- getBirths2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
BIRTHS2010 field value getter.
- getBirths2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
BIRTHS2010 field value getter.
- getBirths2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
BIRTHS2011 field value getter.
- getBirths2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
BIRTHS2011 field value getter.
- getCensus2010pop() - Method in class bo.Record
-
CENSUS2010POP field value getter.
- getCensus2010pop() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
CENSUS2010POP field value getter.
- getColumnClass(int) - Method in class db.PopulationTableModel
-
Value function that can be used to get the
type of data contained in a column given its
index.
- getColumnCount() - Method in class db.PopulationTableModel
-
Column count accessor.
- getColumnName(int) - Method in class db.PopulationTableModel
-
Value function that can be used to
determine the index given the name (or caption)
of a column.
- getColumns() - Method in class db.PopulationTable
-
Accessor used to get the Columns Vector.
- getColumns() - Method in class mysql.PopulationTable
-
Accessor used to get the Columns Vector.
- getCountOfEstPopDecr(int) - Method in interface bo.CollectionAnalytics
-
Count of states with estimated population decrease
- getCountOfEstPopDecr(int) - Method in class bo.PersistentObject
-
Implementation of the CollectionAnalytics.getCountOfEstPopDecr method.
- getCountOfEstPopDecr(int) - Method in interface mp2.CollectionAnalytics
-
Count of states with estimated population decrease
- getCountOfEstPopDecr(int) - Method in class mp2.PersistentObject
-
Implementation of the CollectionAnalytics.getCountOfEstPopDecr method.
- getCountOfEstPopIncr(int) - Method in interface bo.CollectionAnalytics
-
Count of states with estimated population increase.
- getCountOfEstPopIncr(int) - Method in class bo.PersistentObject
-
Implementation of the CollectionAnalytics.getCountOfEstPopIncr method.
- getCountOfEstPopIncr(int) - Method in interface mp2.CollectionAnalytics
-
Count of states with estimated population increase.
- getCountOfEstPopIncr(int) - Method in class mp2.PersistentObject
-
Implementation of the CollectionAnalytics.getCountOfEstPopIncr method.
- getDate() - Method in class bo.PersistentObject
-
Initialization Date Getter.
- getDate() - Method in class mp2.PersistentObject
-
Initialization Date Getter.
- getDeaths2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
DEATHS2010 field value getter.
- getDeaths2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
DEATHS2010 field value getter.
- getDeaths2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
DEATHS2011 field value getter.
- getDeaths2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
DEATHS2011 field value getter.
- getDivision() - Method in class bo.Record
-
Division Code setter.
- getDivision() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
Division Code setter.
- getDomesticmig2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
DOMESTICMIG2010 field value getter.
- getDomesticmig2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
DOMESTICMIG2010 field value getter.
- getDomesticmig2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
DOMESTICMIG2011 field value getter.
- getDomesticmig2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
DOMESTICMIG2011 field value getter.
- getEstimatesbase2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
ESTIMATESBASE2010 field value getter.
- getEstimatesbase2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
ESTIMATESBASE2010 field value getter.
- getFields() - Method in class bo.Record
-
Record field getter.
- getFields() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
Record field getter.
- getFilename() - Method in class io.PersistentObjectWriter
-
- getHeaderRow() - Method in class db.PopulationTable
-
Accessor that can be used to get the columns
headers (or captions) of the Population_T table.
- getHeaderRow() - Method in class mysql.PopulationTable
-
Accessor that can be used to get the columns
headers (or captions) of the Population_T table.
- getInternationalmig2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
INTERNATIONALMIG2010 field value getter.
- getInternationalmig2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
INTERNATIONALMIG2010 field value getter.
- getInternationalmig2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
INTERNATIONALMIG2011 field value getter.
- getInternationalmig2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
INTERNATIONALMIG2011 field value getter.
- getName() - Method in class bo.Record
-
Name field value getter.
- getName() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
Name field value getter.
- getNaturalinc2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
NATURALINC2010 field value getter.
- getNaturalinc2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
NATURALINC2010 field value getter.
- getNaturalinc2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
NATURALINC2011 field value getter.
- getNaturalinc2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
NATURALINC2011 field value getter.
- getNetmig2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
NETMIG2010 field value getter.
- getNetmig2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
NETMIG2010 field value getter.
- getNetmig2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
NETMIG2011 field value getter.
- getNetmig2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
NETMIG2011 field value getter.
- getNPopChg2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
NPOPCHG_2010 field value getter.
- getNPopChg2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
NPOPCHG_2010 field value getter.
- getNPopChg2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
NPOPCHG_2011 field value getter.
- getNPopChg2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
NPOPCHG_2011 field value getter.
- getPopestimate2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
POPESTIMATE2010 field value getter.
- getPopestimate2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
POPESTIMATE2010 field value getter.
- getPopestimate2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
POPESTIMATE2011 field value getter.
- getPopestimate2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
POPESTIMATE2011 field value getter.
- getPopulationRecords() - Method in class bo.PersistentObject
-
PopulationRecords Getter.
- getPopulationRecords() - Method in class mp2.PersistentObject
-
PopulationRecords Getter.
- getRbirth2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RBIRTH2011 field value getter.
- getRbirth2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RBIRTH2011 field value getter.
- getRdeath2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RDEATH2011 field value getter.
- getRdeath2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RDEATH2011 field value getter.
- getRdomesticmig2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RDOMESTICMIG2011 field value getter.
- getRdomesticmig2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RDOMESTICMIG2011 field value getter.
- getRegion() - Method in class bo.Record
-
Region Code Getter.
- getRegion() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
Region Code Getter.
- getResidual2010() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RESIDUAL2010 field value getter.
- getResidual2010() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RESIDUAL2010 field value getter.
- getResidual2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RESIDUAL2011 field value getter.
- getResidual2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RESIDUAL2011 field value getter.
- getRinternationalmig2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RINTERNATIONALMIG2011 field value getter.
- getRinternationalmig2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RINTERNATIONALMIG2011 field value getter.
- getRnaturalinc2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RNATURALINC2011 field value getter.
- getRnaturalinc2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RNATURALINC2011 field value getter.
- getRnetmig2011() - Method in class bo.Record
-
RNETMIG2011 field value getter.
- getRnetmig2011() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
RNETMIG2011 field value getter.
- getRowCount() - Method in class db.PopulationTableModel
-
Row count accessor.
- getRows() - Method in class db.PopulationTable
-
Accessor used to get the Rows Vector.
- getRows() - Method in class mysql.PopulationTable
-
Accessor used to get the Rows Vector.
- getState() - Method in class bo.Record
-
State FIP Code Getter.
- getState() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
State FIP Code Getter.
- getStateWithLeastPop(int) - Method in interface bo.CollectionAnalytics
-
Get the State with the least population.
- getStateWithLeastPop(int) - Method in class bo.PersistentObject
-
Implementation with the CollectionAnalytics.getStateWithLeastPop method.
- getStateWithLeastPop(int) - Method in interface mp2.CollectionAnalytics
-
Get the State with the least population.
- getStateWithLeastPop(int) - Method in class mp2.PersistentObject
-
Implementation with the CollectionAnalytics.getStateWithLeastPop method.
- getStateWithMostPop(int) - Method in interface bo.CollectionAnalytics
-
Get the State with the most population.
- getStateWithMostPop(int) - Method in class bo.PersistentObject
-
Implementation of the CollectionAnlytics.getStateWithMostPop method.
- getStateWithMostPop(int) - Method in interface mp2.CollectionAnalytics
-
Get the State with the most population.
- getStateWithMostPop(int) - Method in class mp2.PersistentObject
-
Implementation of the CollectionAnlytics.getStateWithMostPop method.
- getSumlev() - Method in class bo.Record
-
Summary Level Code Getter.
- getSumlev() - Method in class mp2.Record
-
Summary Level Code Getter.
- getTableCellRendererComponent(JTable, Object, boolean, boolean, int, int) - Method in class ui.FrmMain.RenderingManager
-
- getValueAt(int, int) - Method in class db.PopulationTableModel
-


