Input: [0] why [BE] why's why is [WOULD] why'd why would [HAVE] why's why has [HAD] why'd why had [WILL]

Output: why'll why will


Input: [0] how [BE] how's how is [WOULD] how'd how would [HAVE] how's how has [HAD] how'd how had [WILL]

Output: how'll how will


Input: [Switch] -e [Description]

Output: extract only, do not install; will extract the archive to ~/ unless -o is used.

Difference between revisions of "PBI Manager/9.2" - PC-BSD Wiki

Table 7.47.2o: pbi_patch Options [Tables 15]


Input: [Switch] -g [Description]

Output: extract image data from header; commonly used for GUI installations

Difference between revisions of "PBI Manager/9.2" - PC-BSD Wiki


Input: [Switch] -i [Description]

Output: display information about this PBI file

Difference between revisions of "PBI Manager/9.2" - PC-BSD Wiki


Input: [Switch] -o outdir [Description]

Output: specify the directory to use when only extracting the PBI with -e

Difference between revisions of "PBI Manager/9.2" - PC-BSD Wiki


Input: [Switch] --checkscript [Description]

Output: display any custom scripts used in the installation/removal of this PBI file; recommended if the PBI file is suspect in any way

Difference between revisions of "PBI Manager/9.2" - PC-BSD Wiki


Input: [Switch] --no-checksig [Description]

Output: skip the openssl signature verification of the PBI data

Difference between revisions of "PBI Manager/9.2" - PC-BSD Wiki


Input: [Switch] --no-hash [Description]

Output: disable using the shared hash directory which uses hard links to share files between applications

Difference between revisions of "PBI Manager/9.2" - PC-BSD Wiki


Input: [Feature] 400 GB (800 GB with 2:1 compression) tape capacity [Benefits]

Output: Reduces manual intervention for tape operations, saving you valuable IT staff time Reduces the physical storage space needed for backup cartridges

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [Feature] Rigorous testing and optimization [Benefits]

Output: Designed to withstand the demands of every day use Maximized performance and reliability in IBM TotalStorage LTO tape drives

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [Feature] Write once, read many (WORM) capability [Benefits]

Output: Safe long-term retention of reference data Assists in compliance with data retention regulations

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [Feature] IBM’s statistical media read/write analysis stored on the cartridge [Benefits]

Output: Improved read/write reliability to help assure your data is protected

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [Feature] LTO Cartridge Memory (LTO-CM) chip [Benefits]

Output: Fast sharing of cartridge-dependent data with tape drives Speeds up load and unload cycles

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [Feature] Gray standard cartridge color [Benefits]

Output: Distinguishes the cartridges from previous generations of IBM LTO Ultrium cartridges

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [Feature] Two-tone WORM cartridge color [Benefits]

Output: Distinguishes WORM cartridges from standard cartridges

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [Feature] Adheres to the Linear Tape-Open™ standard [Benefits]

Output: Cartridge can be used in products featuring LTO Gen3 tape technology Cartridge continues to provide value as your storage needs and infrastructure grow

IBM LTO Ultrium 400 GB Data Cartridge: Features and Benefits


Input: [speed] tire radius, tire diameter, rim diameter [=] = [MPH - miles per hour]

Output: inches

Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio


Input: [speed] gear ratio [=] = [MPH - miles per hour]

Output: if ring and pinion ratio is 4.10:1 use 4.10

Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio


Input: [speed] rotation velocity [=] = [MPH - miles per hour]

Output: RPM - revolutions per minute

Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio


Input: [speed] effective gear ratio [=] = [MPH - miles per hour]

Output: determine new gear ratio after a tire size change

Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio


Input: [speed] crawl ratio [=] = [MPH - miles per hour]

Output: four wheel drive rear axle differential, transfer case low range and transmission ratios

Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio


Input: [speed] section width [=] = [MPH - miles per hour]

Output: millimeters

Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio


Input: [speed] aspect ratio [=] = [MPH - miles per hour]

Output: unitless

Gear Design Equations Formulas Calculator Effective Gear Ratio


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Steelhead [Name]

Output: Category

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Partridge CS10/1 Bartleet Traditional Size #2 [Name]

Output: Hook

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Fine Silver Oval Tinsel and medium Pearl Mylar Tinsel [Name]

Output: Tag/Tip

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Red-dyed Golden Pheasant Crest [Name]

Output: Tail

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] 1/2 HareLine Fl/Fire Orange Krystal Flash, 1/2 HareLine Claret STS Trilobal Dubbing [Name]

Output: Body

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Small Oval Silver Tinsel [Name]

Output: Rib

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Claret Hen Hackle [Name]

Output: Collar

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Natural Fox Squirrel Tail accented with sparse Red Lite-Brite [Name]

Output: Wing

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Cumming's Experiment] Danville un-waxed 6/0 Red Flymaster thread [Name]

Output: Head

Scott Howell 'Cumming's Experiment' (a variation of the Cumming's Special)


Input: [Attribute] href [Type] anyURI [Required] No [Since] 0.9 [Description] Contains the URI to the entity. [Modifiable]

Output: always


Input: [Attribute] type [Type] string [Required] No [Since] 0.9 [Description] Contains the type of the entity. [Modifiable]

Output: always


Input: [Attribute] name [Type] string [Required] Yes [Since] 0.9 [Description] The name of the entity. [Modifiable]

Output: always


Input: [Attribute] id [Type] string [Required] No [Since] 0.9 [Description] The entity identifier, expressed in URN format. The value of this attribute uniquely identifies the entity, persists for the life of the entity, and is never reused. [Modifiable]


Input: [Attribute] status [Type] int [Required] No [Since] 0.9 [Description] Creation status of the resource entity. [Modifiable]


Input: [Attribute] deployed [Type] boolean [Required] No [Since] 1.0 [Description] Flag indicates if the vApp or VM is deployed. [Modifiable]


Input: [1] ORGANIZATION [2] LANGUAGE [4] RELEVANCE & CONNECTEDNESS [3]

Output: CONTENT

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] 7 [1] -creative & original introduction with well-thought out thesis statement -paragraphing & transitions assist reader's comprehension -thesis statement & conclusion tie essay together, giving it unity [2] -despite a formality of tone, a liveliness of style is evident -psychological vocabulary used with accuracy & ease -language use is rich & achieves eloquence -metalinguistic knowledge is apparent in word choice & sentence structure [4] -rich, appropriate, original examples used across disciplines & fields to illustrate theories, perspectives -demonstrates that psychological theory is relevant to real life & that author has made a personal & original connection with it -demonstrates an understanding that psychological knowledge is tentative & that our understanding of it is an ongoing process [3]

Output: -excellent command of content; clear understanding of basic assumptions & conceptual framework of perspective(s) with close textual/research references -clear analysis of psychological perspective

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] 6 [1] -introduction, thesis statement well thought out -transitions are smooth & logical -essay stands as a coherent whole -conclusion follows logically from body of essay [2] -tone demonstrates a sense of audience -employs psychological vocabulary accurately & fluently -language usage is precise & includes figurative language/multiple meanings -sentence structure is sophisticated & makes the essay easier & more interesting to read [4] -examples make content easily accessible to reader -implications & applications of theories are evident & inferences are made to current situations -risk taking, personal reflection & original thought demonstrated [3]

Output: -addresses question in a sophisticated manner -very good command of content; clear reference to basic assumptions & conceptual framework of perspective(s); concepts elaborated & logically connected to each other; some textual/research references included -analyzes & assesses perspective with insight

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] 5 [1] -organizational structure is evident in the introduction -thesis statement is clear -paragraphs are clearly defined & easy to follow -transitions are evident -conclusion is predictable & follows logically from body of essay [2] -formality of tone is fluent -language use is clear -knowledge of psychological terminology is evident -sentence structure is varied to provide appropriate pacing [4] Appropriate examples consistently cited; some implications & applications of theories to current, real life situations may also be evident -personal reflections or original thought offered -some risk taking, inferences made [3]

Output: -addresses question fluently -good command of content; concepts clearly articulated & elaborated -analyzes & assesses perspective using demonstrated understanding of the social, historical & cultural variables that led to development of perspective

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] 4 [1] -adequate introduction, thesis statement -essay is divided into paragraphs -transitions attempted but not always evident -straightforward, concluding statement included [2] -uses appropriately formal tone -employs psychological vocabulary appropriately -language use is adequate, avoids clich�s & trite phrases -sentence structure is simple but adequate [4] -satisfactorily applies theory to standard/commonly used examples -connections to real life or personal meaning may be missing or incomplete [3]

Output: -essay demonstrates comprehension of question & competently addresses question -reasonable command of content; concepts are articulated to a satisfactory standard -attempts to analyze & assess perspective within historical/cultural context

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] 3 [1] -introduction, thesis statement attempted but may not follow logically -essay may be disjointed or paragraph structure lacks clarity -points are not linked together - concluding statement does not follow logically [2] -formality of tone generally present but may not be consistent -attempts to use psychological vocabulary -language use imprecise & may not convey intended meaning -little variety in sentence structure [4] -author offers inconsistent use of appropriate examples; connections to real life or personal meaning are absent [3]

Output: -does not demonstrate complete understanding of essay question -some indication of conceptual understanding; concepts are addressed but inconsistently articulated

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] 2 [1] -introduction, thesis statement may be missing -some attempt at paragraph structure, but paragraphs are disjointed & lack connections -essay may go off on a tangent -lacks any concluding statement [2] -formal tone attempted but not consistent -use of psychological terminology vague, inaccurate or lacking -use of language includes clich�s or trite phrases -sentence structure awkward, difficult to understand [4] -author provides very limited application of theory to appropriate examples [3]

Output: -does not address essay question -conceptual understanding unclear or incomplete; concepts articulated poorly or only mentioned by name

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] 1 [1] -lacks introduction, thesis statement -lacks paragraph structure -lacks coherence -abrupt or illogical ending -little apparent organizational structure [2] -tone is inappropriately informal -psychological vocabulary not employed -use of language imprecise, vague or includes slang -sentences are incomplete [4] -essay is irrelevant & unconnected; psychological theory is not applied to examples or is applied to inappropriate, unrelated examples [3]

Output: -does not address essay question -does not demonstrate basic understanding of content; concepts not mentioned

Chapter 8: Assessing Students for Successful Inclusion


Input: [0] Class [1] Bucket [2]

Output: Token bucket, or something like it.

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [0] Interface [1] IBucketFilter [2]

Output: No interface docstring; 1/1 methods documented

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [0] Class [1] HierarchicalBucketFilter [2]

Output: I filter things into buckets, and I am nestable.

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [0] Class [1] FilterByHost [2]

Output: A bucket filter with a bucket for each host.

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [0] Class [1] FilterByServer [2]

Output: A bucket filter with a bucket for each service.

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [0] Class [1] ShapedConsumer [2]

Output: I wrap a Consumer and shape the rate at which it receives data.

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [0] Class [1] ShapedTransport [2]

Output: I wrap a Transport and shape the rate at which it receives data.

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [0] Class [1] ShapedProtocolFactory [2]

Output: I dispense Protocols with traffic shaping on their transports.

twisted.protocols.htb : API documentation


Input: [Error Message] The Cabin type must be of length 1 and should be one of { E | P | B | F } or it must be passed as an exact keyword { Economy | Premium Economy | Business | First } [Description]

Output: CabinType invalid


Input: [Error Message] The Origin and the Destination codes must be different. [Description]

Output: Departure and Arrival Airport are similar


Input: [Error Message] Invalid IATA Code XXX - Please ensure that the destination and the origin airport codes are valid. Please use http://www.cleartrip.com/common/json/airports.json as a reference, if you are not sure. [Description]

Output: Airport Code Invalid


Input: [Error Message] There must be a gap of atleast 3 hours between the arrival of last flight of onward journey and departure of first flight of return journey. [Description]

Output: Return Flight Invalid


Input: [Error Message] The Flight Number is invalid. It is a required field and should have a length of atleast 1 character. [Description]

Output: Flight Number Invalid


Input: [Error Message] Invalid carrier codes: Please use valid carrier codes. Please use http://www.cleartrip.com/common/json/airlines.json as a reference, if you are not sure. [Description]

Output: Airline Code Invalid


Input: [Error Message] Invalid departure date format. Please provide all dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD. [Description]

Output: Departure Date format Invalid


Input: [Error Message] Provide a valid departure date in the next 365 days. [Description]

Output: Departure Date Invalid


Input: [Error Message] Provide a valid return date, which is AFTER the departure date. [Description]

Output: Return Date Invalid


Input: [Error Message] Invalid number of passengers. Provide a valid integer between 1 and 9. [Description]

Output: Number Of Passengers Exceeded


Input: [Error Message] The number of adults MUST exceed the number of infants in a booking. [Description]

Output: Infant Count Invalid


Input: [Error Message] Date of birth is unavailable for the child passenger. [Description]

Output: Child DOB Unavailable


Input: [Error Message] Date of birth is unavailable for the infant passenger. [Description]

Output: Infant DOB Unavailable


Input: [Error Message] Age of the child must be between 2 to 12 years on the day of departure. [Description]

Output: Child Age Invalid


Input: [Error Message] Age of the infant must be between 0 to 2 years on the day of departure. [Description]

Output: Infant Age Invalid


Input: [Error Message] The date of birth for Child / Infant passenger is invalid. Please provide all the dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD. [Description]

Output: DOB format Invalid


Input: [Q-Sig] QRA [Message]

Output: What is the name of your station? The name of my station is ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRB [Message]

Output: How far are you from my station? I am ____ km from you station


Input: [Q-Sig] QRD [Message]

Output: Where are you bound and where are you coming from? I am bound ___ from ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRG [Message]

Output: Will you tell me my exact frequency? Your exact frequency is ___ kHz.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRH [Message]

Output: Does my frequency vary? Your frequency varies.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRI [Message]

Output: How is the tone of my transmission? The tone of your transmission is ___ (1-Good, 2-Variable, 3-Bad.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QRJ [Message]

Output: Are you receiving me badly? I cannot receive you, your signal is too weak.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRK [Message]

Output: What is the intelligibility of my signals? The intelligibility of your signals is ___ (1-Bad, 2-Poor, 3-Fair, 4-Good, 5-Excellent.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QRL [Message]

Output: Are you busy? I am busy, please do not interfere


Input: [Q-Sig] QRM [Message]

Output: Is my transmission being interfered with? Your transmission is being interfered with ___ (1-Nil, 2-Slightly, 3-Moderately, 4-Severly, 5-Extremely.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QRN [Message]

Output: Are you troubled by static? I am troubled by static ___ (1-5 as under QRM.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QRO [Message]

Output: Shall I increase power? Increase power.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRP [Message]

Output: Shall I decrease power? Decrease power.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRQ [Message]

Output: Shall I send faster? Send faster (___ WPM.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QRR [Message]

Output: Are you ready for automatic operation? I am ready for automatic operation. Send at ___ WPM.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRS [Message]

Output: Shall I send more slowly? Send more slowly (___ WPM.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QRT [Message]

Output: Shall I stop sending? Stop sending.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRU [Message]

Output: Have you anything for me? I have nothing for you.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRV [Message]

Output: Are you ready? I am ready.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRW [Message]

Output: Shall I inform ___ that you are calling? Please inform ___ that I am calling.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRX [Message]

Output: When will you call me again? I will call you again at ___ hours.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRY [Message]

Output: What is my turn? Your turn is numbered ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QRZ [Message]

Output: Who is calling me? You are being called by ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSA [Message]

Output: What is the strength of my signals? The strength of your signals is ___ (1-Scarcely perceptible, 2-Weak, 3-Fairly Good, 4-Good, 5-Very Good.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QSB [Message]

Output: Are my signals fading? Your signals are fading.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSD [Message]

Output: Is my keying defective? Your keying is defective.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSG [Message]

Output: Shall I send ___ messages at a time? Send ___ messages at a time.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSJ [Message]

Output: What is the charge to be collected per word to ___ including your international telegraph charge? The charge to be collected per word is ___ including my international telegraph charge.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSK [Message]

Output: Can you hear me between you signals and if so can I break in on your transmission? I can hear you between my signals, break in on my transmission.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSL [Message]

Output: Can you acknowledge receipt? I am acknowledging receipt.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSM [Message]

Output: Shall I repeat the last message which I sent you? Repeat the last message.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSN [Message]

Output: Did you hear me on ___ kHz? I did hear you on ___ kHz.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSO [Message]

Output: Can you communicate with ___ direct or by relay? I can communicate with ___ direct (or by relay through ___.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QSP [Message]

Output: Will you relay to ___? I will relay to ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSQ [Message]

Output: Have you a doctor on board? (or is ___ on board?) I have a doctor on board (or ___ is on board.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QSU [Message]

Output: Shall I send or reply on this frequency? Send a series of Vs on this frequency.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSV [Message]

Output: Shall I send a series of Vs on this frequency? Send a series of Vs on this frequency.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSW [Message]

Output: Will you send on this frequency? I am going to send on this frequency.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSY [Message]

Output: Shall I change to another frequency? Change to another frequency.


Input: [Q-Sig] QSZ [Message]

Output: Shall I send each word or group more than once? Send each word or group twice (or ___ times.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QTA [Message]

Output: Shall I cancel message number ___? Cancel message number ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTB [Message]

Output: Do you agree with my counting of words? I do not agree with your counting of words. I will repeat the first letter or digit of each word or group.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTC [Message]

Output: How many messages have you to send? I have ___ messages for you.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTE [Message]

Output: What is my true bearing from you? Your true bearing from me is ___ degrees.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTG [Message]

Output: Will you send two dashes of 10 seconds each followed by your call sign? I am going to send two dashes of 10 seconds each followed by my call sign.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTH [Message]

Output: What is your location? My location is ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTI [Message]

Output: What is your true track? My true track is ___ degrees.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTJ [Message]

Output: What is your speed? My speed is ___ km/h.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTL [Message]

Output: What is your true heading? My true heading is ___ degrees.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTN [Message]

Output: At what time did you depart from ___? I departed from ___ at ___ hours.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTO [Message]

Output: Have you left dock (or port)? I have left dock (or port).


Input: [Q-Sig] QTP [Message]

Output: Are you going to enter dock (or port)? I am going to enter dock (or port.)


Input: [Q-Sig] QTQ [Message]

Output: Can you communicate with my station by means of the International Code of Signals? I am going to communicate with your station by means of the International Code of Signals.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTR [Message]

Output: What is the correct time? The time is ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTS [Message]

Output: Will you send your call sign for ___ minutes so that your frequency can be measured? I will send my call sign for ___ minutes so that my frequency may be measured.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTU [Message]

Output: What are the hours during which your station is open? My station is open from ___ hours to ___ hours.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTV [Message]

Output: Shall I stand guard for you on the frequency of ___ kHz? Stand guard for me on the frequency of ___ kHz.


Input: [Q-Sig] QTX [Message]

Output: Will you keep your station open for further communication with me? I will keep my station open for further communication with you.


Input: [Q-Sig] QUA [Message]

Output: Have you news of ___? I have news of ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QUB [Message]

Output: Can you give me information concerning visibility, height of clouds, direction and velocity of ground wind at ___? Here is the information you requested...


Input: [Q-Sig] QUC [Message]

Output: What is the number of the last message you received from me? The number of the last message I received from you is ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QUD [Message]

Output: Have you received the urgency signal sent by ___? I have received the urgency signal sent by ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QUF [Message]

Output: Have you received the distress signal sent by ___? I have received the distress signal sent by ___.


Input: [Q-Sig] QUG [Message]

Output: Will you be forced to land? I am forced to land immediately.


Input: [Q-Sig] QUH [Message]

Output: Will you give me the present barometric pressure? The present barometric pressure is ___ (units).


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Get on your (song title), there's one thing on your mind' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Despair up to the point when they provoke the punchline before they have told the joke' [Album]

Output: Favourite Worst Nightmare

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Running off over next door's garden before the hour is done' [Album]

Output: Favourite Worst Nightmare

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Album]

Output: Suck It and See

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Who's that girl there, I wonder what went wrong so that she had to roam the streets' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'He knew what he wanted to say, but he didn't know how to word it, the dirty little Herbert' [Album]

Output: Favourite Worst Nightmare

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'You showed me my tomorrow beside a box of matches' [Album]

Output: Humbug

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Stop making the eyes at me, I'll stop making the eyes at you' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Up rolled the (song title) and sparked excitement in the boys' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] '*Pinned down by the dark*. Been fighting with my sheets, and nearly crying in my sleep' [Album]

Output: Humbug

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'I wanna build you up...I wanna break you down...' [Album]

Output: Suck It and See

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'I've seen your eyes as they fix on me, what is he doing what on earth is the plan, has he got one' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Anticipation has the habit to set you up' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] '(Song title), echo through the room' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'I was biting the time zone, and we embellish the banks of our bloodstreams' [Album]

Output: Humbug

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Well the morning was complete, there was tears on the steering wheel dripping on the seat' [Album]

Output: Favourite Worst Nightmare

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'I heard the truth was built to bend' [Album]

Output: Humbug

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'I'm going back to (song title), if it's a 7 hour flight or a 45 minute drive' [Album]

Output: Favourite Worst Nightmare

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'Ask if we can have six in, if not we'll have to have two' [Album]

Output: Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'If you can summon the strength tow me, I can't hold down the urgency' [Album]

Output: Humbug

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Opening Lyrics] 'You used to get it in your fishnets, now you only get it in your nightdress' [Album]

Output: Favourite Worst Nightmare

Arctic Monkeys Opening Lyrics Quiz - By michaellumb


Input: [Date] 1 week 2 days ago [Title] I seriously don't get the [Body]

Output: I seriously don't get the hate. Cmon guys. It's a black jersey with red numbers. It's not like the zubaz nonsense from the NCAA tourney a couple years back. Also to those freaking out about the "fishnet" pattern, i've seen these and the UM version in person, and you literally cannot tell if you're more than 5 feet away from it. It's a functional fabric weave designed to NOT tear and stretch like the stuff adidas used to have. Seriously, its way better. And unless you're lining up across from them on the field, you won't be able to tell it's there.


Input: [Date] 3 weeks 4 days ago [Title] But that's apples and oranges [Body]

Output: But that's apples and oranges though, since the Foamposites and Retro J's are exclusive, that's what makes them cool and desirable. A better comparison would be a Lebron or KD vs. a Hyperdunk, I'm pretty sure I know what they'd rather have. That being said, the exclusivity of the Jordan brand is gonna be pretty cool and give us some good exposure. And I'll also say Nike is a heck of a lot better at marketing their athletes/universities, hence why they sell a lot more. We'll see when the crop of young guys come up though, I think UA and adidas have both done a good job signing young up and coming talent.


Input: [Date] 3 weeks 5 days ago [Title] This is the case and how [Body]

Output: This is the case and how these contracts work. Again, it will be easier to analyze this once the details come out. Nike does sell better here in the US, that's a given. But to your point of the kids wanting KD's and Kobe's and such, that's becuase of the name attached to it. Kids want the Lebron's because they're Lebron's, not Nike's. This is part of the reason why adidas chose to let go of the NBA contract. People don't buy Kevin Durant jerseys because they love adidas, they do it because they love Kevin Durant. Similarly, (outside of the <.05% of the fan base that posts on here) people don't buy Michigan apparel because they love Nike or adidas, they do it because they love Michigan. These deals are far more valuable to the apparel companies than the schools, you'd be naiive to think otherwise. Now I'm not saying I don't expect to see a spike in apparel sales, I totally do and I think the fanbase as a whole is ready to move on from the DB/RR/Hoke era, and the Nike contract ushers in a fresh start. Will it make up for the money we left on the table with adidas? I HIGHLY doubt that, but it remains to be seen. The thing that scares me is that it's a 12 year deal. That's a long time. A lot can change in 12 years. 12 years ago Under Armour was just gaining momentum, and still was only making baselayer/compression gear. Look where they are now. Just something to think about.


Input: [Date] 3 weeks 5 days ago [Title] Are you really trying to say [Body]

Output: Are you really trying to say that fans will go to more games when the team is in a bad stretch just because there's a swoosh on the uniforms? Like I get some of the arguments on here but come on now,that's a massive stretch.


Input: [Date] 11 weeks 4 days ago [Title] Agreed, I'm going with blue. [Body]

Output: Agreed, I'm going with blue. White is minimally acceptable, and only on the road.


Input: [Date] 11 weeks 4 days ago [Title] This has nothing to do with [Body]

Output: This has nothing to do with adidas. They will still be the supplier for the upcoming season. It likely has more to do with the "generic" numbers they had last year not being worn by prominent players this year for football, like 98 for example. And I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a new basketball template this season.


Input: [Date] 11 weeks 5 days ago [Title] I keep hearing this argument, [Body]

Output: I keep hearing this argument, but is there any actual proof of it happening before? Genuinely curious. It doesn't make sense to me that a brand like Nike or adidas would pull funding for an AAU team, consequently pissing off 10-20 members of their key demographic just because one player went to a school they don't sponsor.


Input: [Date] 11 weeks 6 days ago [Title] No question about it. And I [Body]

Output: No question about it. And I think the 3 hole playoff was great for TV as well. Some of my friends who aren't even golf fans were glued to the TV for the end there.


Input: [Date] 11 weeks 6 days ago [Title] Not sure I agree with you [Body]

Output: Not sure I agree with you there. He finished in the top 5 of all 4 majors last year, the only other players to do that were Jack and Tiger. Give the kid his due - he's only 26 years old and most golfers don't hit their prime until their mid 30s. HERE is a good look at what he did last year, impressive to say the least. And whle I was rooting for Sergio today, good to see Rickie pull one out.


Input: [Date] 16 weeks 5 days ago [Title] Man that sucks. It's a shame [Body]

Output: Man that sucks. It's a shame too, the first thirty minutes of the game were some of the most entertaining basketball I've seen in quite a while.


Input: [Date] 18 weeks 5 days ago [Title] Agree. Or sleeve numbers. [Body]

Output: Agree. Or sleeve numbers. I've always been partial to those. + a blue collar would be nice, and also have a symbolic meaning to it.


Input: [Date] 18 weeks 6 days ago [Title] Agreed, little block M's [Body]

Output: Agreed, little block M's would be cool. Kind of like how Sparty does it, theirs don't look horrible.


Input: [Date] 18 weeks 6 days ago [Title] FWIW, I know someone who ran [Body]

Output: FWIW, I know someone who ran track at ND and graduated last year, she says that ever since the UA contract went into effect, the track team won't train in UA footwear. They all go out and buy their own adidas or Asics.


Input: [Date] 18 weeks 6 days ago [Title] Where are you hearing this? [Body]

Output: Where are you hearing this? One of the big reasons ND went with UA was that they wanted to have the largest contract in the NCAA, but adidas refused to make their deal worth more than Michigan's, whether through loyalty or contractual obligation. Also, when asked about the potential of more team/player sponsorships, UA's CEO said "we're not going to compete with our dumbest competitor." I think this kind of shows that company's direction, and I highly doubt more high profile college sponsorships are in their future. LINK to that story.


Input: [Date] 20 weeks 2 days ago [Title] Lmao tech on Beilein. You [Body]

Output: Lmao tech on Beilein. You know it's bad when that happens.


Input: [Date] 20 weeks 2 days ago [Title] I hate that I agree with you, [Body]

Output: I hate that I agree with you, because I want to believe that true competition still exists anymore, but this is spot on. Wisconsin is the B1G's only chance to bring exposure to the conference"brand" this March, so they need to advance and get a high tourney seed, simple as that. I'm staying positive because we played pretty well, but the odds are against us


Input: [Date] 20 weeks 2 days ago [Title] Doesn't look great right now, [Body]

Output: Doesn't look great right now, but if a couple calls went our way it would be a 10+ point Michigan lead right now. We're not out of it at all.


Input: [Date] 20 weeks 3 days ago [Title] Need a GIF of that [Body]

Output: Need a GIF of that immediately!


Input: [Date] 20 weeks 3 days ago [Title] NIke is better based on [Body]

Output: NIke is better based on what? I keep seeing the argument "Nike is clearly better" but have not seen any concrete reasons why other than "kids like it." You say that adidas sucks, but also say you only have ever bought one piece of apparel? I'm not saying everything they make is amazing but it's impossible to judge based on one item. And when we first signed the adidas contract, I would have agreed that Nike does make a superior product. adidas was crap up until about 2 1/2 years ago. But now, adidas has the top performance footwear on the market, hands down. And like it or not, tournament unis bring exposure to the brand. You're talking about it, and that was the goal. Remember when Nike had all of their schools wearing gray a couple years ago? People on here would have had a meltdown if that happened to us. There's also something to be said for being a company's flagship school. Given our recent success we'd be a middle tier Nike school at best. I mean look at Miami (YTM). They were the original sponsored school, but they've been down for a few years, Nike treats them like crap and they end up leaving for adidas.


Input: [Date] 38 weeks 17 hours ago [Title] Wellllll that wasn't pretty. [Body]

Output: Wellllll that wasn't pretty. But at least I don't have to defend my alma mater TOO much next week...


Input: [Date] 40 weeks 2 days ago [Title] Been a looooong week let's do [Body]

Output: Been a looooong week let's do the unthinkable and take it to em tomorrow!


Input: [Date] 42 weeks 3 days ago [Title] This captures my thoughts on [Body]

Output: This captures my thoughts on the issue perfectly. However, I'd be utterly shocked if he does even ONE of the things on this list. I don't feel like I matter to the AD, and that's a problem. He takes this "this is big business, you wouldn't understand" attitude to things and it's very off-putting. I've never felt so disconnected from the program


Input: [Date] 1 year 3 weeks ago [Title] Grabbed a sixer of Gulo Gulo [Body]

Output: Grabbed a sixer of Gulo Gulo tonight. Never had it, heard it was good though so I'm giving it a try


Input: [Date] 1 year 20 weeks ago [Title] They still had a chance to [Body]

Output: They still had a chance to win. OSU made what 2 of 8 ft's on their final 4 posessions? State only had to make one basket but instead kept turning it over.


Input: [Date] 1 year 23 weeks ago [Title] For me? Yes I think that's [Body]

Output: For me? Yes I think that's awesome that I can be a part of something so cool and historic. But for the average student who doesn't post on football message boards, the at home experience of a game against some tiny directional school seems just as good as being there.


Input: [Date] 1 year 23 weeks ago [Title] Why? He is basically saying [Body]

Output: Why? He is basically saying that the University has stripped everything away from games that made them fun and unique. If i want obnoxiously loud piped in music and advertisements at every stoppage of play, I can get that in the comfort of my own home by turning on the tv and cranking up the surround sound. The only difference is that I saved hundreds of dollars on parking, tickets, and absurdly overpriced food, and hours of time spent waiting in lines. The one thing I would miss out on by not going to the games now is the halftime show. And since they decided to turn that into an advertisement as well, i'm ok with missing it.


Input: [Date] 1 year 30 weeks ago [Title] No kidding. Excellent blitz [Body]

Output: No kidding. Excellent blitz read and toss to funchess


Input: [Date] 1 year 30 weeks ago [Title] Morris looks more comfortable [Body]

Output: Morris looks more comfortable in the pocket than Gardner. Like the arm strength too


Input: [Date] 1 year 30 weeks ago [Title] Morris is rockin some pretty [Body]

Output: Morris is rockin some pretty sweet kicks, so we got that going for us


Input: [Date] 1 year 30 weeks ago [Title] About damn time they called a [Body]

Output: About damn time they called a hold


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(a) When software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard, product functions shall be executable from a keyboard where the function itself or the result of performing a function can be discerned textually. The CLI is keyboard only and does not require the use of a mouse and location is clearly indicated. [Supporting Features]

Output: Product has been developed to conform to this standard subject to the remarks on the right.

Section 1194.21 Software Applications and Operating Systems


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(b) Applications shall not disrupt or disable activated features of other products that are identified as accessibility features, where those features are developed and documented according to industry standards. Applications also shall not disrupt or disable activated features of any operating system that are identified as accessibility features where the application programming interface for those accessibility features has been documented by the manufacturer of the operating system and is available to the product developer. This application does not change any accessibility features provided by the underlying OS. [Supporting Features]

Output: Product has been developed to conform to this standard subject to the remarks on the right.


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(c) A well-defined on-screen indication of the current focus shall be provided that moves among interactive interface elements as the input focus changes. The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track focus and focus changes. The CLI interface supplies focus through its cursor. [Supporting Features]

Output: Product has been developed to conform to this standard subject to the remarks on the right.


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(d) Sufficient information about a user interface element including the identity, operation and state of the element shall be available to assistive technology. When an image represents a program element, the information conveyed by the image must also be available in text. CLI is programmatically accessible. [Supporting Features]

Output: Product has been developed to conform to this standard subject to the remarks on the right.


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(e) When bitmap images are used to identify controls, status indicators, or other programmatic elements, the meaning assigned to those images shall be consistent throughout an application's performance. The CLI interface does not make use of bitmap images. [Supporting Features]

Output: Not Applicable


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(f) Textual information shall be provided through operating system functions for displaying text. The minimum information that shall be made available is text content, text input caret location, and text attributes. Text information is provided based on the underlying Linux, Unix, and Windows shell environments. [Supporting Features]

Output: Product has been developed to conform to this standard subject to the remarks on the right.


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(g) Applications shall not override user selected contrast and color selections and other individual display attributes. This application does not have user-selected contrast and color selections. [Supporting Features]

Output: Not Applicable


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(h) When animation is displayed, the information shall be displayable in at least one non-animated presentation mode at the option of the user. The CLI does not use animation. [Supporting Features]

Output: Not Applicable


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(i) Color coding shall not be used as the only means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element. The application does not use color coding. [Supporting Features]

Output: Not Applicable


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(j) When a product permits a user to adjust color and contrast settings, a variety of color selections capable of producing a range of contrast levels shall be provided. The application does not permit the user to adjust color and contrast settings, they are inherited from the OS settings. [Supporting Features]

Output: Not Applicable


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(k) Software shall not use flashing or blinking text, objects, or other elements having a flash or blink frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz. The application does not use flashing or blinking text. [Supporting Features]

Output: Not Applicable


Input: [Criteria] 1194.21(l) When electronic forms are used, the form shall allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form, including all directions and cues. The application does not provide electronic forms. [Supporting Features]

Output: Not Applicable


Input: [Column 18] farm laborer [Column 19] working out [Column 19_3] dry goods [Column 18_2]

Output: commercial traveler

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] farm laborer [Column 19] home farm [Column 19_3] department store [Column 18_2]

Output: salesman

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] laborer [Column 19] odd jobs [Column 19_3] department store [Column 18_2]

Output: bookkeeper

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] laborer [Column 19] street work [Column 19_3] department store [Column 18_2]

Output: cash girl

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] laborer [Column 19] garden [Column 19_3] department store [Column 18_2]

Output: cashier

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] laborer [Column 19] nursery [Column 19_3] bank [Column 18_2]

Output: cashier

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] laborer [Column 19] railroad [Column 19_3] steam railroad [Column 18_2]

Output: conductor

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] brakeman [Column 19] railroad [Column 19_3] street car [Column 18_2]

Output: conductor

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] weaver [Column 19] cotton mill [Column 19_3] general farm [Column 18_2]

Output: farmer

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] laborer [Column 19] cotton mill [Column 19_3] truck farm [Column 18_2]

Output: farmer

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] doffer [Column 19] cotton mill [Column 19_3] private estates [Column 18_2]

Output: gardener

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] engineer [Column 19] locomotive [Column 19_3] general practice [Column 18_2]

Output: lawyer

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] engineer [Column 19] lumber mill [Column 19_3] general farm [Column 18_2]

Output: manager

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] fireman [Column 19] lumber mill [Column 19_3] truck farm [Column 18_2]

Output: overseer

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] fireman [Column 19] fire department [Column 19_3] life insurance co. [Column 18_2]

Output: president

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] civil engineer [Column 19] general practice [Column 19_3] bank [Column 18_2]

Output: president

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] electrical engineer [Column 19] street railway [Column 19_3] cotton mill [Column 18_2]

Output: superintendent steel works

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] carpenter [Column 19] car factory [Column 19_3] street [Column 18_2]

Output: foreman

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] carpenter [Column 19] ship yard [Column 19_3] store [Column 18_2]

Output: newsboy

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] carpenter [Column 19] house [Column 19_3] groceries [Column 18_2]

Output: newsdealer

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] blacksmith [Column 19] carriage factory [Column 19_3] express [Column 18_2]

Output: wagon driver

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] blacksmith [Column 19] own shop [Column 19_3] express wagon [Column 18_2]

Output: wagon driver

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] agent [Column 19] real estate [Column 19_3] private family [Column 18_2]

Output: chauffeur

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] agent [Column 19] insurance [Column 19_3] coal miner [Column 18_2]

Output: chauffeur

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] cook [Column 19] hotel [Column 19_3] coal mine [Column 18_2]

Output: miner

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] servant [Column 19] private family [Column 19_3] marble [Column 18_2]

Output: laborer

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] retail merchant [Column 19] groceries [Column 19_3] house [Column 18_2]

Output: quarryman

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Column 18] wholesale merchant [Column 19] leather [Column 18_2]

Output: janitor

Census Questionnaires and Instructions: 1790 to 2000 - Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 - Survey Census 1910 - Social Explorer


Input: [Services Rendered] Unit Registration [Requirements] Student Unit Registration Form Finance clearance Missing unit [Charges] Free [Timeline]

Output: As per University dates

Kenyatta University - Department of Fashion Design and Marketing


Input: [Services Rendered] Teaching [Requirements] Learning materials [Charges] Free [Timeline]

Output: As per Time table

Kenyatta University - Department of Fashion Design and Marketing


Input: [Services Rendered] Academic Counselling [Requirements] Request from student/ poor performance [Charges] Free [Timeline]

Output: Immediate

Kenyatta University - Department of Fashion Design and Marketing


Input: [Services Rendered] Examination [Requirements] Identification documents [Charges] Free [Timeline]

Output: As per Exam time table

Kenyatta University - Department of Fashion Design and Marketing


Input: [Services Rendered] Examinations Results queries [Requirements] Marks Form Registration Forms Fulfilment of all requirements [Charges] Free [Timeline]

Output: 1 Week

Kenyatta University - Department of Fashion Design and Marketing


Input: [Services Rendered] Processing of Postgraduate proposal/Thesis [Charges] Free [Timeline]

Output: 2 Weeks

Kenyatta University - Department of Fashion Design and Marketing


Input: [0] adaptations [2] altitude [1]

Output: africa


Input: [0] analyses [2] beneficial [1]

Output: ancient


Input: [0] biological [2] body [1]

Output: biologists


Input: [0] climate [2] comb [1]

Output: colors


Input: [0] competition [2] degrades [1]

Output: course


Input: [0] difference [2] distritution [1]

Output: different


Input: [0] early [2] every [1]

Output: environmental


Input: [0] evolution [2] eye [1]

Output: evolving


Input: [0] frequency [2] generations [1]

Output: gene


Input: [0] genetic [2] geographical [1]

Output: genomes


Input: [0] hair [2] hindering [1]

Output: high


Input: [0] homeland [2] how [1]

Output: homo


Input: [0] humans [2] many [1]

Output: levels


Input: [0] migrate [2] moving [1]

Output: moved


Input: [0] mutation [2] natural [1]

Output: mutations


Input: [0] new [2] offer [1]

Output: nucleotides


Input: [0] over [2] populations [1]

Output: people


Input: [0] radiation [2] rare [1]

Output: rapid


Input: [0] received [2] reduce [1]

Output: recent


Input: [0] region [2] relativity [1]

Output: regulatory


Input: [0] reveal [2] selection [1]

Output: sapiens


Input: [0] sequence [2] sixty [1]

Output: single


Input: [0] skin [2] stresses [1]

Output: spread


Input: [0] stretches [2] sun [1]

Output: strong


Input: [0] terrestrial [2] trailblazers [1]

Output: thousand


Input: [0] tropical [2] ultraviolet [1]

Output: types


Input: [0] undergone [2] variant [1]

Output: variability


Input: [0] vitamin [2] years [1]

Output: we


Input: [ID] 1 [Entry Date] 02/24/2011 at 03:50:33 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: I think this is a well-thought out, extremely well researched document. I think it will serve the laboratory animal community well to adopt it in full. As with any major revision, there will be some grumbling and complaining about making changes. However, I think that the changes benefit the animals and will add to the credibility of animal care and use programs. Keep in mind OLAW may need to issue some position statements like AAALAC has done regarding some of the more controversial issues contained in the Guide. Comment 2: This sounds like a reasonable time frame.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 2 [Entry Date] 02/24/2011 at 04:39:35 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: This seems like a reasonable plan given the flawed process that led to the new 8th Edition. There are many problems with this Guide and some changes and new or renewed rules are without scientific or even empirical merit. The list of persons and organizations that were prohibited form serving on the Guide's revision committee gives reason for pause. The new edition is going to cause more confusion and cost than it is going to increase animal and human well being. The animal rights movement must be quite pleased. Finally what alternative does PHS have to accepting the 8th Edition?

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 3 [Entry Date] 02/24/2011 at 06:01:50 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: I am in favor of NIH adopting this edition of the Guide as a basis for evaluation of institutional programs. However, NIH should also consider using the FASS "Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching" as an additional reference document for larger species that have limited covreage in the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide)"

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 4 [Entry Date] 02/25/2011 at 12:33:12 AM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: This updated edition of the Guide seems very thoughtfully considered, and I thank the Committee for all their hard work and dedication. I offer only two recommendations relating to past tragedies at my own institution: Requirements for automated environmental monitoring must be updated given the increasing availability of low-cost technological solutions. Automated temperature monitoring and alerting must by now become mandatory for most facilities rather than merely recommended. As stated in OLAW's FAQ, "Sole reliance on employees to identify changes in animal room conditions or the use of high-low thermometers to track changes in temperature may not be sufficient to allow timely intervention and prevent catastrophic loss." In addition, video surveillance should be considered not only for building security, but also to facilitate independent oversight of animal housing conditions and help ensure that experimental procedures follow approved protocols. Comment 2: NIH extramural research programs are themselves institutional programs receiving Public Health Service support for activities involving animals, and must comply with the same federal principles expected of individual grantees. NIH has placed the burden of applying the "Three Rs" squarely upon individual researchers, while neglecting these principles entirely in decisions of funding. Given multiple proposals of comparable merit as scored by expert scientific review groups, NIH currently gives zero weight to differences in the numbers and types of animals used, or the relative levels of pain and distress that would be caused by the proposed experimental methods. No implementation plan will be adequate that exempts the NIH administration itself from its responsibility to apply the ethical principles described in the Guide to all decisions determining which animal experiments or alternative studies will be supported by taxpayer funds.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 5 [Entry Date] 02/25/2011 at 02:10:54 PM [Affiliation] Organization [Organization Name] IACUC, University of Virginia [Organization City and State] Charlottesville, VA [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: I would like to thank the "Committee to Update the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" for its thoughtful and thorough undertaking in updating and comprehensively making additions to the 2010 "Guide." This was undoubtedly a daunting challenge for which you are all to be commended. Our Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee has reviewed the pre-publication version of the 2010 "Guide" and would like to express our concerns on only two changes. One change we feel will adversely impact the biomedical research community, and on the other hand proposes something that is at odds with experts in human medicine. The first issue pertains to the need to provide a female mouse with litter 50 sq. in. of cage floor space (page 62). Currently the most common type of mouse caging at our institution is a small shoebox that has a floor space of 75 sq. in. allowing housing five adult mice similar, I'm certain, to many other institutions. The caging industry has built the small shoebox cage to this floor size standard based upon the 1996 "Guide." The most common mouse breeding scheme at our institution is the polygamous trio harem of one male and two females established to maximize rodent production by taking advantage of the post-partum estrus and the cross-fostering of litters by two resident lactating females. Our IACUC's concern regarding overcrowding in harem breeding cages led to our policy that states "no more than 12 pups when the older of two litters reaches 12 days of age".1 This requires one pregnant prepartum female be removed when large litters are the result of this mating. But given that the vast majority of our mouse colonies are genetically-engineered mice (GEMs) with a propensity to have small litters, similar to many inbred strains of mice, we have anecdotal evidence that the presence of two lactating females increases the probability of offspring maturing to weaning; the reproductive success at weaning being our measure of the well-being of the offspring. To our knowledge there is little evidence in the literature of GEM offspring well-being adversely impacted by trio breeding. If this requirement is implemented it would cause a substantial increase in the number of shoebox cages we currently would have to maintain and impact the mouse space available to support our current research programs. However, given the current language in Table 3.2 of the new "Guide" all trios would be required to be separated precluding the possibility of cross-fostering of small litters. I ask that you consider removing this space requirement for female mice with litters from the 2010 "Guide" and allow each institution to develop a policy similar to our own (attached). The other issue our IACUC feels should be re-examined is the requirement for oxygen sensors in animal magnetic resonance imaging areas where cryogenic gases are used (page 157). The literature sited for this requirement appears in the ILAR Journal.2 We respect the opinion of the authors but find them at odds with the American College of Radiologists (ACR) Guidance Document for Safe MR Practices: 2007.3 The ACR guidance document specifies cryogen emergency vent locations and pathways, and specifically states on page 12, "It should be pointed out that room oxygen monitoring was discussed by the MR Blue Ribbon Panel and rejected at this time because the present oxygen monitoring technology was considered by industry experts not to be sufficiently reliable to allow continued operation during situations of power outages, etc." When a significant cryogen quench occurs that would decrease room oxygenation the room rapidly fills with fog, the location of the exhaust vent away from the exit door, signage stating to exit the room when this occurs and appropriate vent piping and placement of the discharge point are the most important safety factors according to the ACR. Our IACUC further feels that specifying the use of non-ferrous compressed gas tanks around MR scanners rather than remote storage would seem prudent. I hope the committee will consider our IACUCs collective opinion with regard to these two new requirements of the 2010 "Guide." We feel it our responsibility to inform the Committee to Update the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of our sentiments. Sincerely yours, William Sutherland, PhD Professor of Cell Biology Chair, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee University of Virginia 1. ReebWhittaker et al. 2001. Laboratory Animals 35:5873 2. Klaunberg BA, Davis JA. 2008. ILAR J 49:4-16. 3. E. Kanal et al. 2007. AJR 188:1–27 Comment 2: POLICY ON BREEDING AND WEANING OF RATS AND MICE Federal regulations establish the density of animals permitted in rodent cages. Breeder rats and mice and their litters can occupy considerable cage space, produce large amounts of fecal and urinary material, and increase cage temperature, humidity, and ammonia levels, all of which can create unhealthy conditions. When litters of two different ages are present in the same box, the younger litter often receives insufficient milk. Finally, the presence of more than one male in a breeding cage often results in aggression between competing males and fetal resorption (Bruce effect). The following standards provide allowable densities and age/sex combinations to be applied to mouse breeding cages. Special exemptions to these standards can be made that improve animal well-being, such as to accommodate weanlings of low birth weight, slow growth rates, or insufficient mothering; a typical solution might be to cross-foster to other females in the cage. Requests for ongoing exceptions for particular strains should be submitted to the ACUC by revision of your animal use protocol, in the Main Procedure section under a heading "Request for Exception to the Breeding and Weaning Policy". Exceptions must be justified by providing published citations or PI data demonstrating post-natal failure-to-thrive of the strain in question. Potential reasons for exemption(s) include: 1) Experimental design (e.g. studying psychological imprinting of pups); 2) Need to extend suckling in strains that fail to thrive (requires supporting data); 3) Need to prevent cannibalism diminished by cross-fostering (requires data). BREEDING SCHEMES AND LITTER NUMBERS ALLOWED: •No more than one adult male is allowed in a breeding cage. •Female rodents must be at least 6 weeks old before they are placed in a breeding cage with a male who is greater than 10 weeks of age. The only exception to this is superovulation of 3-4 week old female mice for collection of zygotes or embryos. •A cage is considered overcrowded if a new litter is born before the older litter from the same female is weaned, or if the older litter remains with the female beyond 23 days of age. Litters with ? 4 pups do not require weaning separation if the male is removed during pregnancy. •Weaning beyond 23 days (25 days of age if CCM does it) is reserved for strains that have litters that routinely fail-to-thrive. In such cases, the male, or even better the pregnant female must be removed from the cage when either female is obviously pregnant (e.g. by 12 days gestational age). Note: Late weaning of this sort requires a special exemption as defined below to avoid ACUC censure. Animal caretakers are responsible for recording birth dates for litters on cage cards, however they may be recorded by research staff as well. A. One male x one female: Litters should be weaned by post-natal Day 23, or before birth of another litter, whichever is first. Animal care technicians will automatically wean each litter by post-partum Day 25, or whenever a new litter is born, if investigators have not already done so. Investigators will be charged for this service. If there is no prior arrangement with the CCM staff to wean for the PI, it will be considered a non-compliance issue by the ACUC. B. One male x two females: If breeding is conducted in a 1:2 ratio, it is recommended that one of the two females be removed to a separate cage when observed to be pregnant*. Alternatively, it is permissible to keep the male, two females, and the pups together provided that when the oldest litter reaches 12 days of age there are no more than 12 pups in the cage (combined). This is based upon standards used at the Jackson Laboratory (Reeb-Whittaker et al, 2001, Laboratory Animals 35:58-73). Weaning must still be accomplished by Day 23. The animal care technicians will wean litters at Day 25 if not already done by the investigators, and investigators will be charged for this service. If there is no prior arrangement with the CCM staff to wean for the PI, it will be considered a non-compliance issue by the ACUC. C. One male x three or more females: If more than two females are housed with a male for breeding, pregnant females (e. g. 12 days gestational age*) must be separated into boxes containing no more than two pregnant females before any delivery, and the 1:2 policy above ("B.") is then followed. If removal of obviously pregnant females in this breeding scheme is not done by the research staff, the animal care technicians will perform this function and investigators will be charged for this service. If there is no prior arrangement with the CCM staff to wean for the PI, it will be considered a non-compliance issue by the ACUC. The accepted procedure for post-Day 25 day weaning: Occasionally, litters (or individuals in a litter) do not thrive or there may be other extenuating circumstances to justify delayed weaning. If you feel a litter (as defined in this policy) is not ready to be weaned, consult your vivarium supervisor. Each supervisor has the authority to provide a one-time exemption (one cage, or for concurrent cages of a new strain) delaying weaning up to 9 days in length for any specific litter (normally weaned on Day 23, extension to 32 days maximum). If a new litter is born to another female in the cage during the exemption period, it must be removed with that dam to another cage, if the original exempted litter cannot be weaned. Permission for ongoing weaning age exemptions for a particular breeding line must be obtained from the ACUC by submitting a protocol modification for that strain. Note: during any delayed weaning situation, the male must be removed from the cage when either female is obviously pregnant (e.g. by 12 days of gestation) to avoid post-partum estrus breeding.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 6 [Entry Date] 02/28/2011 at 01:47:21 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: give extra time to comment. please send me a complete copy of the eigth so i can comment more fully. i have lost respect for the avma, which seems to be all about profit and money rather than any humane treatment of any animal. their decision that its ok to put newly born chicks into a woodchipper to kill them shows just how bad this group is - they are human pond scum as far as i can see if they believe this is ok. the lab animals never end up alive. they are always killed. i find that unacceptable. the secrecy in how these grants are awarded is beyond belief. the public never never ever finds out whare their tax dollars are going. this is undemocratic. this is secret corruption and needs to be changed. all grants for any research of any kind needs to be totally open to the publc. pictures must be taken to show care and treatment of any animal. the pbulic must be allowed inside the labs to view the animals being abused in labs. jall animals used in any lab experiment needs to be put on the web with the followin ginformation on the lab where it is taking place. each animal individually must be listed. for example dog, white age 5 years test - skin duration - expected result validity NO ANIMAL SHOULD BE USED WITHOUT THIS NIFORMATION BEING QUICKLY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THE NAME OF THE PUBLIC MEMBER OF THE IACUS MUST BE CLEARLY PUT ON LINE SO THAT THEY CAN BE QUICKLY FOUND AND COMMUNICATED WITH. ANY ANIMAL USED IN RESEARCH WORK THAT IS KEPT ALIVE NEEDS TO HAVE A RETIREMENT SUM OF MONEY PUT ASIDE TO CARE FOR THAT ANIMAL FOR THE REST OF ITS LIFE. IN FACT, EVERY RESEARCH ANIMAL SHOULD HAVE A TAX PUT ON IT TO ESTABLISH SUCH RETIREMENT FUNDS. I SUGGEST AN INITIAL TAX OF $1,000 ON EACH ANIMAL USED IN RESEARCH TO GO INTO THE FUND TO TAKE CARE OF ANIMALS THAT LIVE AFTER RESEARCH TESTS. ALSO, I PROPOSE THAT ALL LAB ANIMAL TESTS BE DISCONTINUED AND BANNED HENCEFORTH. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE TESTS THAT ARE GOING ON ARE VALID IN ANY WAY TO BE INTERPRETED FOR ANY HUMAN BENEFIT. THIS IS ALL ABOUT GREED AND MONEY. TESTING ON ANIMALS STARTED IN 1500 AND WE HAVE MUCH MORE MODERN, MORE ACCURATE METHODS THAN THIS TO USE TODAY. JEAN PUBLIC ADDRESS IF REQUIRED.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 7 [Entry Date] 02/28/2011 at 03:14:47 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: The new Guide was based largely upon perception rather than science. Several things in the guide are actually harmful to animals. For example the group housing is the default for all species. This is contraindicated in a number of conditions. Rabbits fight when housed together. Large animals, such as pigs, when group housed post surgically will cannibalize less dominant pigs if the incision is bloody. For behavioral studies rodents have changed behavior when group housed. There is not any scientific evidence that changing the height of rabbit cages from 15 to 16 inches has any positive effect on animal welfare. The new guide is voluminous and will require a great deal of effort on the part of the research community to determine how to be in compliance with the numerous vague sections. This guide should be thoroughly reviewed and rewritten from its present form and content. Comment 2: I do not believe that institutions will be able to even determine proper procedures and protocols for reviewing facilities under the new guide within a year. Several organizations such as AAALAC and AALAS have been struggling to make comparisons and develop guidelines for compliance since last summer. There are not any training programs scheduled to train institutions in compliance issues with the new standards.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 8 [Entry Date] 02/28/2011 at 05:43:15 PM [Affiliation] Self [Organization Name] National Jewish Health [Organization City and State] Denver, Colorado [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: The 8th edition of "The Guide" should NOT be adopted for the following reason: On page 57 of "The Guide", Table 3.2 lists recommended minimum cage floor space per mouse. The only change from the 7th edition is that breeding triads are not allowed in standard shoebox (77sq. inches) cages because a single female with a litter should have at least 51 sq. inches of space. The maximum recommended number of adult (>25 g) mice per shoebox cage remains at 5. However, I could find no scientific basis for these recommendations. In fact, the references cited on p. 58 with regard to cage space argue, if anything, that for many strains, more mice can be housed per cage than the minimum currently recommended by the 7th edition (Davidson Comp. Med. 57:355, 2007; Smith et al. Comp. Med. 54:656, 2004; Gonder and Laber ILAR J 48:29, 2007; Smith et al. Comp. Med. 55:368, 2005. One of these shows that C57BL/6 mice, housed at 10 per shoebox cage, are as healthy as those at 5 per cage. Another reference provides evidence of anxiety disorder in mice that are not sufficiently crowed. Therefore, on the basis of the science cited by the authors of "The Guide", I believe that breeding traids should be allowed and that the minimum amount of space per mouse should be doubled over the current space specified by the 7th edition, with the usual footnote that more space may be required for some strains or in special circumstances.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 9 [Entry Date] 03/01/2011 at 03:46:39 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: The guide states that pharmaceutical grade chemicals or substances should be used when available for studies conducted in animals to ensure that toxic or unwanted effects are not introduced into studies. I have difficulty with this suggestion. First, the assumption that toxic or unwanted effects occur to any significant extent because of the use of non-pharmaceutical grade chemicals or substances in animal studies appears unwarranted. Currently, pharmaceutical grade chemicals or substances are only rarely used in animal studies, and I am unaware of any problems associated with this practice. Is there any empirical evidence of such a problem? How frequently do such problems occur? Second, there are problems of definition. In particular, what is meant by pharmaceutical grade is unclear. This could be taken to mean that it is more desirable to crush tablet formulations of medications and inject these ip than to prepare a solution using a substance obtained from a chemical company. Clearly, this is not desirable. Finally, that a pharmaceutical grade compound is unavailable can be difficult to demonstrate depending upon the definition of pharmaceutical grade. If this is defined by compound purity or the like, then such compounds can be custom synthesized in almost all cases, but at a significant cost in time, effort and financial resources. This would is a burdensome guideline, if as seems likely to be the case the problem being addressed cannot be reliably demonstrated.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 10 [Entry Date] 03/02/2011 at 01:02:16 PM [Affiliation] Organization [Organization Name] Mayo Clinic [Organization City and State] Rochester MN [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: The mouse housing conditions for breeding that have been recommended (Table 3.2 and associated text) disregard natural mouse reproductive behavior, and will have negative consequences for mouse social living. The guide states that professional experience is the basis for the new requirements, but also states that scientific studies that have been performed were not used to generate the new rules. The fact remains that mice live in harems in the wild. They also live in nests in which many individuals occupy a limited space. But now without scientific basis, this new guide has purposely put forth new rules whose end result will be to make mouse breeding monogamous -- this is because over 90% of mouse housing for research is done in cages of a standard size, which, according to the new rules, will only allow 1 male and 1 female mouse to breed, instead of at least 2 females in a harem as would occur in nature. This hideous recommendation will double the cost of mouse housing, and will slow research, but worst of all, animal welfare will not be served by depriving mice of their natural breeding behavior. Get rid of this new recommendation, which has no basis in facts, and in which no one, especially not the mice, will be better off.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 11 [Entry Date] 03/02/2011 at 01:03:03 PM [Affiliation] Organization [Organization Name] National Jewisih Health [Organization City and State] Denver, CO [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: I feel that the change in housing requirements for mice, specifically requiring the removal of either the male, one of the females, or the dam and her litter after delivery from the cage once a liter is dropped in a cage of triplets. This will serve to increase greatly the costs of breeding. Further, there is no firm scientific evidence that this is beneficial nor is there consensus amongst experts in this area. I strongly recommend that this not be adopted for use in the Guide.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 12 [Entry Date] 03/02/2011 at 01:08:10 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: On the proposed use of pharmaceutical grade chemicals: this would seem to limit use of compounds that are made and supplied by various NIH institutes (e.g., NIDA, NIMH). This is a valuable Institute service to research that provides unusual, expensive compounds in amounts that adequate to animal studies. In addition, some items that should be considered (e.g., pharmacokinetics) when these compounds are used can only be known after they are given to animals. Comment 2: The prescribed once/week weighing frequency for food-restricted animals is not suitable and may be unnecessary, even risky in some situations. For example, non-human primates (and other larger species) often must be anesthetized (with attendant risks) for weighing. Experience shows that frequent weighing is useful to the point that stable feeding/weight conditions are established. After that point, the frequency of weighing can be decreased

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 13 [Entry Date] 03/03/2011 at 05:49:44 AM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: I encourage the use of the revised Guide by NIH. The profession needs direction as it relates to the use of laboratory animals. NIH has no other comprehensive and current resource to provide it's grantees with such guidelines. Though some might believe the revised Guide is not perfect - any subsequent effort by NIH will have similar detractors and will cost the Institutes time and money to produce.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 14 [Entry Date] 03/03/2011 at 10:50:48 AM [Affiliation] Self [Organization City and State] Denver, Colorado [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: There is an important issue with the proposed 8th Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals on which OLAW seeks comment. On page 57 of "The Guide", Table 3.2 lists recommended minimum cage floor space per mouse. The only change from the 7th edition is that breeding triads are not allowed in standard shoebox (77sq. inches) cages because it is recommended that a single female with a litter should have at least 51 sq. inches of space. The maximum recommended number of adult (>25 g) mice per shoebox cage remains at 5. However, there is no scientific basis for these recommendations. In fact, the references cited by authors of "The Guide" on p. 58 argue, if anything, that for many strains, more mice can be housed per cage than the minimum currently recommended by the 7th edition. I enclosed some of these citations for your perusal. One of these shows that C57BL/6 mice, housed at 10 per shoebox cage, are as healthy as those housed at 5 per cage. Another reference provides evidence of anxiety disorder in mice that are not sufficiently crowed. Therefore, on the basis of the science cited by the authors of "The Guide", I believe that breeding triplets (one male and 2 females) should be allowed, and that the minimum floor space per mouse should be halved relative to that currently recommended by the 7th edition, with the usual footnote that more space may be required for some strains or in special circumstances. The cost of keeping a mouse colony has already reached an appalling level. I have a relatively small lab (6 people in total), and my research is based on genetically engineered mice. I routinely pay $5,000 to $7,000 a month for the mice. This is quite an absurd amount if you compare it to the average salary in the US. Implementing the space restriction recommended by the 8th Edition of the Guide would further increase the cost for mouse husbandry. The current NIH pay line for grant applications, in addition, is already significantly reducing the funds available to investigators with the risk that the scientific community is soon going to lose many genetically engineered mouse strains. I consider myself a very sensitive person regarding animal welfare issues. However, I really do not see any justification in the space limit recommendations of the 8th or even the 7th edition of the Guide. Thus, I recommend OLAW and AAALAC, and the scientific community not to implement the 8th Edition of the Guide.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 15 [Entry Date] 03/03/2011 at 01:09:54 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: While I find the majority of the new Guide an excellent resource I have concerns over the change in cage height requirements for rabbits. The increase in height from 14 to 16 inches seems arbitary. The additional two inches places an undue burden on facilities to replace existing caging systems which are typically less than 16 inches high and does not enahnce animal well being.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 16 [Entry Date] 03/03/2011 at 03:32:04 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: The current literature (published since the 1996 revision of the Guide) suggests that mice should actually be housed at higher densities in standard "shoebox" cages than recommended in the 1996 revision of the Guide for increased immune function, decreased mortality, and decreased fighting (Fullwood 1998, Gonder 2007, McGlone 2001, Smith 2004). If modern science suggests that higher housing densities are necessary for the health and welfare of mice, why would the Guide recommend lower housing densities? The space constraints set forth in the new edition of the Guide appear to be specifically intended to disallow trio mating in a standard "shoebox" cage (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12910&page=57) -- 67 sq in. (floor space of standard cage) - 51 sq in (space requirement for dam plus litter) - 15 sq in (space requirement for sire) = 1 sq in remaining. According to the Jackson Laboratory's Breeding Strategies for Maintaining Colonies of Laboratory Mice in the "Simple Breeding Schemes" section, "Most strains produce more progeny per cage if mated as trios because all adult cage mates generally help care for the young" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/48964381/breeding-strategies-manual). If the intention is to end trio mating, what institution has the expertise in mouse husbandry to outright discount Jackson Laboratory's 82 years of research in the field? Given these issues of revised housing recommendations without scientific backing, the NIH must not adopt the eight edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as a basis for evaluation of institutional programs receiving or proposing to receive Public Health Service support for activities involving animals. Fullwood S, Hicks TA, Brown JC, Norman RL, McClone JJ. 1998. Floor space needs for laboratory mice: C57BL/6 males in solid-bottom cages with bedding. ILAR J 39:29-36. Gonder JC, Laber K. 2007. A renewed look at laboratory rodent housing and management. ILAR J 48:29-36. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. 1996. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. 2011. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Jackson Laboratory. 2009. Breeding strategies for maintaining colonies of laboratory mice. McGlone JJ, Anderson DL, Norman RL. 2001. Floor space needs for laboratory mice: BALB/cJ males or females in solid-bottom cages with bedding. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 40:21-25 Smith AL, Mabus SL, Stockwell JD, Muir C. 2004. Effects of housing density and cage floor space on C57BL/6J mice. Comp Med 54:656-663. Comment 2: The current literature (published since the 1996 revision of the Guide) suggests that mice should actually be housed at higher densities in standard "shoebox" cages than recommended in the 1996 revision of the Guide for increased immune function, decreased mortality, and decreased fighting (Fullwood 1998, Gonder 2007, McGlone 2001, Smith 2004). If modern science suggests that higher housing densities are necessary for the health and welfare of mice, why would the Guide recommend lower housing densities? The space constraints set forth in the new edition of the Guide appear to be specifically intended to disallow trio mating in a standard "shoebox" cage (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12910&page=57) -- 67 sq in. (floor space of standard cage) - 51 sq in (space requirement for dam plus litter) - 15 sq in (space requirement for sire) = 1 sq in remaining. According to the Jackson Laboratory's Breeding Strategies for Maintaining Colonies of Laboratory Mice in the "Simple Breeding Schemes" section, "Most strains produce more progeny per cage if mated as trios because all adult cage mates generally help care for the young" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/48964381/breeding-strategies-manual). If the intention is to end trio mating, what institution has the expertise in mouse husbandry to outright discount Jackson Laboratory's 82 years of research in the field? Given these issues of revised housing recommendations without scientific backing, the NIH must not adopt the eight edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as a basis for evaluation of institutional programs receiving or proposing to receive Public Health Service support for activities involving animals. Fullwood S, Hicks TA, Brown JC, Norman RL, McClone JJ. 1998. Floor space needs for laboratory mice: C57BL/6 males in solid-bottom cages with bedding. ILAR J 39:29-36. Gonder JC, Laber K. 2007. A renewed look at laboratory rodent housing and management. ILAR J 48:29-36. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. 1996. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. 2011. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Jackson Laboratory. 2009. Breeding strategies for maintaining colonies of laboratory mice. McGlone JJ, Anderson DL, Norman RL. 2001. Floor space needs for laboratory mice: BALB/cJ males or females in solid-bottom cages with bedding. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci 40:21-25 Smith AL, Mabus SL, Stockwell JD, Muir C. 2004. Effects of housing density and cage floor space on C57BL/6J mice. Comp Med 54:656-663.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 17 [Entry Date] 03/04/2011 at 02:36:30 PM [Affiliation] Self [Organization Name] Indiana University [Organization City and State] Indianapolis, IN [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: As an investigator and as an IACUC member, I find the eighth edition of the Guide to be particularly unhelpful. I never thought that the earlier version was very helpful either. The Guide is full of generalizations that do not clarify questions of how an investigator should proceed or how an IACUC should judge the adequacy of a study protocol. For instance, in the section on Protocol Review (pp 25-26), a bullet point states: "appropriate sedation, analgesia, and anesthesia. (Indices of pain or invasiveness might aid in the preparation and review of protocols; see Appendix A, Anesthesia, Pain and Surgery)". However, there are no indices presented and there is no indication which of the many references in Appendix A might lead the investigator/IACUC member to such indices. This is akin to a travel guide saying: "Munich is a great town for eating schnitzel and drinking beer and there are numerous inexpensive zimmer freis where one can stay – to find these bed & breakfast places you should purchase the following 5 travel guide books and search through them thoroughly." Not very helpful – hardly what a guidebook is written to do. Sure, the section on Pain and Distress in Chapter 4 (pp 120-121) mentions some useful indicators of pain but it is not done in a way that is very helpful to an investigator when devising a set of specific criteria in a specific protocol. I think the authors of the Guide should have chosen a useful set of indices drawn from numerous sources and presented them in a usable fashion in a species-specific manner. The Guide is full of examples of vague guidelines that leave much room for interpretation and can only lead to confusion and frustration. In addition, there are examples where statements in the Guide serve to confuse the issue. For example, in the section on Program Oversight (p 25), the Guide states: "Program review and facilities inspections should occur at least annually or more often as required (e.g., Animal Welfare Act and PHS Policy)." Since the AWA clearly states that inspections should occur every 6 months, this statement is confusing and leaves the audience with questions rather than answers. The paragraph above is just a sample of the tenor my review of the new edition of the Guide would have were I asked to do so for a reporting agency or a journal. I would conclude my review by saying: The new edition of the Guide, like its predecessor, falls flat as a guidebook. It lacks specific recommendations for investigators and IACUC members, relying instead on general statements that can be left to interpretation. In some cases, it makes statements that are inappropriate with regard to the regulations in question. This so-called guide is a recommendation for a blind-folded walk through the maze of regulations imposed by PHS and USDA. As an IACUC member and as an investigator I have found it much more productive to refer to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook published by ARENA and OLAW (the Guidebook). This text offers clear descriptions of the federal regulations, compares requirements of PHS and USDA, and gives clear examples of how to proceed on specific questions that often arise. My best recommendation is to scrap the use of the Guide as the basis for designing an animal use program and instead refer to the Guidebook. Comment 2: Stop the implementation plan. Do not use the Guide as the basis for evaluation. The Guide presents cogent arguments for setting ethical standards for the use of animals in research, but it does little to guide the individual in specific steps needed in devising schemes that meet the regulatory standards set by the Federal agencies. The regulations set forth by the AWA, as interpreted by OLAW and ARENA in the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook published by ARENA and OLAW (the Guidebook), require specific actions. The Guide most often offers generalizations that may be left to interpretation that can lead to non-compliance. Instead, refer individuals and animal use program directors to the Guidebook as the basis for program/protocol design.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 18 [Entry Date] 03/08/2011 at 01:25:55 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: I am familar with the contents of the 8th edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. I enthusiastically support the adoption of this edition of the Guide as the basis for evaluation of institutional programs receiving Public Health Service support for activities involving animals. I believe that it is critical for the National Institutes of Health to have such guidelines on the use and care of live vertebrate animals in research, teaching and testing activities that are supported by federal dollars obtained from taxpayers. Comment 2: I support the proposed implementation plan.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 19 [Entry Date] 03/08/2011 at 02:13:27 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: Written by experts who embrace humane and responsible animal research and the importance of performance standards, OLAW should adopt 8th Edition of the Guide.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 20 [Entry Date] 03/08/2011 at 02:14:57 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: The new edition of the Guide appears to consider the AWA and Policies for the Humane Use of Animals in Research. The consistency provided in this revision is a significant improvement and should be implemented in reviewing support for PHS funded animal activities.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals


Input: [ID] 21 [Entry Date] 03/08/2011 at 05:22:47 PM [Affiliation] Self [Comments]

Output: Comment 1: The stipulation that pharmaceutical grade drugs should be used in all animal procedures unless there is no alternative would severely hamper research on drugs of abuse. The majority of the drugs we research that are relevant to drug abuse and addiction are available as pharmaceutical grade, but are prohibitively expensive as such. Studies requiring repeated treatment such as those utilizing self-administration, drug discrimination, or other procedures that allow assessment of tolerance or dependence would not be feasible under typical NIH grant budgets. Presently, NIDA provides many of these drugs at no cost to researchers, however they are not pharmaceutical grade as they are typically obtained from seizures of street drugs by law enforcement. Street drugs are rarely pharmaceutical grade. I am not aware of any data suggesting that the use of non-pharmaceutical grade drugs in addiction research has led to any complications or other problems solely because they were no pharmaceutical grade. I sincerely hope that this requirement will be reconsidered.

Listing of Public Comments on Proposed Adoption and Implementation of the Eighth Edition of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals