dept. of New Mexico, 118 N. M. 647, 884 P. 2d 803 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1016 (1995) . In that case, also involving the imposition of a tax on the gross receipts of Blazes federal contracts, the New Mexico Supreme Court applied the balancing test in Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989) and reached the exact opposite conclusion from the Arizona Court of Appeals. 118 N. M., at 652653, 884 P. 2d, at 808809.
Opinion
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER
v.
BLAZE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In United States v. New Mexico , 455 U. S. 720 (1982) , we held that a State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private companys proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government. This case asks us to determine whether that same rule applies when the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation. We hold that it does.
I
Under the Federal Lands Highways Program, 23 U. S. C. §204, the Federal Government finances road construction and improvement projects on federal public roads, including Indian reservation roads. Various federal agencies oversee the planning of particular projects and the allocation of funding to them. §§202(d), 204. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs has the responsibility to plan, survey, design and construct Indian reservation roads. 25 CFR §170.3 (1998).
Over a several-year period, the Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on the Navajo, Hopi, Fort Apache, Colorado River, Tohono OOdham, and San Carlos Apache Indian Reservations in Arizona. Blaze is incorporated under the laws of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana and is owned by a member of that Tribe. But, as the company concedes, Blaze is the equivalent of a non-Indian for purposes of this case because none of its work occurred on the Blackfeet Reservation. Brief in Opposition 2, n. 1; see Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation , 447 U. S. 134, 160161 (1980) .
At the end of the contracting period, the Arizona Department of Revenue (Department) issued a tax deficiency assessment against Blaze for its failure to pay Arizonas transaction privilege tax on the proceeds from its contracts with the Bureau; that tax is levied on the gross receipts of companies doing business in the State. 1 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§421306, 421310.16 (1991). Blaze protested the assessment and prevailed at the end of administrative proceedings, but, on review, the Arizona Tax Court granted summary judgment in the Departments favor. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. 190 Ariz. 262, 947 P. 2d 836 (1997). It rejected the Departments argument that our decision in New Mexico, supra, controlled the case and held that federal law pre-empted the application of Arizonas transaction privilege tax to Blaze. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the Departments petition for review, with one justice voting to grant the petition. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. ___ (1998), and now reverse.
II
In New Mexico , we considered whether a State could impose gross receipts and use taxes on the property, income, and purchases of private federal contractors. To remedy the confusing nature of our precedents in this area, 455 U. S., at 733, we announced a clear rule:
[T]ax immunity is appropriate in only one circumstance: when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned. Id., at 735.
We reasoned that this narrow approach to the scope of governmental tax immunity accord[ed] with competing constitutional imperatives, by giving full range to each sovereigns taxing authority. Id. , at 735736 (citing Graves v. New York ex rel. OKeefe , 306 U. S. 466, 483 (1939) ). For that immunity to be expanded beyond these narrow constitutional limits, we explained that Congress must take responsibility for the decision, by so expressly providing as respects contracts in a particular form, or contracts under particular programs. 455 U. S., at 737 (emphasis added); see also Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co. , 342 U. S. 232, 234 (1952) . Applying those principles, we upheld each of the taxes at issue in that case because the legal incidence of the taxes fell on the contractors, not the Federal Government; the contractors could not be considered agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government; and Congress had not expressly exempted the contractors activities from taxation but, rather, had expressly repealed a pre-existing statutory exemption. See New Mexico , 455 U. S., at 743744.
These principles control the resolution of this case. Absent a constitutional immunity or congressional exemption, federal law does not shield Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax. See id., at 737; James v. Dravo Contracting Co. , 302 U. S. 134, 161 (1937) . The incidence of Arizonas transaction privilege tax falls on Blaze, not the Federal Government. Blaze does not argue that it is an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, and New Mexico s clear rule would have foreclosed any such argument under these circumstances. Nor has Congress exempted these contracts from taxation. Cf. Carson, supra, at 234.
Nevertheless, the Arizona Court of Appeals held (and Blaze urges here) that the tax cannot be applied to activities taking place on Indian reservations. 2 After it employed a balancing test weighing the respective state, federal, and tribal interests, Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico , 490 U. S. 163, 177 (1989) , the court below held that a congressional intent to pre-empt Arizonas tax could be inferred from federal laws regulating the welfare of Indians. In cases involving taxation of on-reservation activity, we have undertaken this particularized examination, Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of N. M., 458 U. S. 832, 838 (1982) , where the legal incidence of the tax fell on a nontribal entity engaged in a transaction with tribes or tribal members. See, e.g., Cotton Petroleum Corp., supra, at 176187 (state severance tax imposed on non-Indian lessees production of oil and gas); Ramah, supra, at 836846 (state gross receipts tax imposed on private contractors proceeds from contract with tribe for school construction); Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona Tax Commn , 448 U. S. 160, 165166 (1980) (tax imposed on sale of farm machinery to tribe); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker , 448 U. S. 136, 144153 (1980) (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on logging and hauling operations pursuant to contract with tribal enterprise). But we have never employed this balancing test in a case such as this one where a State seeks to tax a transaction between the Federal Government and its non-Indian private contractor.
We decline to do so now. Interest balancing in this setting would only cloud the clear rule established by our decision in New Mexico . The need to avoid litigation and to ensure efficient tax administration counsels in favor of a bright-line standard for taxation of federal contracts, regardless of whether the contracted-for activity takes place on Indian reservations. Cf. Oklahoma Tax Commn v. Chickasaw Nation , 515 U. S. 450, 458459 (1995) ; County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation , 502 U. S. 251, 267268 (1992) . 3 Moreover, as we recognized in New Mexico , the political process is uniquely adapted to accommodating the interests implicated by state taxation of federal contractors. 455 U. S., at 738 (quoting Massachusetts v. United States , 435 U. S. 444, 456 (1978) (plurality opinion)). Accord, Washington v. United States , 460 U. S. 536, 546 (1983) . Whether to exempt Blaze from Arizonas transaction privilege tax is not our decision to make; that deci- sion rests, instead, with the State of Arizona and with Congress.
Our conclusion in no way limits the Tribes ample opportunity to advance their interests when they choose to do so. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 88Stat. 2203, 25 U. S. C. §450, et seq. , (1994 ed. and Supp. III), a tribe may request the Secretary of Interior to enter into a self-determination contract to plan, conduct, and administer programs or portions thereof, including construction programs. §450f(a)(1). Where a tribe enters into such a contract, it assumes greater responsibility over the management of the federal funds and the operation of certain federal programs. See, e.g., 25 CFR §900.3(b)(4) (1998). Here, the Tribes on whose reservations Blazes work was performed have not exercised this option, and the Federal Government has retained contracting responsibility. Because the Tribes in this case have not assumed this responsibility, we have no occasion to consider whether the Indian preemption doctrine would apply when Tribes choose to take a more direct and active role in administering the federal funds. Therefore, we see no need to depart from the clear rule announced in New Mexico .
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
1 The Department initially also sought to tax Blazes proceeds from contracts with tribal housing authorities but eventually dropped its claim. We therefore have no occasion to consider Blazes tax liability with respect to those contracts.
2 Blaze also appears to argue that Arizonas tax infringes on the Tribes right to make their own decisions and be governed by them and that this is sufficient, by itself, to preclude application of Arizonas tax. See Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 220 (1959) . Our decisions upholding state taxes in a variety of on-reservation settings squarely foreclose that argument. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 156 (1980) ; Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation, 425 U. S. 463, 483 (1976) .
3 Indeed, a recent decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court illustrates the perils of a more fact-intensive inquiry. See Blaze Constr. Co., Inc. v. Taxation and Revenue Dept. of New Mexico, 118 N. M. 647, 884 P. 2d 803 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1016 (1995) . In that case, also involving the imposition of a tax on the gross receipts of Blazes federal contracts, the New Mexico Supreme Court applied the balancing test in Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163 (1989) and reached the exact opposite conclusion from the Arizona Court of Appeals. 118 N. M., at 652653, 884 P. 2d, at 808809.


- Source:
Members
(static) DEFAULTS
This object defines the default settings for jQuery.fn.showOrHideSection() and
similar plug-in functions.
The table also lists all possible properties for the
options
argument
of said functions.
Properties:
| Name | Type | Attributes | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
classShowing |
string | ="showing" Name of a CSS class which should be added to the heading element (see property heading) when showing the corresponding section and removed when hiding the section. | |
classHidden |
string | ="hidden" Name of a CSS class which should be added to the heading element (see property heading) when hiding the corresponding section and removed when showing the section. | |
easing |
string |
<optional> |
A string indicating which easing function to use for the show or hide transition. See jQuery.animate(). If undefined (default), jQuery.animate()'s default easing function will be used. |
horizontalAnimation |
boolean | =false: Default tries vertical easing when showing or hiding a section, set to true in order to change to horizontal easing. | |
duration |
int | =200 Default duration for animations (scrolling, or easing when expanding or collapsing elements). | |
scroll |
boolean | =false. When false (default), any call to showSection() or showOrHideSection() (for showing) will simply show the target section regardless of whether it is in the viewport or not, i.e. not ensuring that the user will see the newly showing section. Set this to true to ensure that the newly shown section will be scrolled into viewport: If the section is below viewport, the page will scroll down until the section is in view, if the section's top is above viewport (the section might be partially showing or not at all, but the start of the section is not in view), the page will scroll up to show the beginning of the newly shown section. | |
scrollTriggerTolerance |
int |
<optional> |
=50 Tolerance for the decisions if/when to
trigger a scroll. Only evaluated, of course, if option scroll is true.
See tolerance parameter of jQuery.fn.isTopBelowViewport resp.
jQuery.fn.isTopAboveViewport. |
scrollTolerance |
int |
<optional> |
Tolerance for the scroll operation (see option scroll }).
If left undefined (default), the default tolerance of the called scroll function
(jQuery.fn.scrollDownIntoView resp. jQuery.fn.viewportAlignTop) will be used. |
heading |
string | jqr | = "#${id}_h" String pattern for a jQuery selector string used
to find the section heading element (or alternatively a jquery resultset containing the heading element).
This heading element is an HTML element usually above the hideable section itself
and is supposed to be always visible (even if the section is hidden) and to visually
reflect the state (i.e. by an icon), indicating, whether it refers to the following visible
section or to a hidden section. It also usually is or contains a toggle control (like a link or button)
to trigger an event which will expand a hidden section or hide the visible section.
For example: If you have a link or button and have bound a function to it's click event
in order to call $("#mySection").showOrHide() , i.e. a link or button which
is used to toggle the visibility of a section with the example ID "mySection",
then this link or button is called the toggle control. You may define this toggle
control itself to be the heading, but you might also define a larger container, say
a DIV, to be the header, and this (among others) contains the toggle control (button/link).
The heading (regardless if it's the control or a surrounding container) should be
designe to optically reflect the current toggle's state (section visible or invisible?).
This should be defined via CSS. In order to do so, the heading can have a showing or a
hidden class, so you may write CSS rules based on these classes to visualize the state,
e.g. by changing an icon.The default value of this heading property is "#${id}_h". In this string,
any occurrance of "${xyz}" will first be replaced by calling $(this).prop("xyz"). In this
case, when showing or hiding the section with ID "mySection", the selector will resolve
to "#mySection_h". Then this selector will be used a jQuery search parameter to perform something
like $("#mySection_h").addClass("showing").removeClass("hidden") .
If you leave this setting on its default value, all you have to do is to make sure, that
the ID if each heading element equals the actual section's ID with appended suffix "_h".
If you don't like this default convention, specify a different pattern string. |
|
toggle |
string | jqr | ="#${id}_h a[href]:first, #${id}_h button:first, a[href]#${id}_h, button#${id}_h"
String pattern for a jQuery selector string or alternatively a jQuery resultset,
see option heading .
This default value is meant for the case that the heading selects
a heading element which either contains a toggle control (being either a button
or a link, i.e. anchor with href attribute), or which is itself
such a button or a link. If the heading itself is not a button or link, the selector
selects the first button or link inside the heading.
This so-found button or link is expected to be the toggle control which a user can click
in order to show or hide the section.
If you modify the default heading selector you'll probably also hav to change
this option accordingly.
What actually happens with the result is (currently): For the element found by this selector (if any), the attribute "aria-expanded" will be set to true if the section
is visible or false if the section is hidden.
This is done for better accessibility: A screen reader will then not only read the
toggle's text (link or button label), but will also announce the state (expanded or collapsed)
of the section, and clicking that control will change this state. |
|
store |
string | jqr |
<optional> |
A pattern string similar to option heading
specifying a pattern for a jQuery selector string for finding a form element in which to
store the current visibility state. The syntax is the same as for heading .
(Alternatively a jQuery resultset containing the form element to be used.)
The default is undefined, which means that no such form control is used. If you are
designing an HTML form with expandable and collapsable sections and you want the current
state (whether a specific section is visible or hidden) to persist even when submitting
the form, you may introduce hidden fields to your form, one per hideable section,
and associate them with the sections by specifying this option. For example, if you
set the ID of each of those hidden fields to the ID of the corresponding section
with a suffix of "_state" appended, then set this option to: #${id}_state .
Then for each section the state will be submitted the following way: The hidden field
will be empty if the section is hidden, and the hidden field will be non-empty (value "X"),
if the section is showing. Then your server application may evaluate this form data
and take care of initialising each section's visibility in the response page it produces. |
restrictSelectorsToChildren |
boolean | jqr | =false. Global property for search scope
of selectors in options heading , toggle and store .
If set to false (default), selectors in those three options are executed globally, i.e.
the whole document / DOM tree is searched by these selectors. If set to true, the search is
restricted to children of the node the show or hide plug-in function is called for.
(A value of true is usually not suitable for showOrHideSecion calls, since this
would require the toggle or heading to be a child of the section to hide, while normally these
elements should always remain visible). For showOrHideChildren however, true
is usually a recommended option, if the plug-in function is called on a node which is not only
parent/ancestor of the children to hide but also of the toggle control or heading (if existing).
If this option is not set to a boolean value at all, but to a jQuery resultset, then this
resultset is used as search base for the selectors. |
|
condition |
boolean | predicate |
<optional> |
Defaults to undefined. If left undefined, the function
jQuery.fn.showOrHideSection() (not the unconditional jQuery.fn.showSection
or jQuery.fn.showSection) will simply toggle the section's visibility, i.e. if it's
visible, the function will hide it, otherwise it will show it. By setting this option,
you can specify a different condition which either statically or dynamically decides whether
to try and hide or show the section:
If you set condition to a simple boolean expression (evaluated to a boolean before the actual)
showOrHideSection() function is executed (this is usually not done in a
setup, but directly in the options argument to the
showOrHideSection function)), the section will be
shown (or keep visible if it already was) if the value is truthy, otherwise it will be (or keep)
hidden.
You may also set the option to be a zero- or one-argument-predicate, i.e. a (callback) function
with zero or one parameter which returns a boolean value.
This function will then be executed each time showOrHideSection() is
executed and it can then decide whether to return true (show section) or false (hide section).
(Such a function would usually be set once in jQuery.fn.setupShowOrHideSection.)
This call-back function gets passed a reference to the section itself that should be
shown or hidden (depending on the return value). This reference gets passed in the first
explicit argument as well as implicit argument (i.e. this also points to
the section). So you may refer to the section either via this (usually in a parameterless
function) or to the parameter name of your choice, whatever you prefer. |
viewport |
jqr | =$(window) A jQuery resultset. which should contain one item
representing the viewport in which the section should be aligned. Will be used only if
the scroll option (see above) is true. This then defines the viewport
inside which the newly shown section should be aligned by scrolling (see scroll functions). |
|
onToggle |
function |
<optional> |
Optional callback function which will be called
whenever the visibility of the section changes, i.e. the section gets collapsed (hidden)
or expanded (shown) again. Two arguments will be passed, so your call-back function may
accept up to two parameters: The first parameter gets assigned a jQuery resultset containing exactly the
reference to the section itself that has just been shown or hidden.
The second parameter gets assigned a jQuery resultset containing the
heading reference (result found by the heading , of course this set
can be empty if the heading selector did not match any nodes).
And the implicit argument this contains a plain reference to the
section (like the first parameter, but not wrapped in a jQuery set). |
onShow |
function |
<optional> |
Callback function just like onToggle, only this function will only be called when the section gets shown, not if it gets hidden. Actually, it will always be called if a showSection() command (or showOrHideSection() with truthy condition) gets executed even if the section already was visible. |
onHide |
function |
<optional> |
Callback function just like onToggle, only this function will only be called when the section gets hidden, not if it gets shown. Actually, it will always be called if a hideSection() command (or showOrHideSection() with falsy condition) gets executed even if the section already was invisible. |
- Source:


Businesses for a Cause
Ways organizations can contribute to local geeks
9560 St, Eiusmod Tempor inc
Los Angeles County, California
+2<PHONE_NUMBER>
Call me
MENU
Schools for a Cause
Students for a Cause
Businesses/Organizations for a Cause
Gallery
Contact


Enter your number and we'll text you a verification code.
Please provide your annual pledge amount
Name too short
Name too long
Click Create account to sign up today!


BUT HOW MUCH FOOD IS THAT??!?!?! Let's find out!
Let's add up a typical day's protein to see how much you'll need:
FAQ
What about protein powder, dairy, nuts, veggies?
In the words of
the man himself, Robb Wolf:
Your protein needs to have the following criteria:
- It needs a face.
- It needs a soul.

That is all.


This is an example page for the
jp_doodle
package.
jp_doodle
makes implementing special purpose interactive visualizations easy.
/notebooks/misc/Spiders attack Tulsa.ipynb
for additional discussion and for an explanation of how the spider image was given a transparent background.


Compact overview for Bitbucket repositories.
Log in via Bitbucket
RepOverview uses OAuth to authenticateyou through Bitbucket, no registration required.


Use an array of [page:Bone bones] to create a skeleton that can be used by a [page:SkinnedMesh].
// Create a simple "arm"
const bones = [];
const shoulder = new THREE.Bone();
const elbow = new THREE.Bone();
const hand = new THREE.Bone();
shoulder.add( elbow );
elbow.add( hand );
bones.push( shoulder );
bones.push( elbow );
bones.push( hand );
shoulder.position.y = -5;
elbow.position.y = 0;
hand.position.y = 5;
const armSkeleton = new THREE.Skeleton( bones );
See the [page:SkinnedMesh] page for an example of usage with standard [page:BufferGeometry].
[page:Array bones] - The array of [page:Bone bones]. Default is an empty
array.
[page:Array boneInverses] - (optional) An array of [page:Matrix4 Matrix4s].
Creates a new [name].
The array of [page:bone bones]. Note this is a copy of the original array, not a reference, so you can modify the original array without effecting this one.
An array of [page:Matrix4 Matrix4s] that represent the inverse of the [page:Matrix4 matrixWorld] of the individual bones.
The array buffer holding the bone data when using a vertex texture.
The [page:DataTexture] holding the bone data when using a vertex texture.
The size of the [page:.boneTexture].
Returns a clone of this Skeleton object.
Generates the [page:.boneInverses boneInverses] array if not provided in the constructor.
Computes an instance of [page:DataTexture] in order to pass the bone data more efficiently to the shader. The texture is assigned to [page:.boneTexture boneTexture].
Returns the skeleton to the base pose.
Updates the [page:Float32Array boneMatrices] and [page:DataTexture boneTexture] after changing the bones. This is called automatically by the [page:WebGLRenderer] if the skeleton is used with a [page:SkinnedMesh].
name -- String to match to the Bone's .name property.
Searches through the skeleton's bone array and returns the first with a
matching name.
Frees the GPU-related resources allocated by this instance. Call this method whenever this instance is no longer used in your app.
[link:https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/src/[path].js src/[path].js]


Tamizh is a Pragmatic, Passionate and Polyglot Programmer. He started his programming journey at the age of 12, and the passion has not left him since then. He is a Full-Stack solution provider and has a wealth of experience in solving complex problems using different programming languages and technologies. F#, Clojure & Haskell are some of his favorites.Tamizh is also a functional programming enthusiast and authored two books "F# Applied & F# Applied II", both are a practical guide for web development in F# using Suave.


Fire breaks out in Castro District, near historic theater
by Dianne de GuzmanUpdated 12:34 pm PST, Saturday, November 16, 2019
A large fire broke out across from the historic Castro Theatre early Saturday morning, injuring two people and displacing a number of residents.
The fire started at about 4:30 a.m. behind the building of 456 Castro Street which houses the popular Q Bar, with residences above the business. The flames spread to a neighboring residential building, also with a street-level commercial space.
Three businesses were reportedly affected by the fire and 13 people are displaced. One person "with serious injuries" was taken to a hospital, and a firefighter sustained minor injuries, according to the San Francisco Fire Department.
Photos and video on social media show flames and a wall of smoke rising from one of the buildings in the 400 block of Castro Street, at about 5 a.m. The Chronicle reported that fire crews "gained control" over the fire at around 6 a.m. and was fully contained by 10 a.m.
Officials are asking people to avoid the area during cleanup. The cause of the fire is under investigation.
This story is breaking and will update as more information becomes available. SFGATE is reaching out to SFFD for more information.


Most articles written about using R for map visualization focus on using libraries such as ggplot2 and others to enable sophisticated plotting options. However, many times this isn’t needed as sf (and most other spatial packages) supports basic plotting operations natively. This post captures a some simple techniques that can be used for rapid visualizations to validate assumptions and find problems.
library(sf)
library(dplyr)
wa_state <- st_read("C:/Users/RAndre1/Documents/Work_Docs/GIS_DATA/wa_state.shp")
wa_cities <- st_read("C:/Users/RAndre1/Documents/Work_Docs/GIS_DATA/sample_wa_cities.shp")
plot(wa_state$geometry)
plot(wa_cities$geometry, add = TRUE, pch=20, col='red')
text(st_coordinates(wa_cities), pos=1, wa_cities$Name, cex=0.75, col = 'red')
st_centroid(wa_state) %>%
st_coordinates() %>%
text(pos=3, wa_state$Name, cex=1.25)


Web Design, Thumbnail Design, Banner Design, Card news Design, Detail page Design
Character concept and illustration production, character drawing using clip studio
Simple line & vector-type
icon, emoji design
NAME : LIM EO JIN
BIRTH : 1997.03.09
MOBILE : 010.4500.4333
E-MAIL<EMAIL_ADDRESS>PROFILE : Click


The seq/filter.h
header defines an algorithm that filters elements from a sequence according to a user-specified criteria.
#include <chaos/preprocessor/seq/filter.h>
The CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
macro filters elements from its second argument according to the criteria specified by its first argument.
CHAOS_PP_EXPR
(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
(pred, seq))
The predicate that determines whether an element is to remain in the resulting sequence. This predicate must be either a λ expression or a macro name that refers to a macro with a signature compatible with the following pseudo-signature:
pred(s, elem†)
†
If seq contains elements that have varying arities, elem must be ...
.
Otherwise, elem must be the number of parameters that corresponds to the arity of each element in seq.
The sequence to be filtered.
CHAOS_PP_EXPR
(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
(pred, seq, ...))
The predicate that determines whether an element is to remain in the resulting sequence. This predicate must be either a λ expression or a macro name that refers to a macro with a signature compatible with the following pseudo-signature:
pred(s, elem†, data‡)
† The elem pseudo-parameter must be the number of parameters that corresponds to the arity of each element in seq.
‡
The data pseudo-parameter must be either ...
or the number of parameters that corresponds to the number of arguments in the auxiliary data, __VA_ARGS__
.
The sequence to be filtered.
Auxiliary data to be passed through the algorithm to the predicate.
CHAOS_PP_EXPR
(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
(pred, seq, data))
The predicate that determines whether an element is to remain in the resulting sequence. This predicate must be a macro name that refers to a macro with a signature compatible with the following pseudo-signature:
pred(s, elem, data)
The sequence to be filtered.
Auxiliary data to be passed through the algorithm to the predicate.
The CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
macro itself expands to a deferred expression in terms of
.
This deferred expression, when invoked by CHAOS_PP_NEXT
(s)CHAOS_PP_EXPR
, expands to a sequence that contains the elements for which the predicate expands to 1
.
The predicate is invoked for each element in seq with the current recursion state (s), the current element (elem), and, if it exists, the auxiliary data (data or __VA_ARGS__
).
This invocation must expand to 0
, 1
, or a deferred expression in terms of
that expands to either CHAOS_PP_NEXT
(s)0
or 1
.
Expansion to a deferred expression allows the predicate to recurse on itself if necessary.
In C99, it is possible to omit the auxiliary data argument altogether. This is different than passing "nothing" as the auxiliary data.
CHAOS_PP_EXPR
(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
(PRED, (a)(b)(c),) // #1CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
(PRED, (a)(b)(c)) // #2 )
The first line passes "nothing" as the auxiliary data, which causes PRED
to be invoked as (e.g.)...
PRED(s, a,)
The second line omits the auxiliary data, which causes PRED
to be invoked as (e.g.)...
PRED(s, a)
The fundamental difference is that, in the first line, the auxiliary data is empty (which might have a valid meaning as data), but, in the second line, there is no auxiliary data. Hence, the algorithm is overloaded on a true-optional parameter.
Invocations of the predicate are trampolined such that each invocation is invoked with
, where s is the original recursion state at the beginning of the algorithm (i.e. CHAOS_PP_NEXT
(s)
).
This maximizes the utility of the recursion backend.
CHAOS_PP_STATE
()
This macro uses sequential iteration. As a result, the efficiency of the algorithm's use of the recursion backend, described in terms of the number of recursion steps required to complete the algorithm and ignoring the complexity of pred, is a constant Θ(1). As such, the algorithm is theoretically capable of processing sequences containing an unrestricted number of elements.
This macro deduces the current recursion state and invokes CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
.
If the current recursion state is already known, direct use of CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
is more efficient.
This macro may not be used if bypass semantics are in effect.
CHAOS_PP_AUTO_FILTER
CHAOS_PP_FILTER
CHAOS_PP_FILTER_X
CHAOS_PP_SEQ_AUTO_FILTER
CHAOS_PP_TUPLE_AUTO_FILTER
CHAOS_PP_TUPLE_FILTER
CHAOS_PP_VARIADIC_SEQ_AUTO_FILTER
CHAOS_PP_VARIADIC_SEQ_FILTER
#include<chaos/preprocessor/config.h>
#include<chaos/preprocessor/lambda/ops.h>
#include<chaos/preprocessor/logical/bool.h>
#include<chaos/preprocessor/recursion/expr.h>
#include<chaos/preprocessor/seq/filter.h>
#define PRED(s, elem, data)CHAOS_PP_BOOL
(elem)CHAOS_PP_EXPR
(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
( PRED, (4)(6)(0)(0)(8)(0), ~ )) // (4)(6)(8) #ifCHAOS_PP_VARIADICS
CHAOS_PP_EXPR
(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
(CHAOS_PP_BOOL_
(CHAOS_PP_ARG
(1)), (4)(6)(0)(0)(8)(0) )) // (4)(6)(8) #endif
The CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_ID
macro indirectly expands to CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
.
CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_ID
()
This macro effectively allows CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
to pass through itself without becoming disabled.
The CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_
macro expands to a λ expression representing CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
.
CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_
This macro is a shorthand form of the following λ binding:
The CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
macro behaves identically to CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER
except that it is parametized by the recursion state.
CHAOS_PP_EXPR_S
(s)(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
(s, pred, seq))
The current recursion state.
The predicate that determines whether an element is to remain in the resulting sequence. This predicate must be either a λ expression or a macro name that refers to a macro with a signature compatible with the following pseudo-signature:
pred(s, elem†)
†
If seq contains elements that have varying arities, elem must be ...
.
Otherwise, elem must be the number of parameters that corresponds to the arity of each element in seq.
The sequence to be filtered.
CHAOS_PP_EXPR_S
(s)(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
(s, pred, seq, ...))
The current recursion state.
The predicate that determines whether an element is to remain in the resulting sequence. This predicate must be either a λ expression or a macro name that refers to a macro with a signature compatible with the following pseudo-signature:
pred(s, elem†, data‡)
† The elem pseudo-parameter must be the number of parameters that corresponds to the arity of each element in seq.
‡
The data pseudo-parameter must be either ...
or the number of parameters that corresponds to the number of arguments in the auxiliary data, __VA_ARGS__
.
The sequence to be filtered.
Auxiliary data to be passed through the algorithm to the predicate.
CHAOS_PP_EXPR_S
(s)(CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
(s, pred, seq, data))
The current recursion state.
The predicate that determines whether an element is to remain in the resulting sequence. This predicate must be a macro name that refers to a macro with a signature compatible with the following pseudo-signature:
pred(s, elem, data)
The sequence to be filtered.
Auxiliary data to be passed through the algorithm to the predicate.
This macro may not be used if bypass semantics are in effect.
The CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S_ID
macro indirectly expands to CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
.
CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S_ID
()
This macro effectively allows CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
to pass through itself without becoming disabled.
The CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S_
macro expands to a λ expression representing CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S
.
CHAOS_PP_SEQ_FILTER_S_
This macro is a shorthand form of the following λ binding:


Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout.
Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
David Ramon
27 January 2017
Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, velfacilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim.
David Ramon
27 January 2017
Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, velfacilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim.
David Ramon
22 August 2016
Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, velfacilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim.


A packet is a small amount of data sent over a network, such as a LAN or the Internet. Similar to a real-life package, each packet includes a source and destination as well as the content (or data) being transferred. When the packets reach their destination, they are reassembled into a single file or other contiguous block of data.
While the exact structure of a packet varies between protocols, a typical packet includes two sections — a header and payload. Information about the packet is stored in the header. For example, an IPv6 header includes the following fields:
1.Source address (128 bits) - IPv6 address of the packet origin
2. Destination address (128 bits) - IPv6 address of the packet destination
3.Version (4 bits) - "6" for IPv6
4.Traffic class (8 bits) - priority setting for the packet
5.Flow label (20 bits) - optional ID that labels the packet as part of a specific flow; used to distinguish between multiple transmissions from a single origin Payload length (16 bits) - size of the data, defined in octets
6.Next header (8 bits) - ID of the header following the current packet; may be TCP, UDP, or another protocol
7.Hop limit (8 bits) - maximum number of network hops (between routers, switches, etc) before the packet is dropped; also known as "TTL" in IPv4
The payload section of a packet contains the actual data being transferred. This is often just a small part of a file, webpage, or other transmission, since individual packets are relatively small. For example, the maximum size of an IP packet payload is 65,535 bytes, or 64 kilobytes. The maximum size of an Ethernet packet or "frame" is only 1,500 bytes or 1.5 kilobytes.
Packets are intended to transfer data reliably and efficiently. Instead of transferring a large file as a single block of data, sending smaller packets helps ensure each section is transmitted successfully. If a packet is not received or is "dropped," only the dropped packet needs to be resent. Additionally, if a data transfer encounters network congestion due to multiple simultaneous transfers, the remaining packets can be rerouted through a less congested path.


Hdmi 2 USB
Main Page
Design Unit List
Files
Design Unit List
Design Units
Design Unit Hierarchy
Design Unit Members
All
Classes
Files
Functions
Variables
Class
decode Enum Reference
Inheritance diagram for decode:
List of all members.
Additional Inherited Members
Member Function Documentation
Member Data Documentation
reset
wire
pclk
wire
pclkx2
wire
pclkx10
wire
serdesstrobe
wire
din_p
wire
din_n
wire
other_ch0_vld
wire
other_ch1_vld
wire
other_ch0_rdy
wire
other_ch1_rdy
wire
iamvld
wire
iamrdy
wire
psalgnerr
wire
c0
reg
c1
reg
de
reg
sdout
reg
[
9
:
0
]
dout
reg
[
7
:
0
]
flipgear
flipgearx2
toggle
rx_toggle
raw5bit
raw5bit_q
rawword
bitslipx2
bitslip_q
bitslip
rawdata
sdata
CTRLTOKEN0
CTRLTOKEN1
CTRLTOKEN2
CTRLTOKEN3
data
chnlbond
cbnd
phsaligner
phsalgn_0
serdes_1_to_5_diff_data
des_0
The documentation for this enum was generated from the following file:
decode.v
Generated on Sat Oct 13 2012 23:42:22 for Hdmi 2 USB by
1.8.1


Home
About
Favorites
Images
Contact
About page of the my site
My favourite topics of the jQuery UI
Widgets
Menu
tabs
heightStyle
event
Interactions
Draggable
Droppable
Effects
Add Class
Remove Class
Color Animation
Utilities


My attorney Bobby Saadian and the Wilshire Law Firm is one of the best motorcycle and auto accident firm that's ever represented me. My case manager Scarlett Alvarez was very professional, resourceful, she was on top of everything, she always called me and reminded me about any meetings or appointments keeping me up to date and informed. Amy Wu is one of the best and most impressive lien negotiator I've ever known, she finished my case in 2 days…Bobby Saadian is a down to earth, real nice guy, he makes you feel at home.


You won’t be able to edit this film later anymore.
Do you really want to submit it?
Autobiography
| Screenplay based on | True story |
| Project status | Filming |
| Country of production | USA |
Total budget
$ 10 000 000
Financing required
$ 5 000 000
Financing secured
$ 2 000 000
Total budget $ 10 000 000
The most iconic rock guitarist since Keith Richards, Slash has achieved the status of ‘most interesting hard rock act in the world today (Slash Documentary ‘The Cat in the Hat’)
He is best known as the lead guitarist of the American hard rock band Guns N' Roses, with whom he achieved worldwide success in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Slash has received critical acclaim and is considered one of the greatest rock guitarists.


Home
Services
Portfolio
ContactMe
Albunus Mutuku
Full-Stack Developer
More About Me
Comment
SEND
facebook
twitter
instagram
pinterest
linkedin
Created by
Albunus @TTECH
| All rights reserved
TEL: +254 719 315 899


LINES WRITTEN UPON FIRST LISTENING TO DOCTOR BOGENBROOM BY JETHRO TULL
A poem by Vercingetorix Sepulveda
O! Savage & vile & pink & bloated thing!
Curs'd uncanny globule of despair!
Monstrous, too! So pale & shuddering!
Its gleaming talons clawing at my hair!
Hast this being come t' announce my doom?
Its head is like a chaffinch or a gull.
It has been sent by Doctor Bogenbroom,
Invoked by minstrel-wizards Jethro Tull.


{% extends "base.html" %} {% import 'match_partials/match_table_macros.html' as mtm %} {% block title %}Advanced Insights - {{event.name}} ({{event.year}}) - The Blue Alliance{% endblock %} {% block meta_description %}Advanced insights for the {{event.year}} {{event.name}} FIRST Robotics Competition.{% endblock %} {% block more_head_tags %} {% endblock %} {% block content %}
Remember, match predictions are JUST FOR FUN! Please do not be discouraged by our predictions -- they are almost certainly wrong.
{% if fake_matches %}Note: Match teams are not shown because FIRST does not allow the re-hosting of the preliminary match schedule. Sorry for the inconvenience.
{% endif %} {% if match_prediction_stats.qual.wl_accuracy %}Win/Loss prediction accuracy: {{match_prediction_stats.qual.wl_accuracy|round|int}}%
{% endif %} {% if match_prediction_stats.qual.wl_accuracy_75 %}Win/Loss prediction accuracy (>75% confidence): {{match_prediction_stats.qual.wl_accuracy_75|round|int}}%
{% endif %} {% if match_prediction_stats.qual.err_mean %}Match score prediction average error: {{match_prediction_stats.qual.err_mean|round(1)}}
{% endif %} {{mtm.qual_match_prediction_table(matches, match_predictions.qual, fake_matches, event.year)}}No qual match predictions available. Check back later!
Remember, ranking predictions are JUST FOR FUN! Please do not be discouraged by our predictions -- they are almost certainly wrong.
Predictions will update throughout the event.
| Predicted Rank | Team | Average Rank | Highest Rank | Median Rank | Lowest Rank | Average RP | Highest RP | Lowest RP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{loop.index}} | {{team_key|strip_frc}} | {{avg_rank|round(1)}} | {{min_rank|int}} | {{median_rank|int}} | {{max_rank|int}} | {{avg_rp|round(1)}} | {{max_rp}} | {{min_rp}} |
No ranking predictions available. Check back later!
Remember, match predictions are JUST FOR FUN! Please do not be discouraged by our predictions -- they are almost certainly wrong.
{% if fake_matches %}Note: Match teams are not shown because FIRST does not allow the re-hosting of the preliminary match schedule. Sorry for the inconvenience.
{% endif %} {% if match_prediction_stats.playoff.wl_accuracy %}Win/Loss prediction accuracy: {{match_prediction_stats.playoff.wl_accuracy|round|int}}%
{% endif %} {% if match_prediction_stats.playoff.wl_accuracy_75 %}Win/Loss prediction accuracy (>75% confidence): {{match_prediction_stats.playoff.wl_accuracy_75|round|int}}%
{% endif %} {% if match_prediction_stats.playoff.err_mean %}Match score prediction average error: {{match_prediction_stats.playoff.err_mean|round(1)}}
{% endif %} {{mtm.playoff_match_prediction_table(matches, match_predictions.playoff, fake_matches, event.year)}}No playoff match predictions available. Check back later!


John Smith
Visual Notepad
Reference
Specifies a data island
This page contains an XML data island. It should not generate an error.


--- layout: post status: publish published: true title: How to watch the 2015 Cubs in the Quad Cities author: display_name: Andy login: Andy email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>url: '' author_login: Andy author_email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wordpress_id: 11076 wordpress_url: http://ivyenvy.com/?p=11076 date: '2015-03-25 14:59:47 +0000' date_gmt: '2015-03-25 19:59:47 +0000' categories: - Broadcasters/Networks tags: [] comments: - id: 17800 author: Jnunn76 author_email: '' author_url: '' date: '2015-03-27 21:00:30 +0000' date_gmt: '2015-03-28 02:00:30 +0000' content: I have DirectTV, and for less than 50 bucks I was able to buy a digital antenna. This allows me to watch the games on 8.3. The only problem is that I can't use my DVR, but I can live with that. ---
This announcement effectively ends the concern many Quad Cities Cubs fans had over how they were going to be able to watch their favorite team this season. Mediacom subscribers will find KGCW on channel 713, and it is channel 26 for OTA viewers.
Also, Comcast SportsNet sent out a press release yesterday, stating that it will broadcast 87 games this season--"the most in network history," and earlier this month, we reported that 45 games will be aired by WQAD's My TV 8-3 substation.
The few remaining games out of the 162 will be split between ESPN and FOX.
***EDIT - 3:35pm***
@IvyEnvy It's extremely important to encourage subscribers of DISH and DirecTV to contact their providers and ask them to add these stations
— Dave Bohnenkamp (@PenaltyBoxBones) March 25, 2015
Dave raises a great point. If you have DirecTV, you do not have WQAD's 8.3 substation. I could not find anything that indicates DISH carries the station.


We're sorry but Frontend Template doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.


//= partials/header.html
//= partials/section-01.html
//= partials/section-02.html
//= partials/section-03.html
//= partials/section-04.html
//= partials/section-05.html
//= partials/section-06.html
//= partials/section-07.html
//= partials/section-08.html
//= partials/section-09.html
//= partials/section-10.html
//= partials/section-11.html
//= partials/section-12.html
//= partials/section-13.html
//= partials/section-14.html
//= partials/hidden-block.html
//= partials/footer.html
//= partials/scripts.html


White/black
Background
Shadow
Double-click to edit, or drag.
By Public Lab
Drag an image here to set a background.
Title
Subtitle goes here.


{% extends 'base.html' %} {% block title %}Newest Web App{% endblock %} {% block body %}
This world is going app crazy. You've got so many great ideas, but you don't have the time to see them through. With App Crazy, you can start an app project and get others to help. Push them limits and then share the success.
Interacting with developers of apps your interested in is a great way to learn about app development. Everyone is short on time, so if you donate some time to a developer, he or she is likely to help you get started. There is no better way to start developing the next great app than to help someone else first.
Once you earn credits on App Crazy through cooperative development, you apply for paid apprenticeships with developers. Paid apprenticeships give you more responsibility and a chance to cash in on the success of the app.
Once you have been an apprentice, it is time to rachet up your timeline for your own app. When you have earned enough credits, you'll have people applying to help you out. Multiply your brian power with the help of others.


Tracking Month Over Month Growth in SQL
In analyzing a business I commonly look at reports that have two lenses, one is by doing various cohort analysis. The other is that I look for Month over Month or Week over Week or some other X over X growth in terms of a percentage. This second form of looking at data is relevant when you’re in a SaaS business or essentially anythign that does recurring billing. In such a business focusing on your MRR and working on growing your MRR is how success can often be measured.
I’ll jump write in, first lets assume you have some method of querying your revenue. In this case you may have some basic query similar to:
SELECT date_trunc('month', mydate) as date,
sum(mymoney) as revenue
FROM foo
GROUP BY date
ORDER BY date ASC;
This should give you a nice clean result:
date | revenue
------------------------+----------
2013-10-01 00:00:00+00 | 10000
2013-11-01 00:00:00+00 | 11000
2013-12-01 00:00:00+00 | 11500
Now this is great, but the first thing I want to do is start to see what my percentage growth month over month is. Surprise, surprise, I can do this directly in SQL. To do so I’ll use a window function and then use the lag function. According to the Postgres docs
lag(value any [, offset integer [, default any ]]) same type as value returns value evaluated at the row that is offset rows before the current row within the partition; if there is no such row, instead return default. Both offset and default are evaluated with respect to the current row. If omitted, offset defaults to 1 and default to null
Essentially it orders it based on the window function and then pulls in the value from the row before. So in action it looks something like:
SELECT date_trunc('month', mydate) as date,
sum(mymoney) as revenue,
lag(mymoney, 1) over w previous_month_revenue
FROM foo
WINDOW w as (order by date)
GROUP BY date
ORDER BY date ASC;
Combining to actually make it a bit more pretty (with some casting to a numeric and then formatting a bit) in terms of a percentage:
SELECT date_trunc('month', mydate) as date,
sum(mymoney) as revenue,
round((1.0 - (cast(mymoney as numeric) / lag(mymoney, 1) over w)) * 100, 1) myVal_growth
FROM foo
WINDOW w as (order by date)
GROUP BY date
ORDER BY date ASC;
And you finally get a nice clean output of your month over month growth directly in SQL:
date | revenue | growth
------------------------+----------+--------
2013-10-01 00:00:00+00 | 10000 | null
2013-11-01 00:00:00+00 | 11000 | 10.0
2013-12-01 00:00:00+00 | 11500 | 4.5


| rename {dplyr} | R Documentation |
rename()
changes the names of individual variables using
new_name = old_name
syntax; rename_with()
renames columns using a
function.
rename(.data, ...) rename_with(.data, .fn, .cols = everything(), ...)
.data |
A data frame, data frame extension (e.g. a tibble), or a lazy data frame (e.g. from dbplyr or dtplyr). See Methods, below, for more details. |
... |
For For |
.fn |
A function used to transform the selected |
.cols |
< |
An object of the same type as .data
. The output has the following
properties:
Rows are not affected.
Column names are changed; column order is preserved.
Data frame attributes are preserved.
Groups are updated to reflect new names.
This function is a generic, which means that packages can provide implementations (methods) for other classes. See the documentation of individual methods for extra arguments and differences in behaviour.
The following methods are currently available in loaded packages: no methods found.
Other single table verbs:
arrange()
,
filter()
,
mutate()
,
select()
,
slice()
,
summarise()
iris <- as_tibble(iris) # so it prints a little nicer rename(iris, petal_length = Petal.Length) rename_with(iris, toupper) rename_with(iris, toupper, starts_with("Petal")) rename_with(iris, ~ tolower(gsub(".", "_", .x, fixed = TRUE)))