Class links.Timeline.Step
Step
The class step is an iterator for dates. You provide a start date and an end
date. The class itself determines the best scale (step size) based on the
provided start Date, end Date, and bestStepNum. For example if you want to have
a label each 100px (you may reckon with the text size), and the width of
your timeline is 1000px, then you can provide bestStepNum=10.
Alternatively, you can set a scale by hand.
After creation, you can initialize the class by executing begin(). Then you
can iterate from the start date to the end date via next(). You can check if
the end date is reached with the function end(). After each step, you can
retrieve the current date via get().
The class step has scales ranging from milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours,
days, to years.
Defined in: timeline.js.
| Constructor Attributes | Constructor Name and Description |
|---|---|
|
links.Timeline.Step(start, end, bestStepNum)
|
| Method Attributes | Method Name and Description |
|---|---|
|
addZeros(value, len)
Add
|
|
|
begin()
Set the step iterator to the start date.
|
|
|
Automatically determine the best scale and step, based on the
start Date and end Date
|
|
|
end()
Check if the end date is reached
|
|
|
getDate()
Get the current datetime
|
|
|
Returns formatted text for the major axislabel, depending on the current
date and the scale.
|
|
|
Returns formatted text for the minor axislabel, depending on the current
date and the scale.
|
|
|
isMajor()
Check if the current step is a major step (for example when the step
is DAY, a major step is each first day of the MONTH)
|
|
|
next()
Do the next step
|
|
|
Round the current date to the first minor date value
This must be executed once when the current date is set to start Date
|
|
|
setAutoScale(enable)
Enable or disable autoscaling
|
|
|
setRange(start, end, bestStepNum)
Set a new range
The scale is determined based on the difference in time and the bestStepNum.
|
|
|
setScale(newScale, newStep)
Set a custom scale.
|
|
|
snap(date)
Snap a date to a rounded value.
|
- Parameters:
- {Date} start
- The start date, for example new Date(2010,09,21) or new Date(2010,09,21,23,45,00)
- {Date} end
- The end date
- {int} bestStepNum
- Optional. The most ideal number of steps, labels.
- Parameters:
- value
- len
- Returns:
- {boolean} true if the current date has passed the end date
- Returns:
- {Date} current The current date
- Returns:
- {string} major axislabel
- Returns:
- {string} minor axislabel
- Returns:
- true if current date is major, else false.
- Parameters:
- {boolean} enable
- If true or not defined, autoscaling is enabled. If false, autoscaling is disabled.
- Parameters:
- {Date} start
- The start date and time.
- {Date} end
- The end date and time.
- {int} bestStepNum
- Optional. The most ideal number of steps, labels.
- Parameters:
- {Step.SCALE} newScale
- A scale. Choose from SCALE.MILLISECOND, SCALE.SECOND, SCALE.MINUTE, SCALE.HOUR, SCALE.DAY, SCALE.MONTH, SCALE.YEAR.
- {int} newStep
- A step size, by default 1. Choose for example 1, 2, 5, or 10.
- Parameters:
- {Date} date
- the date to be snapped


Simplistic µService library
The goal of mini-service is to give the minimal structure to implement a µService, that can be invoked locally or remotely.
Its principles are the following:
mini-service uses the latest ES6 features, so it requires node 6+
Here is a simple calculator service definition, that exposes functions to add and subtract numbers.
calc-service.js
module.exports = {
name: 'calc-service',
version: '1.0.0',
init: () => {
// each exposed APIs could also return a promise/be async
add: (a, b) => a + b,
subtract: (a, b) => a - b
}
}
If you want to use it locally in a different file: require the service definition, and create a [mini-client][mini-client-url] with it
caller-local.js
const {getClient} = require('mini-service')
const calcService = require('./calc-service')
const calc = getClient(calcService)
Then, init it (it's an async operation) and invoke any exposed API you need:
caller-local.js
await calc.init()
const sum = await calc.add(10, 5)
console.log(`Result is: ${sum}`)
Now let's imagine you need to deploy your calculator service in a standalone Http server, and invoke it from a remote server.
To turn your local service into a real server, expose your service definition with mini-service's startServer()
:
calc-service.js
const {startServer} = require('mini-service')
module.exports = {...} // same service definition as above
// starts Http server
startServer(module.exports)
A server is now listening on port 3000.
And to use it from a remote caller, creates a mini-client giving the proper url:
caller-remote.js
const getClient = require('mini-client') // or: const {getClient} = require('mini-service')
const calc = getClient({
remote: 'http://localhost:3000'
})
Please note that you don't need to require the service definition anymore.
Usage is exactly the same as previously.
caller-remote.js
await calc.init() // no-op, can be skipped
const sum = await calc.add(10, 5)
console.log(`Result is: ${sum}`)
This project was kindly sponsored by nearForm.
Copyright Damien Simonin Feugas and other contributors, licensed under MIT.
All changes to this project are be documented here.
The format is based on Keep a Changelog and this project adheres to Semantic Versioning.
Version 4 is using async/await, which requires node@8+.
The only breaking change is on startServer()
:
Groups are now used as sub-objects of mini-client.
Given a service exposing:
ping
without group (or if group has same name as overall service)a
with apis ping
& pong
b
with api ping
the final Mini-client will be:
client = {
ping(),
a: {
ping(),
pong()
},
b: {
ping()
}
}
Local services, as remote services, must have name
and version
options defined
When loading services, the services
property was renamed to groups
, and serviceOpts
is now groupOpts
:
const {startServer} = require('mini-service')
startServer({
groups: [ // was services previously
require('../serviceA'),
require('../serviceB'),
require('../serviceC')
],
groupOpts: { // was serviceOpts previously
serviceA: {},
serviceB: {},
serviceC: {}
}
})


The OSRUSBFX2 sample demonstrates how to perform bulk and interrupt data transfers to an USB device using Windows Driver Framework (WDF). This sample is written for OSR USB-FX2 Learning Kit. The specification for the device is at http://www.osronline.com/hardware/OSRFX2_32.pdf.
Here is the overview of the device:
This sample contains a console test application and a series of drivers. The driver is developed iteratively as a series of steps - starting with a most basic "Hello World" driver to fully functional driver in the 'Final' step. The description of what is demonstrated in each step is given in the table below.
|
Step1 |
The is the most basic step. The source file contains absolutely minimal amount of code to get the driver loaded in memory and respond to PNP and Power events. You can install, uninstall, disable, enable, suspend and resume the system and everything will work fine. |
|
Step2 |
This step:
|
|
Step3 |
|
|
Step4 |
|
|
Step5 |
How to do WPP tracing |
|
Final |
This steps includes all the features list in the above steps and the following:
|
|
EnumSwitches |
This is a stripped-down version of the final version. It's meant to demonstrate child device enumeration support of WDF. This sample configures a continuous reader on the interrupt pipe to read toggle switch states and then enumerates each "ON" switch as a child device in the completion callback of the continuous reader. The child devices are enumerated as raw PDOs, so no INF file is required to install them. |
To build the sample drivers and exe, you must first set up the DDK environment on your host machine. The “Installation and Release Notes” in the Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 DDK has a complete description on how to do this.
If you adapting this driver for your device, make sure the INF file has been updated to match the hardware id (VID, PID), and the device description text to match your test board/device.
When you plug in the device, depending on the operating system you are using:
On Windows XP and later:
On Windows 2000:
You can use osrusbfx2.exe to test the device. This console application enumerates the interface registered by the driver and opens the device to send read, write or ioctl requests based on the command line options.
USAGE:
Usage for Read/Write test:
-r [n] where n is number of bytes to read
-w [n] where n is number of bytes to write
-c [n] where n is number of iterations (default = 1)
-v verbose -- dumps read data
-p play with Bar Display, Dip Switch, 7-Segment Display
-a to perform asynchronous I/O
-u to dump USB configuration and pipe info
osrusbfx2.exe -p option 1-9 allows to set and clear bar graph display, set and get 7 segment state, and read the toggle switch states.
USBFX TEST -- Functions:
1. Light Bar
2. Clear Bar
3. Light entire Bar graph
4. Clear entire Bar graph
5. Get bar graph state
6. Get Switch state
7. Get Switch Interrupt Message
8. Get 7 segment state
9. Set 7 segment state
10. Reset the device
11. Reenumerate the device
0. Exit
Selection:
osrusbfx2.exe -p and select option 10 and 11 to either reset the device or reenumerate the device.
osrusbfx2.exe -r 64 - to read 64 bytes to the bulk in endpoint
osrusbfx2.exe -w 64 - to write 64 bytes to the bulk out endpoint
osrusbfx2.exe -r 64 -w 64 -c 100 -v <-- This command first writes 64 bytes of data to bulk out endpoint (Pipe01), and then reads 64 bytes from bulk-in endpoint (Pipe02), and compares the read buffer with write buffer to see if they match. If the buffer contents match, it repeats this operation 100 times.
To read & write to the device asynchronously in an infinite loop: osrusbfx2.exe -a
The bulk endpoints are double buffered. Depending on the operational speed, full or high, the buffer size is either 64 bytes or 512 bytes respectively. A request to read data wouldn't complete if the buffers are empty. If the buffers are full, a request to write data wouldn't complete until the buffers are emptied. So when you are doing a synchronous read, you should make sure the endpoint buffer has data. Let us see what happen when you send 512 bytes write request, when the device is operating in full speed mode. Since the endpoints are double buffered, the total buffer capacity is 256 bytes. So the first 256 bytes would fill the buffer and the write request will wait in the USB stack until the buffers are emptied. So if you run another instance of the application to read 512 bytes of data, both write and read requests will get completed successfully.
osrusbfx2.exe -u <-- Will dump all the descriptors and endpoint information.
If the device is operating in high speed mode, you will get the following information:
===================
USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR
bLength = 0x9, decimal 9
bDescriptorType = 0x2 ( USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
wTotalLength = 0x27, decimal 39
bNumInterfaces = 0x1, decimal 1
bConfigurationValue = 0x1, decimal 1
iConfiguration = 0x4, decimal 4
bmAttributes = 0xa0 ( USB_CONFIG_BUS_POWERED )
MaxPower = 0x32, decimal 50
-----------------------------
USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR #0
bLength = 0x9
bDescriptorType = 0x4 ( USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bInterfaceNumber = 0x0
bAlternateSetting = 0x0
bNumEndpoints = 0x3
bInterfaceClass = 0xff
bInterfaceSubClass = 0x0
bInterfaceProtocol = 0x0
bInterface = 0x0
------------------------------
USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR for Pipe00
bLength = 0x7
bDescriptorType = 0x5 ( USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bEndpointAddress= 0x81 ( INPUT )
bmAttributes= 0x3 ( USB_ENDPOINT_TYPE_INTERRUPT )
wMaxPacketSize= 0x49, decimal 73
bInterval = 0x1, decimal 1
------------------------------
USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR for Pipe01
bLength = 0x7
bDescriptorType = 0x5 ( USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bEndpointAddress= 0x6 ( OUTPUT )
bmAttributes= 0x2 ( USB_ENDPOINT_TYPE_BULK )
wMaxPacketSize= 0x200, decimal 512
bInterval = 0x0, decimal 0
------------------------------
USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR for Pipe02
bLength = 0x7
bDescriptorType = 0x5 ( USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bEndpointAddress= 0x88 ( INPUT )
bmAttributes= 0x2 ( USB_ENDPOINT_TYPE_BULK )
wMaxPacketSize= 0x200, decimal 512
bInterval = 0x0, decimal 0
If the device is operating in low speed mode:
===================
USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR
bLength = 0x9, decimal 9
bDescriptorType = 0x2 ( USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
wTotalLength = 0x27, decimal 39
bNumInterfaces = 0x1, decimal 1
bConfigurationValue = 0x1, decimal 1
iConfiguration = 0x3, decimal 3
bmAttributes = 0xa0 ( USB_CONFIG_BUS_POWERED )
MaxPower = 0x32, decimal 50
-----------------------------
USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR #0
bLength = 0x9
bDescriptorType = 0x4 ( USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bInterfaceNumber = 0x0
bAlternateSetting = 0x0
bNumEndpoints = 0x3
bInterfaceClass = 0xff
bInterfaceSubClass = 0x0
bInterfaceProtocol = 0x0
bInterface = 0x0
------------------------------
USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR for Pipe00
bLength = 0x7
bDescriptorType = 0x5 ( USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bEndpointAddress= 0x81 ( INPUT )
bmAttributes= 0x3 ( USB_ENDPOINT_TYPE_INTERRUPT )
wMaxPacketSize= 0x49, decimal 73
bInterval = 0x1, decimal 1
-------
-----------------------
USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR for Pipe01
bLength = 0x7
bDescriptorType = 0x5 ( USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bEndpointAddress= 0x6 ( OUTPUT )
bmAttributes= 0x2 ( USB_ENDPOINT_TYPE_BULK )
wMaxPacketSize= 0x40, decimal 64
bInterval = 0x0, decimal 0
------------------------------
USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR for Pipe02
bLength = 0x7
bDescriptorType = 0x5 ( USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE )
bEndpointAddress= 0x88 ( INPUT )
bmAttributes= 0x2 ( USB_ENDPOINT_TYPE_BULK )
wMaxPacketSize= 0x40, decimal 64
bInterval = 0x0, decimal 0


Developing employability during the experience
You will get the most out of your work experience if you really understand what it is you want to gain or develop and plan how you are going to do that. Even if the experience did not turn out as expected, for example, you realised that you do not like working in the finance sector, you will still find out what you do not want to do and cross that option off the list.
Research into the organisation
Research into the organisation will not only impress your employer and develop your commercial awareness, but also help you to learn about the job quickly.
- What is the organisation about? Mission? Culture? Offering e.g. products or services?
- What is the general state of the market in which it operates?
Employability Skills
Having a clear idea of your likes and dislikes, values, and skills which you possess and lack, can make exploring your career options and decisions a much more manageable process.
It’s importance to match your skills and experience to the expectations of recruiters. It will also enable you to make a more informed decision about what you want to achieve from the work experience. Think about:
- Where am I now?
- Where do I want to be?
- How do I get there?
Setting objectives
Setting clear objectives at the start of your work experience will maximise your learning experience and retain a focus on your work experience objectives, and your personal and long term career goals. It will enable you to plug skills gaps and fine tune the skills and experiences which will help to increase your employability towards long term career goals.
Discuss with your line manager on how to use your strengths while developing your weaker areas, to facilitate your personal development alongside your skills during your work experience.
What is expected of you in the professional workplace.
Acting professionally in a work environment is vital in order to uphold your organisation’s standards and brand and avoid potential embarrassment. It’s also your key to gaining the respect and support of your colleagues, with the sense of understanding and belonging that these bring.
Ways of being professional at work
- Reliability. People can depend on you to show up, and submit work, on time.
- Honesty. You tell the truth and are upfront about where things stand. Careful not to be outspoken or rude, and make sure you’re ready for any repercussions if offering criticism.
- Respect for Others. You treat everyone as if they matter. Grasping the preferred level of formality when speaking to your managers is a quick win.
- Being Positive. Avoid pessimism. Having an upbeat attitude and trying to be a problem-solver makes a big difference.
- Listening Carefully. You check understanding and give people a chance to be heard.


So striking at of to welcomed resolved. Northward by described up household therefore attention. Excellence decisively nay man yet impression for contrasted remarkably.
 Another as studied it to evident. Merry sense given he be arise. Conduct at an replied removal an amongst. Remaining determine few her two cordially admitting old.
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Pellentesque suscipit.
Tiled say decay spoil now walls meant house. My mr interest thoughts screened of outweigh removing. Evening society musical besides inhabit ye my. Lose hill well up will he over on. Increasing sufficient everything men him admiration unpleasing sex.
- Greatest properly off ham exercise all.
- Unsatiable invitation its possession nor off.
- All difficulty estimating unreserved increasing the solicitude.
Unpleasant astonished an diminution up partiality. Noisy an their of meant. Death means up civil do an offer wound of.
John Doe 1 hour ago
ReplyKept in sent gave feel will oh it we. Has pleasure procured men laughing shutters nay.
John Doe 3 hour ago
ReplyKept in sent gave feel will oh it we. Has pleasure procured men laughing shutters nay.
John Doe 6 hour ago
ReplyKept in sent gave feel will oh it we. Has pleasure procured men laughing shutters nay.


12#include <gtsam_unstable/dllexport.h>
33 const Vector3& initial_x_g = Z_3x1,
const Vector3& initial_x_a = Z_3x1) :
34 bRn_(initial_bRn), x_g_(initial_x_g), x_a_(initial_x_a) {
39 bRn_(other.bRn_), x_g_(other.x_g_), x_a_(other.x_a_) {
43 Vector3
b_g(
double g_e)
const {
44 Vector3 n_g(0, 0, g_e);
48 const Rot3& bRn()
const {
return bRn_; }
49 const Vector3& x_g()
const {
return x_g_; }
50 const Vector3& x_a()
const {
return x_a_; }
59 static Mechanization_bRn2 initializeVector(
const std::list<Vector>& U,
60 const std::list<Vector>& F,
const double g_e = 0,
bool flat=
false);
63 static Mechanization_bRn2 initialize(
const Matrix& U,
64 const Matrix& F,
const double g_e = 0,
bool flat=
false);
71 Mechanization_bRn2 correct(
const Vector9& dx)
const;
79 Mechanization_bRn2 integrate(
const Vector3& u,
const double dt)
const;
82 void print(
const std::string& s =
"")
const {
85 std::cout << s +
".x_g" << x_g_ << std::endl;
86 std::cout << s +
".x_a" << x_a_ << std::endl;
typedef and functions to augment Eigen's VectorXd
3D rotation represented as a rotation matrix or quaternion
Global functions in a separate testing namespace.
Definition: chartTesting.h:28
void print(const std::string &s="") const
print
Definition: Rot3.cpp:34
Definition: Mechanization_bRn2.h:17
Mechanization_bRn2(const Mechanization_bRn2 &other)
Copy constructor.
Definition: Mechanization_bRn2.h:38
void print(const std::string &s="") const
print
Definition: Mechanization_bRn2.h:82
Vector3 b_g(double g_e) const
gravity in the body frame
Definition: Mechanization_bRn2.h:43
Mechanization_bRn2(const Rot3 &initial_bRn=Rot3(), const Vector3 &initial_x_g=Z_3x1, const Vector3 &initial_x_a=Z_3x1)
Constructor.
Definition: Mechanization_bRn2.h:32


The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. It is a nearly perfect sphere of hot plasma, with internal convective motion that generates a magnetic field via a dynamo process. It is by far the most important source of energy for life on Earth
The Moon is an astronomical body that orbits planet Earth and is Earth's only permanent natural satellite. It is the fifth-largest natural satellite in the Solar System, and the largest among planetary satellites relative to the size of the planet that it orbits (its primary).
Neptune is the eighth and farthest known planet from the Sun in the Solar System. In the Solar System, it is the fourth-largest planet by diameter, the third-most-massive planet, and the densest giant planet. Neptune is 17 times the mass of Earth


Revision 7.0
Install the textbook, Simulator, and Assembler/IDE (AsmIDE) to your hard drive (Windows systems>.
You must have a Java runtime, at least version 1.2, to run the simulator. The current version (as of June 2009) for Microsoft Windows is on the CD. You also need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in (current version for Microsoft Windows is on this CD) and, of course, a browser.
The GNU C compiler and a free IDE are also on this CD, but it is not necessary to install them. If you have a Linux or Apple Mac system (with OS X), the textbook and simulator will function properly on the CD, or you can manually copy the contents of the 68HCS12Text directory (folder) to your hard disk drive. The simulator is in the directory SimulatorForNonWindowsOS. ASM12 executables for Linux and Mac OS X (both PowerPC and Intel versions), as well as source code is provided in the OpenSource directory.
The 68HCS12 simulator and Designing with Microcontrollers text are copyrighted items for which reasonably limited rights are given to the purchaser. The purchaser agrees to treat them like a book. In other words, only one person may be able to access these items at any one time. To achieve this, either the items may be installed on a single computer (in which case it may be accessible by more than one person, but only one at a time), or on multiple computers if the purchaser has sole access to the multiple copies. These items may not be placed on a server computer.
The purchaser may make a single printed copy of part or all of the text for his/her personal use.
The purchaser may sell the CD to another person as long as the purchaser destroys all copies of the items on the CD, including any printed copy. The new purchaser must agree to the terms of this license agreement.
The simulator is licensed for educational, non-commercial use only.
The Assembler is a freeware program, and can be redistributed and used without restrictions. The AsmIDE program is licensed for free use under the Mozilla Public License, v1.1. Consult that program for further details.
The bottom line is, if multiple persons are to be using these items, such as in a class setting, each person must purchase a copy. The CD is priced fairly, much less expensive than either a commercial simulator or a text book, so please treat the author fairly!
No warranty is expressed or implied for the contents of the CD. If the CD is defective, it will be replaced free of charge within 30 days of shipment. There may be, and probably are, errors in the text and the simulator, however, just as in a printed book, the author has no obligation to make corrections.
In any case, by using the contents of this CD, the purchaser agrees that the total of any of the author's liability resulting from the use of the contents of the CD is limited to the purchase price of the CD.
Any errata will be listed at http://hcs12text.com/errata.html
Unless otherwise indicated, the contents of this CD are copyrighted 2011 by Thomas Almy.
AsmIDE is copyrighted by Eric W. Engler
DRAGON12 and Dragon12-Plus is a trademark of Wytec Company.
The Ruletwister program is copyrighted by Steve Sabram, and is a shareware program.
Datasheets and figures from datasheets used in the text are copyright by their manufacturers, as indicated.
All 68HCS12 assembly language source files are copyrighted as indicated in the files. The registers.inc file is public domain.


--- layout: post authors: ["Joshua Ryan Smith"] title: "How Software Carpentry Helped Me Write a Paper" date: 2013-11-19 time: "09:30:00" tags: ["Stories"] ---
A paper I wrote titled Increasing the Efficiency of a Thermionic Engine Using a Negative Electron Affinity Collector was recently published in the Journal of Applied Physics. I found that applying some of the best practices advocated by the Software Carpentry project eliminated much of the drudgery and tedium which leads to manually induced error in developing the software and composing the manuscript. As a result, I was able to focus more on the scientific problems instead of on tedious bookkeeping-type issues.
As background, I have a general interest in energy because its production and efficient use is critical to modern society. Specifically, I am interested in the direct conversion of heat to electricity using a device called a thermionic engine. In the paper, I apply modern materials to the device to simulate its performance, and I show that these devices can potentially achieve greater than 20% efficiency.
I first stumbled upon Software Carpentry in 2006 or so when I was a graduate student because I knew I was bad at software development, but I had no idea how to improve. Since then, my software development skills have improved tremendously. I have contributed to the materials used in the Software Carpentry bootcamps, and I have taught at three bootcamps (University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins, and Carnegie Mellon). In this post I describe how some of what I've learned directly improved my work.
Version Control
I put every digital file associated with this project under version control; I had a repository for the source code of the software I wrote, and a separate repository for the source files for the manuscript itself. Since I was the sole author of the paper, inter-personal collaboration wasn't an issue. However, version control allowed me to work on both the code and paper from multiple computers without the tedium of manually synchronizing changes among different machines. Personally, having a system to synchronize the code and the paper was a huge relief. Before I started using version control I always had a nagging worry that somewhere along the line I forgot to sync important corrections to the code and my results would be unexpectedly but subtly wrong.
In addition to synchronization, the Git-based workflow of branching and merging allowed me to try changes to my manuscript or code without the fear of breaking some functionality that I couldn't recover later. Before making a major change, I would create a branch in the Git repo. If I ended up not liking the change, or the change didn't work like I expected, I'd just checkout the master branch, nuke the feature branch, and be on my way.
Third, i relied heavily on Git's tagging feature to mark particular revisions of the manuscript. I would tag each commit that was sent to colleagues for review, and I would tag each revision I sent to the editor during the review process. I used tags structured as YYYY-MM-DD, and described the tagged revision (who I sent it to, what step in the process I was at, etc.) in the tag's commit message.
Finally, cloning repositories across multiple machines is an implicit backup strategy (not the best, but better than nothing). If my notebook caught on fire, at worst I was only a few commits behind on my desktop machine.
I found that the proper use of version control completely eliminates an entire class of problems from the software development process as well as the manuscript composition process. I delegated the administrative and bookkeeping problems to the version control system and I was therefore able to spend my time and creative energy on the scientific problems instead.
Open-Source Tools
All the code and third-party modules used to perform the calculations appearing in the paper
(Python,
NumPy,
SciPy),
matplotlib),
the tools I used to manage my workflow
(Git,
Make,
Bash,
IPython,
Homebrew,
virtualenv,
Sphinx),
as well as the system I used to prepare the manuscript
(LaTeX and BibTeX)
are non-proprietary and open-source.
This decision was driven by practicality and not ideology.
The major advantage of open-source tools is that
they remove the need to ask permission to do your work.
Instead of spending my time getting purchase orders prepared to buy software licesnses,
or tracking down IT people to install license files on my machines,
I could simply brew install
what I needed.
As a result,
more of my time was available to spend solving the scientific problem at hand.
Automation
One day during the preparation of this manuscript,
I discovered the
Makefile for building LaTeX
and my whole life improved.
Automating the build for the manuscript
such that the output files were contained in their own folder (which I could .gitignore)
had the surprising side-effect of decreasing the cognitive load of composing the paper.
I'm not sure why those extra files were such a mental drag,
but being able to issue a make display
command at the command prompt
freed up my energy to focus on the issues of structuring the argument of my paper.
In the future,
I plan on extending the Makefile functionality
to recalculate data or re-plot figures when necessary.
Documentation
I made every effort to write good documentation for all the submodules, classes, and methods of my library as well as notes to explain the design decisions I made during development. I wrote this documentation with future collaborators in mind: I believe my code is good, but the real test is if other people use it. Not understanding how a software package works is a huge barrier for someone to use it, and I want to lower that barrier as much as possible. Since I wrote the documentation simultaneous with the software development, I was able to easily build HTML docs for the library with Sphinx).
Conclusions
I didn't hit all the points that were mentioned in the Best Practices paper, but hopefully you have gotten a sense of how some of these techniques helped me. If you are wondering if learning a seemingly arcane system like Git or Make can help you, I can emphatically say that they helped me. I am not an expert at any of these systems, but even a small amount of knowledge allowed me to delegate most non-science tasks to my computer so I could spend my time on solving the scientific problems.
Postscript
Please feel free to fork or star my code on GitHub. The scripts I used to calculate the data can be found as supplementary material on the JAP website. You can install the module if you have pip (and the required dependencies) by simply executing
pip install git+git://github.com/jrsmith3/tec.git
at the command line.
I would love to hear about your research, particularly if you are interested in collaborating. Please don't hesitate to email me at joshua.r.smith@gmail.com.


--- layout: page title : Jean-Baptiste Théou group: navigation --- {% include JB/setup %}
Welcome on my dev website. You can find some informations about my dev available on github Jean-Baptiste Théou
Welcome on my dev website. You can find some informations about my dev available on github


--- layout: post title: "Welcome" date: 2016-02-06 11:00:00 -0600 blurb: Welcome to AJP codes. ---
Welcome to AJP Codes. I'm working on getting this blog up and running. I'm new to Jekyll, but since it's built in to github pages I've decided to dive in and see if I can't make heads and tails of it.
I'm planning to use this blog for the obvious (read 'self promotion') and also to share my experience breaking in to the tech industry.
Thanks for stopping by. I promise more content is on the way!


| Archive information |
The Archive Info window displays information relevant to the archive. The information includes the compression ratio of the archive, the type of archive and other information which maybe useful.
Below is a screenshot of the Archive Info window for a zip archive.
- Compression Ratio: Denotes how compressed the archive is compared to its uncompressed size. The higher the percentage, the more compressed the archive
- Compressed Size: The current storage size of the archive
- Original Size: The estimated size of files when the archive is uncompressed. (note: size of file attributes aren't included)
- Number of files: The total number of files present in the archive
- Number of folders: The total number of directories in the archive
- Total entries: The total number of entries (directories + files)
- Type: The type of archive as detected by Beezer
- Path: The location of the archive
- Created On: The date and time when the archive was created (as reported by filesystem)
- Last Modified: The date and time when the archive was last modified (as reported by filesystem)
| Extracting Archives | Archive Window |


Class: ActiveSupport::EncryptedConfiguration
| Relationships & Source Files | |
| Super Chains via Extension / Inclusion / Inheritance | |
|
Class Chain:
self,
EncryptedFile
|
|
|
Instance Chain:
self,
EncryptedFile
|
|
| Inherits: |
ActiveSupport::EncryptedFile
|
| Defined in: | activesupport/lib/active_support/encrypted_configuration.rb |
Constant Summary
EncryptedFile
- Inherited
Class Method Summary
EncryptedFile
- Inherited
Instance Attribute Summary
Instance Method Summary
- #[]
- #config
-
#read
Allow a config to be started without a file present.
- #write(contents)
EncryptedFile
- Inherited
Constructor Details
.new(config_path:, key_path:, env_key:, raise_if_missing_key:) ⇒ EncryptedConfiguration
# File 'activesupport/lib/active_support/encrypted_configuration.rb', line 14
def initialize(config_path:, key_path:, env_key:, raise_if_missing_key:) super content_path: config_path, key_path: key_path, env_key: env_key, raise_if_missing_key: raise_if_missing_key end
Instance Attribute Details
#fetch (readonly)
[ GitHub ]# File 'activesupport/lib/active_support/encrypted_configuration.rb', line 11
delegate :[], :fetch, to: :config
Instance Method Details
#[]
[ GitHub ]#config
[ GitHub ]# File 'activesupport/lib/active_support/encrypted_configuration.rb', line 32
def config @config ||= deserialize(read).deep_symbolize_keys end
#read
Allow a config to be started without a file present
# File 'activesupport/lib/active_support/encrypted_configuration.rb', line 20
def read super rescue ActiveSupport::EncryptedFile::MissingContentError "" end
#write(contents)
[ GitHub ]# File 'activesupport/lib/active_support/encrypted_configuration.rb', line 26
def write(contents) deserialize(contents) super end


Syllabus
BE&K CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al.
Petitioner, who had a contract to modernize a steel mill, and the mill owner filed a federal lawsuit against respondent unions, claiming that the unions had engaged in lobbying, litigation, and other concerted activities in order to delay the project because petitioner had nonunion employees. Ultimately, petitioner lost on or withdrew each of its claims. In the meantime, two unions lodged complaints against petitioner with respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board). After the federal court proceedings ended, the Boards general counsel issued an administrative complaint, alleging that petitioner, by filing and maintaining its lawsuit, had violated §8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which prohibits employers from restraining, coercing, or interfering with employees exercise of rights related to self-organization, collective bargaining, and other concerted activities. 29 U. S. C. §§157(a)(1). The Board ruled in the general counsels favor, finding that the lawsuit was unmeritorious because its claims were dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn with prejudice, and that it was filed to retaliate against the unions, whose conduct was protected under the NLRA. It ordered petitioner to cease and desist from prosecuting such suits, to post notice to its employees acknowledging the Boards finding and promising not to pursue such litigation in the future, and to pay the unions legal fees and expenses incurred in the lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit granted the Boards enforcement petition. Relying on Bill Johnsons Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U. S. 731, it held that because the Judiciary had already found petitioners claims against the unions unmeritorious or dismissed, evidence of a simple retaliatory motive sufficed to adjudge petitioner of committing an unfair labor practice. It also rejected petitioners argument that under Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, only baseless or sham suits can restrict the otherwise unfettered right to seek court resolution of differences, finding that case inapplicable because its immunity standard was established in the antitrust context.
Held: The Boards standard for imposing liability is invalid. Pp. 619.
(a) The right to petition is one of the most precious liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. This Court has considered that right when interpreting federal law, recognizing in the antitrust context, for example, that genuine petitioning is immune from liability, but sham petitioning is not. The two-part definition adopted in Professional Real Estate Investors requires that sham antitrust litigation must be objectively baseless such that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits, and that the litigants subjective motivation must conceal an attempt to interfere directly with a competitors business relationship through the use of the governmental process as an anticompetitive weapon. 508 U. S., at 6061. This suit raises the same underlying issue of when litigation may be found to violate federal law, but with respect to the NLRA. Recognizing the connection, the Court has previously decided that the Board can enjoin lawsuits by analogizing to the antitrust context, holding that the Board could enjoin ongoing baseless suits brought with a retaliatory motive. Here, however, the issue is the standard for declaring completed suits unlawful. In Bill Johnsons, the Court addressed that issue in dicta, noting a standard which would allow the Board to declare that a lost or withdrawn suit violated the NLRA if it was retaliatory. However, at issue in Bill Johnsons were ongoing suits, and the Court did not consider the precise scope of the term retaliation. Although its statements regarding completed litigation were intended to guide further proceedings, the Court did not expressly order the Board to adhere to its prior unlawfulness finding under the stated standard. Exercising its customary refusal to be bound by dicta, the Court turns to the question presented. Pp. 610.
(b) Because of its objective component, Professional Real Estate Investors sham litigation standard protects reasonably based petitioning from antitrust liability; because of its subjective component, it also protects petitioning that is unmotivated by anticompetitive intent, whether it is reasonably based or not. The Board argues that the broad immunity necessary in the antitrust context, with, e.g., its treble damages remedy and privately initiated lawsuits, is unnecessary in the labor law context where, e.g., most adjudication cannot be launched solely by private action and the Board cannot issue punitive remedies. At most, those arguments show that the NLRA poses less of a burden on petitioning, not that its burdens raise no First Amendment concerns. If the Board may declare that a reasonably based, but unsuccessful, retaliatory lawsuit violates the NLRA, the resulting illegality finding is a burden by itself. The finding also poses a threat of reputational harm that is different and additional to any burden imposed by other penalties. Having identified this burden, the Court must examine the petitioning activity it affects. The Bill Johnsons Court said that the Board could enjoin baseless retaliatory suits because they fell outside the First Amendment and thus were analogous to false statements. 461 U. S., at 743. At issue here, however, is a class of reasonably based but unsuccessful lawsuits. Whether this class falls outside the Petition Clause at least presents a difficult constitutional question, given the following considerations. First, even though all lawsuits in this class are unsuccessful, the class includes suits involving genuine grievances because genuineness does not turn on whether the grievance succeeds. Second, even unsuccessful but reasonably based suits advance some First Amendment interests. Finally, the analogy of baseless suits to false statements does not directly extend to suits that are unsuccessful but reasonably based. Because the Board confines its penalties to unsuccessful suits brought with a retaliatory motive, this Court must also consider the significance of that particular limitation, which is fairly included within the question presented. Pp. 1015.
(c) The Boards definition of a retaliatory suit as one brought with a motive to interfere with the exercise of protected NLRA §7 rights covers a substantial amount of genuine petitioning. For example, an employers suit to stop what the employer reasonably believes is illegal union conduct may interfere with or deter some employees exercise of NLRA rights. But if the employers motive still reflects a subjectively genuine desire to test the conducts legality, then declaring the suit illegal affects genuine petitioning. The Board also claims to rely on evidence of antiunion animus to infer retaliatory motive. Yet ill will is not uncommon in litigation, and this Court, in other First Amendment contexts, has found it problematic to regulate some demonstrably false expression based on the presence of ill will. Thus, the difficult constitutional question is not made significantly easier by the Boards retaliatory motive limitation. The final question is whether in light of the NLRAs important goals, the Board may nevertheless burden an unsuccessful but reasonably based suit that was brought with a retaliatory purpose. While the speech burdens are different here than in the antitrust context, the Court is still faced with the difficult constitutional question whether a class of petitioning may be declared unlawful when a substantial portion is subjectively and objectively genuine. This Court avoided a similarly difficult First Amendment issue in Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, by adopting a limiting construction of the relevant NLRA provision. Section 158(a)(1)s prohibition on interfering, restraining, or coercing is facially as broad as the prohibition in DeBartolo, and it need not be read so broadly as to reach the entire class of cases the Board has deemed retaliatory. Because nothing in §158(a)(1)s text indicates that it must be read to reach all reasonably based but unsuccessful suits filed with a retaliatory purpose, the Court declines to do so. And because the Boards standard for imposing NLRA liability allows it to penalize such suits, its standard is invalid. Pp. 1519.
246 F. 3d 619, reversed and remanded.
OConnor, J ., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist , C. J., and Scalia , Kennedy , and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia , J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Breyer , J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Stevens , Souter , and Ginsburg , JJ., joined.
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).
Concurrence
BE & K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
et al
.
Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.
Although the Court scrupulously avoids deciding the question (which is not presented in this case), I agree with Justice Breyer that the implication of our decision today is that, in a future appropriate case, we will construe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the same way we have already construed the Sherman Act: to prohibit only lawsuits that are both objectively baseless and subjectively intended to abuse process. See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 49, 6061 (1993) .
Choosing to make explicit what is implied, and then disagreeing with that result, Justice Breyer describes a number of differences between the NLRA and the Sherman Act, all of which suggest to him that a complainant enjoys greater First Amendment rights to file a lawsuit in the face of the latter than the former. Post , at 46 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Missing from his list, however, is the most important difference of all, which suggestsindeed, demandsprecisely the opposite conclusion. Under the Sherman Act, the entity making the factual determination whether the objectively reasonable suit was brought with an unlawful motive would have been an Article III court; even with that protection, we thought the right of access to Article III courts too much imperiled. Under the NLRA, however, the entity making the factual finding that determines whether a litigant will be punished for filing an objectively reasonable lawsuit will be an executive agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That this difference undermines Justice B reyer s analysis, there can be no doubt. At the very least, it poses a difficult question under the First Amendment: whether an executive agency can be given the power to punish a reasonably based suit filed in an Article III court whenever it concludesinsulated from de novo judicial review by the substantial-evidence standard of 29 U. S. C. §§160(e), (f)that the complainant had one motive rather than another. This makes resort to the courts a risky venture, dependent upon the findings of a body that does not have the independence prescribed for Article III courts. It would be extraordinary to interpret a statute which is silent on this subject to intrude upon the courts ability to decide for themselves which postulants for their assistance should be punished.
For this reason, I am able, unlike Justice Breyer , to join the Courts opinion in fullincluding its carefully circumscribed statement that nothing in our holding today should be read to question the validity of common litigation sanctions imposed by courts themselves , ante , at 19 (emphasis added).


pip.statistics.Rd
Computing the true positive rate, false positive rate, false discovery rate, and false negative rate based on given golden standards.
pip.statistics( raw, groups, truth, DE.method = "DE.voom", norm.method, QN_filter = FALSE, Pval = 0.01, selected.marker = NULL, new.norm.list = NULL )
| raw | raw count data in the format of data frame or matrix, with columns for samples and raws for genes. |
|---|---|
| groups | vector of characters indicating the group for each sample (only 2 groups allowed). |
| truth | vector of genes that are truly differential expressed |
| DE.method | the method for differential expression analysis from |
| norm.method | the method for normalization selected from |
| QN_filter | whether the filtering is performed if |
| Pval | p-value for identifying DE genes, default to be 0.01 |
| selected.marker | if given, provide vector of a subset of genes/markers for
this analysis. Leave |
| new.norm.list | a vector of DE genes selected from the data normalized by the new method (the method which is not in the provided in normalization methods). |
a list of values about TPR, FPR, FDR, FNR
truthgene <- DE.voom(data.benchmark, data.group)$id.list stat <- pip.statistics(data.test, data.group, truth=truthgene, DE.method="DE.voom", norm.method="norm.TMM")


Lori is the preferred logistics provider for the biggest cargo owners in te region
Increased revenue opportunity through activa management of extensive cargo
Quicker turnaround times driven by Lori's intergration at loading and offloading sites
reduces need for working capital or expensive loans
+ Consistent Updates Through Lori's proprietary
High quality insured transport backed by thorough verification and on-boarding
Automated Invoicing System
Driven by optimized efficiency
consistent push updates
consistent push updates Management insight and enhanced control


_What_Dreams_May_Come_ (PG-13) *** 1/2 (out of ****)
_What_Dreams_May_Come_ is, in the most literal sense, a "dream movie," a visionary exercise in the use of dreamlike imagery, which, in turn, helps create a sublime romantic fantasy. The centerpiece of the film is a breathtaking tour of the afterlife, which is taken by one Chris Nielsen (Robin Williams) after he dies in a car accident. But while his spirit is in heaven, Chris's soul remains with that of his soulmate, his emotionally fragile wife Annie (Annabella Sciorra), who had never fully recovered from the years-ago deaths, also by car accident, of their two children.
_What_Dreams_May_Come_ is nothing short of a visual marvel. Eugenio Zanetti's production design, Eduardo Serra's cinematography, and the spectacular special effects supervised by Ellen M. Somers paint a wildly imaginative vision of the afterlife. This is quite literally the case in the scene where Chris first arrives in Heaven, which manifests itself in the form of one of Annie's paintings. It is perhaps the most visually ambitious scene in a film overflowing with visual invention, with Chris swimming in the still-wet paint and the backdrop remaining as two-dimensional as any canvas.
But the film is much more than a showcase for the latest in filmmaking technology. As with his last film, 1993's astonishing _Map_of_the_Human_Heart_, director Vincent Ward taps into the very core of romantic yearning, coming up with an admittedly sappy but no less poignant tale of true, pure love.  Of course, moments like those are carried over the top by the efforts of the actors. Williams, as always, is effortlessly likable, and he and Sciorra share a natural, magical chemistry. One has no trouble at all believing that these two are indeed soulmates, and, consequently, has no trouble falling under the film's entrancing spell.
Michael Dequina
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mr. Brown's Movie Site: http://welcome.to/mrbrown
CompuServe Hollywood Hotline: http://www.HollywoodHotline.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


Part 3—Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest
3.000 Scope of part.
Subpart 3.1—Safeguards
3.101 Standards of conduct.
3.101-1 General.
3.101-2 Solicitation and acceptance of gratuities by Government personnel.
3.101-3 Agency regulations.
3.102 [Reserved]
3.103 Independent pricing.
3.103-1 Solicitation provision.
3.103-2 Evaluating the certification.
3.103-3 The need for further certifications.
3.104 Procurement integrity.
3.104-1 Definitions.
3.104-2 General.
3.104-3 Statutory and related prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements.
3.104-4 Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information.
3.104-5 Disqualification.
3.104-6 Ethics advisory opinions regarding prohibitions on a former official’s acceptance of compensation from a contractor.
3.104-7 Violations or possible violations.
3.104-8 Criminal and civil penalties, and further administrative remedies.
3.104-9 Contract clauses.
Subpart 3.2—Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel
3.201 Applicability.
3.202 Contract clause.
3.203 Reporting suspected violations of the Gratuities clause.
3.204 Treatment of violations.
Subpart 3.3—Reports of Suspected Antitrust Violations
3.301 General.
3.302 Definitions.
3.303 Reporting suspected antitrust violations.
Subpart 3.4—Contingent Fees
3.400 Scope of subpart.
3.401 Definitions.
3.402 Statutory requirements.
3.403 Applicability.
3.404 Contract clause.
3.405 Misrepresentations or violations of the Covenant Against Contingent Fees.
3.406 Records.
Subpart 3.5—Other Improper Business Practices
3.501 Buying-in.
3.501-1 Definition.
3.501-2 General.
3.502 Subcontractor kickbacks.
3.502-1 Definitions.
3.502-2 Subcontractor kickbacks.
3.502-3 Contract clause.
3.503 Unreasonable restrictions on subcontractor sales.
3.503-1 Policy.
3.503-2 Contract clause.
Subpart 3.6—Contracts with Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them
3.601 Policy.
3.602 Exceptions.
3.603 Responsibilities of the contracting officer.
Subpart 3.7—Voiding and Rescinding Contracts
3.700 Scope of subpart.
3.701 Purpose.
3.702 Definition.
3.703 Authority.
3.704 Policy.
3.705 Procedures.
Subpart 3.8—Limitations on the Payment of Funds to Influence Federal Transactions
3.800 Scope of subpart.
3.801 Definitions.
3.802 Statutory prohibition and requirement.
3.803 Exceptions.
3.804 Policy.
3.805 Exemption.
3.806 Processing suspected violations.
3.807 Civil penalties.
3.808 Solicitation provision and contract clause.
Subpart 3.9—Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees
3.900 Scope of subpart.
3.901 Definitions.
3.902 [Reserved]
3.903 Policy.
3.904 Procedures for filing complaints.
3.905 Procedures for investigating complaints.
3.906 Remedies.
3.907 Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act).
3.907-1 Definitions.
3.907-2 Policy.
3.907-3 Procedures for filing complaints.
3.907-4 Procedures for investigating complaints.
3.907-5 Access to investigative file of Inspector General.
3.907-6 Remedies and enforcement authority.
3.907-7 Contract clause.
3.908 Pilot program for enhancement of contractor employee whistleblower protections.
3.908-1 Scope of section.
3.908-2 Definitions.
3.908-3 Policy.
3.908-4 Filing complaints.
3.908-5 Procedures for investigating complaints.
3.908-6 Remedies.
3.908-7 Enforcement of orders.
3.908-8 Classified information.
3.908-9 Contract clause.
Subpart 3.10—Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
3.1000 Scope of subpart.
3.1001 Definitions.
3.1002 Policy.
3.1003 Requirements.
3.1004 Contract clauses.
Subpart 3.11—Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions
3.1100 Scope of subpart.
3.1101 Definitions.
3.1102 Policy.
3.1103 Procedures.
3.1104 Mitigation or waiver.
3.1105 Violations.
3.1106 Contract clause.


{% load static %}
{% load static %}
{% load static %}
Home Philosopher
County Mapper
Home Philosopher
Choose The Home You Deserve


Welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation's Wikimetrics homepage.
This API allows you to
select a set of users, also known as a "cohort" (for example, all users who signed up via the Thank You campaign)
select a metric to be computed for each of these users (for example, how many bytes they've added) with optional parameters (for example, a time range)
and retrieve the response in JSON or CSV format.
You can also compute a single, aggregate value for the cohort
(like the mean revert rate)
.


{% extends "base.html" %} {% load static %} {% block header %} {% endblock %} {% block content %}
| # | Level |
|---|---|
| Beginner |
|
| Intermediate |
|
| Advanced |
|
There are some idioms that do not appear in the repository. You can click on them for more information and improve your code to be more pythonic in the future.
Create lists in a natural and concise way.
Lists with high performance and memory efficient.
Methods that are invoked with the use of certain syntax.
Magic methods for advanced Python programmers.
Special methods that are rarely implemented, are you a pro?
Protect your function from anything happening outside.
Why? Come in a year and tell me why did you do that.
Modify the functionality of a method by adding one line.
Use a key for the elements of your tuple.
Use yield to keep the state in your function and make generators.
Execute two operations in one line, with a block of code between them.
Pass functions to other functions in one line without declaring it.
Insert debugging assertion into a program and raise an error if the condition is false.
Interesting when you want to do something before leaving a try-except.
Generalization of stacks and queues with thread-safe support and memory efficient.
Used for dictionaries that should start with a default value.
Remembers its insertion order, can be useful for making a sorted dictionary.
Assign or swap variables in one line.
Don't execute some code when is used as an imported module.


Using the API is easy. Here’s an example authorized call to flickr.people.getPhotos.
from flickr.api import FlickrApi
FLICKR_KEY = getattr(settings, 'FLICKR_KEY', None)
FLICKR_SECRET = getattr(settings, 'FLICKR_SECRET', None)
PERMS = getattr(settings, 'FLICKR_PERMS', None)
api = FlickrApi(FLICKR_KEY, FLICKR_SECRET)
api.get('flickr.people.getPhotos')
# Returns JSON by default. If you want XML:
api.get('people.getPhotos', format='xml') # yep, also works without 'flickr.'
Currently supports only read methods with GET. Writing with POST soon to be implemented.


---
title: 个人作品
layout: default
description: "What I did"
header-img: "img/portfolio-bg.jpg"
---
{% if page.title %}{{ page.title }}{% else %}{{ site.title }}{% endif %}
{{ page.description }}
小游戏《不胜之胜》
开发工具：CocosCreator, js, NodeJS
自行开发的一款微信小游戏，玩法比较简单，主要用于尝试小游戏的完整开发和上线流程。通讯和服务端都采用的是微信官方推荐的wafer框架。后续将根据玩家的反馈继续优化，并加上偏挑战性的排行榜及面对面玩法。
Winning
Development Tools: CocosCreator, js, NodeJS
Mini Game. A self-developed WeChat game, which is relatively simple to play, is mainly used to try the complete development and online process of mini games. Both the communication and the server use the wafer framework recommended by WeChat. The follow-up will continue to be optimized based on the player's feedback, plus a challenging leaderboard and face-to-face play.


The code for this website is freely available on github. If you have any questions or comments email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>This project was created by Nathan Jhaveri with the help of lots of open source software, including: