text:
The Five Dumbest Things on Wall Street This Week: July 27
5. Wet Seal Gets Soaked
Somebody get the folks at poor Wet Seal(:WTSLA) a towel because the company is obviously all washed up.
In the latest wave of bad news to crash down on the teen retailer, Wet Seal fired CEO Susan McGalla Monday, causing its shares to sink 12% to $2.60. Wet Seal also said its second-quarter loss will be a penny or more higher than the nickel that Wall Street analysts had already penciled in when it reports results August 13.
Yep, it was certainly a tough way for Wet Seal to start the week. And it didn't get any better from there. After the clothing seller announced McGalla's ousting, the Clinton Group, which owns 4.3% of Wet Seal's stock, posted a letter to Wet Seal's board urging it to peddle the company.
"We simply cannot wait for the Board to hire yet another Chief Executive -- the next one will be the fourth in five years -- to embark on yet another change in strategy with the aim of turning around the Company. That path is simply too uncertain," wrote Clinton's Senior Portfolio Manager Joseph DePerio, adding that it's also about time Wet Seal returned some of that $148 million in cash its hoarding to shareholders.
Please note -- all you conclusion-jumpers out there -- that McGalla's dismissal was the result of 11 straight months of declining same-store sales at the company and not the discrimination suit leveled against it earlier this month. In case you missed it, a trio of former employees accused Wet Seal's "most senior executives" of failing to promote black store managers because they did not represent the company's image.
Once again, as CFO Steven Benrubi told the AP, the firing was "strictly due to the financial performance of the company" and had absolutely, positively nothing to do with the racism allegations.
Fine Steven! We'll drop the suit entirely. Consider it forgotten. We'll just say that McGalla got canned because Wet Seal categorically, unconditionally sucks as a retailer. So much so that its stock has lost half its value over the past year and one of its largest shareholders is itching to sell it lest they lose the remaining half.
How does that work for you?
4. STEC's Brotherly Larceny
Come on you Securities and Exchange Commission book-throwers. Take mercy on STEC(:STEC) CEO Manouch Moshayedi. The man is clearly his brother's keeper, so what's the harm that he kept a little for himself too?
Okay. He kept a lot for himself and it looks like he did it illegally. But still.
The SEC filed a civil complaint against the solid state drive maker's chief executive late last week, accusing Moshayedi of violating insider trading rules in a secondary offering of his shares. According to the charges, Moshayedi unloaded a major chunk of his holdings, as well as shares owned by his co-founder brother, in August 2009 despite learning "critical nonpublic information" about a deal with EMC(:EMC) gone sour that would likely have slammed the stock.
"Moshayedi did not call off the offering and abstain from selling his shares once he possessed the negative information unbeknownst to the investing public. Instead, he engaged in a fraudulent scheme to hide the truth through a secret side deal, and proceeded with the sale of 9 million shares from which he and his brother reaped gross proceeds of approximately $134 million each," says the SEC about Moshayedi, who according to his lawyer intends to vigorously defend himself.
Wow! $134 million each. Oh brother! Literally.
The part of the SEC allegation that really made us chuckle was when Moshayedi begged EMC brass to step up its third-quarter order to $50 million from $35 million ahead of a call with Wall Street analysts.
"Just tell me what you need, I knew asking you guys for a favor would go nowhere so I am now back at paying for favors. What is your price for keeping inventory for a week or two? I thought East Coast guys from Boston area were supposed to be nice," pitifully pleaded Moshayedi in an email.
Unluckily, just hours before that call, those "nice" guys from Boston treated Moshayedi like a Yankee fan in Fenway Park, telling him that they were no longer buying STEC products in volume. Nevertheless, Moshayedi did not inform Wall Street or his investors of that unfortunate fact until three months later in November. Once STEC's CEO did come clean about EMC's demand reduction, the stock price sank by nearly 40%, but of course by that time the Moshayedi brothers had already made their sales at far higher prices.
Hey, you know what they say. Bros before holders. Shareholders that is.
3. Best Buy Bonus Bunkum
Remember the old Woody Allen quote that "80% of success is showing up?" Well, add another 20% and you've got the new executive bonus plan for our good friends over at Best Buy(:BBY).
We're serious. If you want to cash in at Best Buy then simply show up! All you need is a pulse, no performance required.
We here at the Dumbest Lab first became aware of the struggling electronics retailer's generous pay scheme after reading a Bloomberg report saying Best Buy's highly regarded compensation consultant quit after the company gave millions of dollars in retention bonuses to more than 100 managers without attaching performance targets to those awards.
Don Delves, president of the Chicago-based Delves Group, apparently walked off in protest over the decision after spending seven years as an independent consultant to Best Buy's compensation committee.
Let's take a step back here. We need to wrap our heads around this thing.
Best Buy's former CEO Brian Dunn leaves in April after a sex scandal. The company's stock is down almost 40% this year because Amazon(:AMZN) and Apple(:AAPL) are eating its lunch. And Best Buy's recently resigned Chairman Richard Schulze is weighing the idea of taking the company private. But regardless of all that disarray, these guys feel the need to pony up to retain their so-called talent.
That's just batty. Speaking of which, somebody get former Oriole "Iron Man" Cal Ripken on the line. Tell him we've got the perfect job for him and he won't have to lift a finger, let alone worry about his batting average.
"We're confident that the compensation paid by Best Buy is fair, reflects market realities and is based on responsible practices that reflect the transformation of the organization," said Best Buy spokesman Bruce Hight in a statement.
Excuse us Bruce, but what "market realities" are you referring to? Where are these folks going to go? Circuit City? Nobody Beats the Wiz? The competition doesn't even exist anymore, so it's not like you are going to get into a bidding war over their services.
Heck, even Crazy Eddie wasn't insane enough to pay people just to hang around...Okay, maybe he was, but look where that got him.
2. DeVry's Daffy Downgrades
Look, we understand it's not easy for Wall Street analysts to get it right all the time. And we'll also be the first to admit that predicting the future is a tough, often thankless task, especially with critics like us braying at their bad calls while neglecting the good ones.
All that said, those morons really blew it big time with DeVry(:DV) this week.
Shares of the for-profit educator shattered Tuesday, falling 25% to barely above $20, after the company sliced its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings outlook as a result of lower enrollment. DeVry said it now expects to earn 43 to 46 cents per share on revenue of between $500 million and $510 million for the period when it reports results August 9.
So what were Wall Street's prognosticators estimating prior to DeVry's pre-announcement? Well, how about 79 cents per share in earnings on revenue of $519.2 million.
Oh yeah, they whiffed big time, which surprised us considering all the recent calamities in the industry. Seriously, after Bridgepoint Education's(:BPI) selloff over accreditation worries earlier this month, Apollo Group's(:APOL) shellacking in March due to enrollment declines and Career Education's(:CECO) collapse last year as a result of improper placement lawsuits, one would think that the analyst community would have sharpened their pencils when it came to their DeVry outlook.
Nonetheless, based on their sky-high original targets for the company, that clearly was not the case. Despite all the carnage in the for-profit education sector, they obviously didn't learn their lesson.
RW Baird has subsequently cut its price target to $23 from $35. Bank of America Merrill Lynch downgraded DeVry to neutral and lowered its price objective to $23 from $37. Citigroup went to $25 from $40. JPMorgan, $23 from $35. Topeka Capital, $23 from $40.
Look, we know that DeVry is an industry leader and has so far avoided stepping on the most serious mines that have been blowing up its competitors. But that does not excuse these Wall Street analysts from stupidly luring investors onto the minefield with sky-high price targets in the first place.
1. Weill Goes Wild
Former Citigroup(:C) Chairman Sanford "Sandy" Weill was talking on television Wednesday and he casually said that it's time for the United States to "go and split up investment banking from banking."
To which we respond: WTF Weill? Are you out of your mind?
Weill, for those too young to remember, led the 1998 merger of Travelers Group and Citicorp to form Citigroup, the so-called "financial supermarket" that was rescued from bankruptcy during the 2008 financial crisis with a $45 billion investment by the federal government.
And for those that may have forgotten, Weill was also a major force in overturning the Glass-Steagall Act that originally separated investment and commercial banks. Weill fiercely lobbied then-President Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s to dump the Depression-era law. Clinton finally caved in 1999 and signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which ushered in the era of too big to fail banks.
Put simply, Weill is the Dr. Frankenstein of the financial industry and the monsters he helped create -- making him filthy rich in the process -- ultimately turned on their masters and nearly destroyed the global economy. That's what makes his two-faced comments so darn sickening and even harder to take at face value.
Sincerely Sandy, if you are going to be this hypocritical then save it for a deathbed recantation, don't be an ass and do it on CNBC's Squawk Box.
"I am suggesting that they be broken up so that the taxpayer will never be at risk, the depositors won't be at risk, the leverage of the banks will be something reasonable, and the investment banks can do trading ... not subject to a Volcker rule," continued Weill, now a philanthropist after retiring as Citigroup's Chairman in 2006.
Wait! Don't barf yet. Hold it just one more second until you've read Weill's reason for changing his opinion on the benefits of behemoth banks.
"The world that we live in now is different from the world we lived in 10 years ago," said Weill.
Like they say in politics, he was for it before he was against it. And if he had half a brain he would have kept his mouth shut about it.
But he didn't.
Feel free to puke now.
--Written by Gregg Greenberg in New York.


text:
Feb. 10, 2010 -- People who suffer from migraine headaches may be much more likely to have a heart attack as well as a host of risk factors for heart disease, according to a new study.
Although the overall risk was small, researchers found that people who have migraines were twice as likely to have a heart attack, and people who have migraines with aura were nearly three times more likely to have a heart attack, than others. Migraines with aura are preceded by sensations such as seeing flashing lights.
The study also shows that people with migraines are more likely to have major risk factors for heart disease, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol, which may partially explain this increased risk of heart attack.
"Our results provide another reason for people with migraine to reduce other risk factors for heart disease, such as high blood pressure and obesity," says researcher Marcelo E. Bigal, MD, PhD, of Merck Research Laboratories and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, N.Y., in a news release.
However, even after adjusting for these underlying risk factors for heart disease, researchers found people with migraines were still more likely to have a heart attack, stroke, or evidence of peripheral artery disease (a buildup of plaque in the arteries usually in the legs or arms).
Migraines and Heart Attack
The study compared the risk of heart attack, stroke, and other risk factors for heart disease among 6,102 people with migraine headaches and a comparison group of 5,243 people without headaches who were surveyed about their health.
The results, published in Neurology, showed that 4.1% people who had migraines had a heart attack compared with 1.9% of the rest. The risk of heart attack was nearly three times greater for people who experienced migraine with aura than for people without migraines.
People with migraines with aura were also nearly three times more likely to have had a stroke.
The risk of other underlying risk factors for heart disease, such as high cholesterol, diabetes, and high blood pressure, was highest among those with migraine with aura, but it was also elevated among those with regular migraines.
Researchers say previous studies have suggested that only people with migraine with aura were at increased risk for heart disease. But these results show otherwise.
While the overall risk of heart problems in people with migraine headaches is small, the researchers say it is significant and higher compared to the rest of the population, which merits further research.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
One of my favourite London museums is the Geffrye Museum. It's a treasure trove of historical domesticity. Set in a stunning almshouse in Old Street, a series of living rooms are decorated in the style of different eras, from the 17th century, right up to the modern day. If you want to know what after dinner parlour games were played in the 1830s or the types of curtains favoured in 1695, this is the place to come.*
When I lived in Stoke Newington, I visited often. Now, from South London, it's a bit of a hike. But then again, I don't really need to visit at the moment…
The house we live in now is still decorated (and fitted) so perfectly from the 1950s it could really be an exhibit in the museum.
I wasn't planning on posting much in the way of "before" and "after" shots of our house, because, frankly, it seemed quite rude to move in to someone's home, photograph it and then stick the photos on the internet, commenting on how you want to change it all. (Less honourably, I don't own a wide-angled lens for my camera, so the great "tadaaaaaa" moment was probably not going to look that great anyway…)
But, since I broke that intention by sharing a little glimpse of Mabel and the cactus outside, and since our building work is finally (finally!) scheduled to start on the house in a month, I thought I might just photograph and share for posterity the amazing wallpaper we're currently living with.
Every single room in the house has a different floral wallpaper. Even the kitchen.
I think they probably date to the 1950s (can anyone enlighten me with more specific knowledge?)
Here then, is the full set. A study in wallpaper, if you will…
Let's start at the beginning. When you first come in, we're in the hallway. Here, we've got a double wallpaper affair, of a faded orangey, pinky metallic variety. The wallpaper above is a sort of pale orange, while that below is a pale metallic pink. Both have faded down to almost look grey. (Though perhaps I should be grateful for that):
From there, we'll head into the sitting room. This is the room I spend the most time (especially over the last freezing cold winter, when the lack of central heating meant I was holed up in here with the heater plugged in for about three months). It faces out onto the street and our front garden (and has my blogging view that I showed you before). It also has the least pleasant wallpaper in the house. Take a look:
Next door, is what we're currently using as a dining room (though it will become more of a playroom once we've knocked the walls down between the two front rooms…) The wallpaper is one of my favourites. It reminds me of the sort of wallpaper you'd have in children's rooms when I was growing up. Perhaps of staying overnight at my Granny's house, waking up in the morning and watching the rays of sun come in through the window onto the perfectly pristine floral wallpaper, unadorned by drawings or snot, unlike in my own bedroom at home…
Then we go to the back of the house to the kitchen, where there's another corker. This is my favourite in the entire house. We were contemplating simply keeping this in place (in a section of the kitchen at least) but unfortunately it's also in the worst condition, peeling off the walls in places. (Unfortunately, it's paired with some very lime green tiles, which are a little dazzling on the eyes.)
Back into the hallway now (don't worry, I won't show you that one again) and up the stairs. You reach the third bedroom first at the back of the house. It leads directly on to our only bathroom, so nobody can sleep in there at the moment and consequently it's got my sewing machine, wool, fabric stash and so on in there. Along with lots of boxes and things like that. The wallpaper is quite pleasing as well. It was quite hard to photograph as it's slightly iridescent and the light bounces back from it:
I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed when we reach the bathroom. There's no floral wallpaper at all on the walls. But! We do have these floral tiles:
And, that's not the best bit. We also have wallpaper on the ceiling, along with this (genuinely) amazing ceiling light:
I'm going to keep this light in the new bathroom, once it's built.
So now to the two front bedrooms, where, once again, we find some of my least favourite walls.
This is in our room, similar to the hallway and landing, but subtly different:
And this is the second bedroom, aka the toy-strewn sproglet's room:
So, that's the lot. What do you reckon, should we keep a patch of it somewhere for memory's sake?
*If you're close enough to visit the Geffrye Museum, I really recommend it. Aside from all the amazing rooms, the traditional herb garden there sets my heart racing a little bit. If London is too much of a schlep, though, you can see photos and virtual tours of all the different rooms online: Explore Rooms. Which is your favourite? I particularly love the 1910 drawing room…


text:
Fee shortfall threatens Illinois system of physician discipline
SPRINGFIELD -- Investigations into suspected misconduct by doctors could be delayed for months if the Illinois General Assembly fails to raise fees on the medical profession, a state agency spokeswoman said Thursday.
More than half of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation's 26-member medical unit will be eliminated Jan. 15 if legislative action isn't taken by then to alleviate a $6 million funding crunch, spokeswoman Susan Hofer said.
"We are out of money as of the end of this month," she said.
Laying off 18 state workers and more than doubling the workload on the remaining staff would lead to delays of weeks or months in issuance or renewals of state licenses for doctors, Hofer said.
Such delays could mean that hundreds of doctors scheduled to graduate from medical schools in 2013 couldn't begin specialty training on schedule because they wouldn't have Illinois licenses in hand, she said.
Waiting on fee deal
Until now, the General Assembly has been waiting for the administration of Gov. Pat Quinn to come to an agreement on a fee increase with groups that represent physicians, according to state Rep. Michael Zalewski, D-Riverside.
Zalewski said he hopes a bill resolving the issue can be passed during the lame-duck session in early January. If not, lawmakers probably won't take up the issue at least until February, he said.
"It's been made clear to both the General Assembly, the governor's office and the profession that there's a substantial shortfall," said Zalewski, chairman of the House Health Care Licenses Committee. "It's hard to say whether this issue will be addressed. There's definitely urgency."
The medical unit, like all other parts of Financial and Professional Regulation, is funded solely through licensing fees.
Illinois doctors pay for renewals that last three years. The effective annual fee to obtain or renew a state license is $100, an amount that hasn't changed since 1987.
The medical unit is operating with a "structural deficit" of $6 million, Hofer said.
"We are spending more to discipline and regulate physicians than we are taking in," she said.
Concerned about 'sweeps'
The legislature in recent years has required the medical unit to maintain an online public database of physician profiles, approve "chaperones" for doctors accused of sex crimes and revoke the medical licenses of convicted sex offenders, Hofer said, but without appropriating any additional money to handle those duties.
The $100 fee may need to be at least doubled, though it's possible that could be done over a multiple-year phase-in period, Zalewski said. But the Illinois State Medical Society worries that any increases could generate money for the General Assembly to "sweep" and use elsewhere in state government, he said.
The last such sweep took $8.9 million from the medical unit's fund in 2004, during the first term of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
That money should be restored, medical society president Dr. William Werner said in a statement Thursday.
Quinn hasn't authorized any sweeps and doesn't plan to do so in the future, Hofer said.
The medical unit investigates complaints involving any of the 45,800 doctors registered with the state. The unit also monitors the conduct of doctors who have been disciplined in the past, processes paperwork and oversees physician discipline. Between 200 and 300 doctors are disciplined each year.
The department has been trying to get the General Assembly to increase the licensing fee since 1997, Hofer said.
She noted that Illinois lawyers pay $342 a year to renew their licenses. Acupuncturists pay $250, and optometrists pay $200. Plumbers pay the same amount as doctors.
Annual license fees for doctors are higher in many other states, such as Texas ($404), California ($392), New York ($300), Iowa ($220), Ohio ($152), Kentucky ($150), Missouri ($135) and Wisconsin ($120), according to Hofer.
Dean Olsen can be reached at (217) 788-1543. Follow him at twitter.com/DeanOlsenSJR.


text:
Antetonitrus and the chamber of pneumaticity
What a month for publications it has been, it seems that all the fruits of my major paper-writing push last year, which incidentally explains the quiescence that Dracovenator experienced, have ripened at the same time. First was the short Massospondylus neotype paper. Following hard on its heels came the long awaited basal sauropodomorph pneumaticity paper which has already showcased on SV-POW and Jurassic Journeys. Just this week has seen the electronic publication of a third paper of mine, this time on bivalve molluscs and finally a fourth (sauropodomorphs once again) is expected fairly soon. However it's the pneumaticity paper that I want to talk about today. Indeed it's a paper I'm very proud and there is a load of stuff in it that I want to cover here in a bunch of posts. For now I'm just going to highlight a simple point from the paper: pneumatic structures can be well hidden, even on apparently well-prepared specimens. At this point I should probably introduce what pneumaticty, or more specifically postcranial skeletal pneumaticity (PSP), actually is. Put very simply some vertebrates have thin-walled and air filled extensions of the lung that can can actually grow through the body. When these extensions, called diverticula, reach bone they can actually enter it, hollowing out the bone forming structures hollows and chambers that we describe as pneumatic.
One might think that great big air-filled hollows invading bones would be easy to spot, and certainly in their advanced state they can be but not always. Take the vertebrae of Antetonitrus for example. This is what one of the mid posterior trunk vertebrae looked like before this study began.
A posterior trunk vertebra of Antetonitrus with the posterior infradiapophyseal fossa identified. Note the small patches of matrix left on walls of these hollows. What could they be hiding?
It looks rather simple and there is no sign of any sign of pneumatic chambers excavating the bone. But, and its hard to see on these before photos, there was a little bit of matrix stuck at the back of the hollow that is labeled the PIDF in the photo (PIDFstands for posterior infradiapophyseal fossa – you'll forgive if I continue to call it the PIDF). Given that the PIDF of our newly found sauropodomorphs from Spionkop often had structures recessed deep in the PIDF I wanted that last bit of matrix cleared away. What emerged was pretty impressive.
A view looking straight into the left pidf of Antetonitrus
In the words of Matt Wedel, a co-author on the eventual paper "those chambers rock!". They were especially cool because t had long been thought that the earliest sauropods weren't pneumatised but I think this evidence is pretty incontrovertible.
Might other basal sauropodomorphs have hidden pneumatic features tucked up into their pidfs? I'm sure of it. Camelotia for one certainly has something going on and love to be given the chance to properly check basal eusauropods like Shunosaurus.
Take home message is that an apparent lack of pneumatic features must be carefully examined before they can be dismissed as absent.
Yates, A.M., Wedel, M.J., and Bonnan, M.F. In press. The early evolution of postcranial skeletal pneumaticity in sauropodomorph dinosaurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. doi:10.4202/app.2010.0075
March 18, 2011 at 10:02 am
I'm very grateful to have been involved with this paper — I'm biased for sure, but I do believe our manuscript has important ramifications for dinosaur evolution.
March 18, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I would agree!
March 18, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Amazing photography.
November 7, 2013 at 2:37 pm
What's up to all, how is everything, I think every one
is getting more from this website, and your views are fastidious in support of new
April 9, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article.
I'll make sure to bookmark it and return to read more
of your useful info. Thanks for the post.
I will certainly comeback.
August 18, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Thanks , I have recently been looking for information about
this topic for a long time and yours is the greatest I've found out so far.
But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure about the supply?
September 13, 2014 at 6:23 am
I loved as much as you'll receive carried out right here.
The sketch is tasteful, your authored subject matter stylish.
nonetheless, you command get got an impatience over that you wish be delivering the following.
unwell unquestionably come further formerly again as exactly the same nearly a lot
often inside case you shield this increase.
November 20, 2019 at 9:48 am
Gostei esse blog. o material é surpreendentemente benéfico. Irei revir novamente.


text:
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle : we hear this everywhere today. Small changes in our everyday life go a long way towards a better environment and prepare us for a greener lifestyle. Driving hybrid cars (or not driving a car), using alternate modes of transport, conserving electrical energy at home (insulation, using lights only when you need it, using green lights) and yes, using a clothesline, particularly in summer season, are all the things to do to be green.
Last weekend I visited a green event hosted by the City of Belmont and was fascinated by the number of green vendors. The green industry is taking off in all walks of life. From the smart car to Segway, Argon filled double paned windows to Compost bins – all these contribute to having clean and less polluted air and a healthier planet. Continue reading


text:
Keith Olbermann on Letterman: 'I screwed up really big'
In his first TV appearance since his ouster from Current TV last week, Keith Olbermann told David Letterman on The Late Show Tuesday that "I screwed up really big."
"Let's just start there," said Olbermann, according to an early transcript provided by CBS. "I thought we could do this. It's my fault that it didn't succeed in the sense that I didn't think the whole thing through. I didn't say, 'you know, if you buy a $10 million chandelier, you should have a house to put it in. Just walking around with a $10 million chandelier isn't going to do anybody a lot of good, and it's not going to do any good to the chandelier.' And then it turned out we didn't have a lot to put the house on to put the chandelier in, or a building permit, and I, I should have known that. And it is, it is my fault at heart … Now, I've been in situations in my lifetime where the second I agreed to something, I got that sinking feeling in my stomach and I said to myself on those occasions, 'Holy goodness, I've just made a huge mistake.'"
Did that happen to you?" Letterman asked.
"It did," Olbermann said. "In that situation, what you're thinking is, 'Oh, Lord, this is probably going to hit the water at some point,' but what do you do? You have – you could bail out and say I'm getting out of this immediately,' and trust me, I was thinking about that as early as like last July. We'd been on the air about 10 days and they fired the guy who knew what he was doing who I worked for and I went, 'Uh-oh.'
"But I went home and just sort of had a conversation with myself and said, 'Look, these – the two important groups that are more important than what I do about myself – the audience who, you know, went to struggle to find where the network was and join me, and, most importantly, the staff.'" Olbermann continued. "And I had 25 people who, most of them came with me from other jobs, one guy was with me four different places, and they put their careers at risk for me, and I didn't even get a chance to say goodbye to them let alone thank them for the work that they did with me, and I'm, you know, I'm so proud of them because the show editorially was never better, but I let them down because the thing didn't continue."
Current TV released a statement saying it parted ways with the outspoken liberal news pundit, citing a difference in values. Olbermann shot back with a statement of his own saying "for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I've been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff."
For more:


text:
CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TEL CO v. MANNING(1902)
On July 14, 1898, the appellees commenced this suit in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, to restrain the defendant from discontinuing its telephone service to them.
Their bill alleged that the defendant was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, and for a long time past engaged in the business of furnishing telephone [186 U.S. 238, 239] exchange service in the District of Columbia; that with the assent and under the direction of the Congress of the United States and the commissioners of the District of Columbia it was occupying the streets, avenues, and alleys of the city of Washington with its conduits and electric wires; that the plaintiffs had a contract with the defendant for such service, terminable by either party upon ten days' notice in writing; that on July 2 they gave notice of their intention to terminate such contract. The bill further alleged the passage by Congress on June 30, 1898, of an act limiting the charges for telephone service; that they desired to continue the use of the telephone service furnished by defendant, and had tendered the amount required to be paid under the act of Congress, but that nevertheless the defendant threatened to remove the telephone and its appliances now in the premises of plaintiffs and to discontinue its telephone service to them.
The defendant answered admitting its incorporation, its business of furnishing telephone service, the passage of the act of Congress, set forth its contract with the complainants and the correspondence in reference to the termination of the contract, and alleged that the act of Congress had no application to any individual desiring telephone service, but only to such service as might be rendered for the public to the District of Columbia; that if it did apply to individuals desiring telephone service the act was beyond the power of Congress, inasmuch as the rates prescribed in it were arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, and unconscionable, because the service could not be furnished at the rates named therein without an actual loss to the defendant, thus practically working a deprivation of its property and property rights without just compensation or due process of law.
A preliminary injunction was granted restraining the defendant from removing the telephone and its appliances from the premises of plaintiffs or discontinuing its telephone service. Other suits of a similar nature were commenced in the same court by different parties against the telephone company. An order of consolidation of all these suits was entered, but the subsequent proceedings were carried on in this suit, the testi- [186 U.S. 238, 240] mony introduced being also used in the others, and their disposition the same as that made of this. A large volume of testimony was taken, and the case was submitted on pleadings and proofs. On February 28, 1900, a decree was entered dissolving the preliminary injunction and dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs. Mr. Justice Barnard, before whom the case was heard, was of the opinion that the rates fixed by the act were unreasonably low for the service and supplies to which they refer, and that, therefore, the act could not be sustained. An appeal was taken to the court of appeals of the District, which on May 21, 1901, reversed the decree of the supreme court and remanded the case with instructions to enter a decree granting the permanent injunction, as prayed for, but with a single modification. From such decree the case was brought to this court on appeal.
Messrs. John W. Griggs and A. S. Worthington for appellant.
Messrs. Arthur A. Birney, John J. Hemphil, Henry F. Woodward, and Arthur Peter for appellees.
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:
A preliminary question is whether the decision of the court of appeals is a final decree. We are of opinion that it is. After ordering a reversal of the decree of the supreme court, it adds: 'And that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said supreme court, for the entry of a decree granting the injunction in conformity with the opinion of this court.' The closing sentence of the opinion is as follows: 'For the reasons given the decree will be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for the entry of a decree granting the injunction in conformity with this opinion.' Prior thereto it is stated:
The preliminary injunction, thus referred to by the court of appeals, ' ordered, that upon payment by the complainants to the defendant of the sum of $12.50 as one quarter's rent for the use of the telephone described in their bill, the defendant, its officers, agents, and employees, be, and they are hereby, during the pendency of this suit restrained and enjoined from removing or attempting to remove from the premises of the complainants described in the bill of complaint the telephone and its appliances by said defendant heretofore placed therein, and from refusing or neglecting to connect the same with other telephones upon being requested so to do, and from neglecting or refusing to furnish telephone- exchange service to the complainants for the said telephone in the same manner as it has heretofore furnished such service.'
It thus appears that the court of appeals made a complete disposition of the controversy; that all that was left for the supreme court was the ministerial duty of entering a final injunction in the language of the preliminary order, with the proviso that it should operate until such time in the future as the de- [186 U.S. 238, 242] fendant should voluntarily withdraw from business in the District. Clearly this was a final decree. Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, 93 U.S. 108 , 23 L. ed. 822; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3 , 27 L. ed. 73, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15, and cases cited in the opinion; Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U.S. 127 , 29 L. ed. 117, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 799.
We pass, therefore, to a consideration of the merits. The legislation of Congress appears as a proviso in the District appropriation act, and is in the following words:
In its answer defendant pleaded that this legislation 'has no application to any individual desiring telephone service, but applies only to such service as may be rendered for the public to the District of Columbia, for the service rendered to said District for fire alarm, police, and other public purposes.' This defense is undoubtedly based on the fact that the paragraph in which this proviso is found, entitled 'telegraph and telephone service,' consists solely of appropriations for salaries and supplies in connection with telegraph and telephone service. As the paragraph, therefore, deals solely with public expenditures, the contention is that the proviso is a qualification of such public expenditures. As said by Mr. Justice Story, in Minis v. United States, 15 Pet. 423, 445, 10 L. ed. 791, 799:
See also Austin v. United States, 155 U.S. 417, 431 , 39 S. L. ed. 206, 211, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167.
While this is the general effect of a proviso, yet in practice it is not always so limited. As said in Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Smith, 128 U.S. 174, 181 , 32 S. L. ed. 377, 380, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47, 49: [186 U.S. 238, 243] 'The general purpose of a proviso, as is well known, is to except the clause covered by it from the general provisions of a statute, or from some provisions of it, or to qualify the operation of the statute in some particular. But it is often used in other senses. It is a common practice in legislative proceedings, on the consideration of bills, for parties desirous of securing amendments to them to precede their proposed amendments with the term 'provided,' so as to declare that, notwithstanding existing provisions, the one thus expressed is to prevail, thus having no greater signification than would be attached to the conjunction 'but' or 'and' in the same place, and simply serving to separate or distinguish the different paragraphs or sentences.'
In view of the general language of this proviso, it is not strange that appellant has not pressed this defense upon our consideration, and we are informed by counsel for the appellee that it was not called to the attention of the lower courts. We notice it only as leading up to a matter which is now presented. It appears by a stipulation of counsel that on February 1, 1898, while the District of Columbia appropriation act was pending in the House of Representatives, it was amended by adding the proviso in question. The amendment was not reported from any committee. The bill passed the House, February 2, and was thereupon sent to the Senate. On March 2, 1898, the committee on appropriations of the Senate reported the bill back to the Senate, recommending that the proviso be stricken out. This recommendation was rejected by the Senate on March 8, and the bill on that day passed. On the 9th day of March, on account of differences in respect to other parts of the bill, it was sent to a committee of conference. Prior to the passage of the act no investigation or inquiry was made by or at the instance of either House of Congress for the purpose of determining what would be fair and reasonable rates for telephone services in the District of Columbia, except as follows: On February 14, 1898, twelve days after the bill had passed the House and been sent to the Senate, the House adopted a resolution empowering a committee, appointed to investigate gas service in the District of Columbia, to investigate charges [186 U.S. 238, 244] for telephone service. On March 9, the committee began this investigation. On July 8 the committee reported the testimony they had taken, and asked to be continued with full powers and leave to sit in vacation, and report at the next session of Congress. The same day the House adjourned sine die without taking any action upon the recommendation of the committee. On February 28, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the Committee on the District of Columbia to investigate charges for telephone service, and on the 2d of March a further resolution for the payment of expert accountants and stenographers. Immediately thereafter the committee, by a subcommittee, prepared to enter upon an investigation, and requested an expert accountant to examine the books of the defendant. On the 8th of March, after the Senate had rejected the amendment offered by the committee to strike out the proviso, the committee was discharged from further consideration of the matter. The act passed both Houses and was approved June 30. Now this quotation is made from the opinion in Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418, 458 , 33 S. L. ed. 970, 981, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 209, 220, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462, 467, 702:
And upon it counsel for the company make these observations: 'And if the legislature cannot authorize a commission to fix rates without giving the corporations interested an opportunity to be heard, it is hard to see how the legislature itself can do so, not only without giving an opportunity for a hearing, but, as is admitted to be the fact in this case, without making even any ex parte investigation.' [186 U.S. 238, 245] But it is well settled that the courts always presume that the legislature acts advisedly and with full knowledge of the situation. Such knowledge can be acquired in other ways than by the formal investigation of a committee, and courts cannot inquire how the legislature obtained its knowledge. They must accept its action as that of a body having full power to act, and only acting when it has acquired sufficient information to justify its action. Of course, whether a particular act was passed by Congress does not at all depend upon facts like these. In Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 672 , 36 S. L. ed. 294, 303, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495, 497, it was said:
But while the conclusiveness of the authentication of the due passage of this act is in no manner impaired by the facts disclosed, yet those facts may be considered in determining what is the meaning and scope of the act. In Blake v. National City Bank, 23 Wall. 307, 319, 23 L. ed. 119, 120, where there was a question as to the meaning of a statute containing apparently contradictory provisions, it was said:
Again, in Platt v. Union P. R. Co. 99 U.S. 48, 64 , 25 S. L. ed. 424, 429, this rule was laid down:
And again, in Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 464 , 36 S. L. ed. 226, 229, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511, reference was made to the reports of committees of each House with a view of ascertaining the purpose of Congress in the statute then in question.
So, while we may not infer, from the mere fact that the committees of investigation never completed their work, that Congress acted unadvisedly, yet, as each body authorized a full investigation by a committee, and, before a report was received from such committee, took the action which it did, it is fairly open for consideration whether the general language found in this proviso is not subject to some limitations or qualifications. In other words, Did Congress intend to cover the whole field of telephone service, wherein it was then carrying on an appropriate but unfinished investigation, or was it content with making a limited provision for the present, leaving to future consideration the question of additional legislation? Defendant pleaded that the proviso applied simply to 'services rendered for the public to the District of Columbia.' But it is difficult to find this limitation suggested by either its terms or its place in the statute. The prohibition is upon any person or any telephone company doing business in the District, and against charging or receiving more than $50 per annum for the use of a telephone on a separate wire, etc. The language is general, and it is not easy to read in it a qualification or limitation upon the prior portion of the paragraph, to wit, that portion appropriating money for salaries and supplies, no part of such salaries and supplies going to the telephone company.
We pass, then, to inquire whether any other limitation or qualification of the prohibition found in this proviso may fairly be read in its language. And we start with the proposition that it cannot be presumed that a legislature intends any interference with purely private business. It cannot ordinarily prescribe what an individual or corporation, engaged in a purely private business, shall charge for services, and, there- [186 U.S. 238, 247] fore, although the language of a statute may be broad enough to include such private business, it will generally be excepted therefrom in order to remove all doubts of the validity of the legislation. It appears that some portion of the defendant's business is of a purely private nature, the receipts whereof are spoken of in its reports as private rentals, and as to such business Congress could not, if it would, prescribe what shall be charged therefor. In many buildings, both those belonging to the government or the District, and those belonging to private individuals, is what may be called a local telephone plant; that is, an arrangement of telephones by which parties in different rooms can communicate with each other; a system which is not connected with the general telephone exchange, and is no more public in its nature than the speaking tubes or call bells in a building. It is only for the personal use of parties in the building. By it those in the building cannot communicate with the general public, nor can such public reach parties in the building. It is simply a local convenience for the use solely of those who are in the building. Such combinations of telephone instruments in a single building, with no outside connections, are furnished by the defendant, and the rentals therefrom, as well as the expenses thereof, are entered in its books of account, and constitute a part of its business. The mere fact that such telephones are furnished by the company, which also does a public business, does not make them a part of such public business, or subject them to the regulation by Congress of its charges. A railroad company may, if authorized by its charter, carry on, not simply its strictly railroad business, but also an establishment for the manufacture of cars and locomotives. The fact that it is engaged in these two different works would not in itself subject the manufacture of cars and locomotives to the supervision of the legislature although such body would have the right to regulate the charges for railroad transportation. So, in an inquiry into the reasonableness of the charges imposed by Congress in this legislation, it is essential that the receipts and expenses from such private telephone systems be excluded from consideration. It may be that the trial court did not take these receipts and expenses [186 U.S. 238, 248] into consideration, but we refer to them because they are referred to in the testimony of some of the witnesses, and unless guarded against might be taken into account in the further investigation of this case.
Again, while a legislature may prescribe regulations for the management of business of a public nature, even though carried on by private corporations with private capital and for private benefit, the language of such regulations will not be broadened by implication. In other words, there is no presumption of an intent to interfere with the management by a private corporation of its property any further than the public interests require, and so no interference will be adjudged beyond the clear letter of the statute. Here the prohibition is against charging or receiving 'more than $50 per annum for the use of a telephone on a separate wire.' What kind of a telephone service is contemplated, and how much goes with the telephone? It appears from the testimony that there are two kinds of equipment, prescribed charges for transportation carried the other; that some of the company's subscribers are using the cheaper and inferior equipment. Was the statutory limitation of $50 per annum intended as the limit for the superior or the inferior equipment? It also appears from the testimony that the defendant furnishes to some of its customers, besides the mere telephone, such additional equipment as wall cabinet, desk auxiliary bells, etc., for which separate charges are made. Doubtless these additional appliances facilitate and tend to make more convenient and easy the business of telephoning, but they are not included in the terms of the statute, and all that is required by its language is the furnishing of the telephone. What equipment and appliances are essential, and what only matters of convenience, may not be clearly shown by the evidence, but obviously there can be no difficulty in securing proof thereof. Suppose, for instance, a legislature should prescribe the rates for the carriage of passengers by a railroad. If the language was limited to the mere transportation of the passengers it would not be held to include accommodations in a sleeper, although such sleeper belonged to the company and was used on its trains. Of course, if the statute in terms pre- [186 U.S. 238, 249] scribed charges for transportation carried on in the manner that it had been carried on, it might include all the conveniences which had been theretofore furnished by the company, but when the statute simply prescribes a rate for transportation it will include only the ordinary and necessary facilities for such transportation, and not those conveniences which make travel more comfortable. So here, if this statute had in terms prescribed that the company should furnish the same conveniences and facilities for carrying on the telephone business that it had been wont to do in the past, it would be held to mean the equipment heretofore used and to include all these auxiliary matters, but when it is limited to the 'use of a telephone' the courts cannot extend it beyond its terms and hold the statute to include things not named therein. The order which was directed by the court of appeals was one restraining and enjoining the defendant from removing from the premises of the complainant 'the telephone and its appliances by said defendant heretofore placed therein, and from refusing or neglecting to connect the same with other telephones upon being requested so to do, and from neglecting or refusing to furnish telephone exchange service to the complainants for the said telephone in the same manner as it has heretofore furnished such service.' In other words, the decree directed the defendant to furnish, for $50 per annum, the equipment with all the facilities and appliances which it had theretofore furnished, including, not merely the telephone on the separate wire, but the auxiliary matters heretofore referred to.
It may be that Congress, legislating simply for the use of the telephone, felt that the information it already possessed was sufficient to justify it in prescribing a reasonable charge therefor, at least for the inferior equipment, and did not wait for a full investigation in respect to the value of the use of the best equipment together with all these auxiliary matters. It may be that if all these matters are taken into account, and are within the purview of the statute, the conclusion of the trial judge was right, that no reasonable remuneration was furnished by the rates prescribed, whereas it may be that, excluding them, it will be evident beyond question that the charges pre- [186 U.S. 238, 250] scribed are reasonable and just. At any rate, the decree as directed by the court of appeals was erroneous and cast a burden upon the defendant to which it was not subjected by the legislation of Congress.
Before closing the opinion, one thing must be referred to. The court of appeals, not entering into any full inquiry as to the reasonableness of the charges, held that Congress had a right to prescribe them, whether reasonable or unreasonable, and that, if in fact unreasonable and unremunerative, the only recourse of defendant was to retire from its business. This involves a question of constitutional law of great importance, upon which we at present express no opinion. The future investigation may relieve from any necessity of considering it. At any rate, it is well to have the facts settled before we attempt to determine the applicable law. And the facts should be settled by the trial court.
In Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U.S. 167, 179 , 44 S. L. ed. 417, 423, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336, 340, a case involving the validity of railroad rates established by a commission in the state of South Dakota, and in which we found that there had been error in the methods pursued by the trial court for determining the question of reasonableness, we said:
In Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 , ante, 552, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 552, the questions before us arose on demurrer to the bill. We declined to enter into any determination of the law based upon the allegations of the bill, but overruled the demurrer and required the parties to introduce the testimony in order that the real facts might be presented before any determination was had in respect to the law, saying at the close of the opinion: 'The result is that in view of the intricate questions arising on the record, we are constrained to forbear proceeding until all the facts are before us on the evidence.' It may be that in this case further evidence may be needed, and, if so, the trial court may provide therefor.
The decree of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case remanded to that court, with directions to remand the cause to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia with instructions to that court to set aside its decree and inquire as to the reasonableness of the rates in the light of the construction we have given to the statute.
Mr. Justice Gray and Mr. Justice Brown did not hear the argument, and took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White dissenting:
My dissent is constrained, not alone because of an inability to concur in the reasoning contained in the opinion of the court and the decree based on it, but also because the court has not decided a question which is necessarily involved in the cause, and which it is essential, in my opinion, to dispose of now in order that justice may be adequately administered. The case is this: The act of Congress of 1898 fixed the rate to be charged for telephone service in the District of Columbia. The plaintiff in error, by whom alone the business of affording telephone facilities was carried on in the District of Columbia, refused to comply with the act of Congress. In other words, the corporation, [186 U.S. 238, 252] though it continued to use the public streets and places, without the use of which it could not carry on its business, asserted its right to disregard the act of Congress and to exact from the public rates largely in excess of the limit fixed by Congress. This the corporation claimed the right to do under the assumption that the rates fixed by Congress, if enforced, would prevent it from reaping adequate remuneration, and hence the result would be the confiscation of its right to use its plant, thereby giving rise to the taking of its property without due process of law. Concerning this proposition, in the trial court, voluminous testimony was introduced, and after an elaborate hearing the court held that the enforcement of the rates fixed by the act of Congress would deprive the company of the right to remuneratively use its plant, and therefore the act of Congress was repugnant to the Constitution. The court of appeals of the District reversed the trial court, and held that it was the duty of the corporation, if it continued in business, to conform to the rates fixed by Congress. In reaching this conclusion the court did not pass on what would be the effect of the rates fixed by Congress if they were put in force, because the court concluded even although the rates established by the act of Congress would prevent the corporation from reaping adequate reward for the use of its plant, nevertheless the corporation was under the obligation, if it continued its business, to comply with the act of Congress. In effect, the court held although the corporation was not bound to continue in the business of furnishing telephone facilities, yet if it elected to do so, and therefore used the public ways and streets, the corporation could not lawfully set at definance the act of Congress. And, reaching this conclusion, as previously stated, the court found it unnecessary to determine what would be the operation of the rates fixed by Congress, and abstained from so doing. The duty which the court thus held rested upon the company was deduced, not from general considerations, but from the particular relation of the company to the District of Columbia and the express conditions imposed by Congress in granting to the corporation the use of the streets or in legalizing such use.
The finding of the court on this subject was stated in its opin- [186 U.S. 238, 253] ion as follows, and the accuracy of this statement was not controverted in the argument at bar. The court said:
Now this court, in reversing the decree of the court of appeals, and remanding the case for a new trial, does not consider or decide the only question upon which the court of appeals rested its decree, but, on the contrary, that question is passed by upon the theory that it can be more appropriately decided after a further investigation of the facts to be had on the new trial which the court orders. The action of the court is sustained in [186 U.S. 238, 254] its opinion upon several propositions. Let me briefly consider them.
1st. As it is shown, there are various kinds of telephone service, some more complete and more expensive than others, and as the act of Congress does not contain a classification and a fixing of rates embracing all classes of such service, therefore it is decided that the case is not in a condition to be now disposed of finally, but must be remanded for a new trial in order that further testimony on this subject may be taken. But this involves a non sequitur. Conceding in the fullest degree that there are various kinds of telephone service, some more costly than others, and that the classification of the act of Congress does not embrace all kinds of such service, it is submitted that it should be now decided that the act of Congress applies to that which is customary and reasonable, and as to such customary and reasonable service compliance by the corporation with the act of Congress should be commanded. If it be that the decree below went further than this-which in my opinion it did not-then the decree should not be reversed, but should be modified so as to cause it to conform to the act of Congress, and as thus modified it should be affirmed.
2d. As the court finds that there are certain classes of telephones furnished by the company which are for private use and the charge for which Congress has no power to regulate, and as the court considers the proof as to the revenue derived from this character of telephone is not clear, therefore it is held the case must be remanded to take testimony on this subject. But the testimony in the record on the subject of these private telephones is as full as it can be made on the new trial. The number of such telephones is shown, the revenue received from them is established, and the influence to be produced upon the result of the rates fixed by Congress by the elimination of charges for such telephones is as clear on this record as it can be made in any record which may hereafter come before us for consideration. It follows then, even under the assumption that the limitation upon the power of Congress as to such telephones be well taken, in my opinion no adequate reason is thereby afforded for not deciding the controversy now presented by the [186 U.S. 238, 255] record. This is said, of course, under the assumption, arguendo only, that the rule as to private telephones announced by the court is correct.
But putting out of view all these considerations, and conceding that what has been previously said is erroneous, in my judgment the case ought not to be reversed and remanded without deciding the fundamental question which the cause presents which was decided by the court of appeals, and which, if the view taken by that court be sound, is controlling. Now that question lies at the very threshold of the case. It is wholly independent of, and cannot, in the slightest degree, be influenced by, any further investigation of fact which may be made on the new trial which is now ordered. I do not know how to more aptly illustrate the duty which exists to decide this question than by taking into view the situation as disclosed by this record. Certainly since the act of Congress was passed in 1898 the corporation has, in defiance of that act, continued to use for its benefit the public streets and property, and has in doing so imposed upon the public burdens which the corporation had no right to exact if the act of Congress was lawful. Beyond all question, this condition of things must now continue for a long period of time during the progress of the new trial which the court now orders. Let me suppose that, after the new trial, when the record again comes here, the rates as fixed by Congress will be found to be so low that they will compel the corporation to abandon the use of the public ways, and hence go out of business. What will be the duty of the court then? Will it not be compelled to decide the question which is now left undecided? Let me further assume that then the opinion of this court will be in accord with that expressed on the case now here by the court of appeals. Will it not necessarily follow that the corporation will be held during all the intervening time to have wrongfully violated the act of Congress, and to have unlawfully imposed upon the public? And yet all this wrong and all this abuse which must arise under the hypothesis which has been stated can be absolutely prevented if the court now decides the question it will necessarily be called upon to decide hereafter. To me it seems clear that it is no [186 U.S. 238, 256] answer to this proposition to say that it may be, when the case hereafter is presented for decision, the court may conclude that the principle upheld by the court of appeals was erroneous. Concede this, and yet the duty of now deciding the question appears to me to be equally manifest. I submit whatever may be the conclusion as to the correctness of the principle announced by the court of appeals, that principle can never be overthrown upon the theory that there was no power in Congress to deprive the corporation of the use of the public streets and property without compensation, since in unequivocal and express terms the various permissions granted by Congress to the corporation to use the public streets provide in language, leaving no room for construction, that the power was reserved to Congress to revoke at its will and pleasure the right of the corporation to use the streets. It necessarily follows that the view announced by the court of appeals can in any event be disregarded only upon the theory that while power is in Congress to take away the right of the corporation to use the streets without giving it compensation, that an act fixing rates is not the exercise by Congress of such power. But if such be the correct view, then that interpretation, in the interest of a sound administration of the law and for the protection of the public, should be now declared. The reason for this is apparent, because, if such a principle were now announced, admonished by the opinion of this court, Congress will more advisedly be able to exert such further action as will prevent the corporation from using the public property in disregard of law, and save the public from extortion if it results from charging higher rates than those fixed by the law now under consideration.
While I am not authorized to say that Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice McKenna concur in the reasons which I have just given for my dissent, they request me to state that they also dissent from the opinion and decree of the court.


text:
Mother Whale Eyeless
Brian Eno
I can think of nowhere I would rather be
Reading morning papers, drinking morning tea:
She clutches the tray
And then we talk just like a kitchen sink play
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Living so close to danger,
Even your friends are strangers
Don't count upon their company.
This is for the fingers,
This is for the nails:
Hidden in the kitchen,
Right behind the scales.
What do I care?
I'm wasting fingers like I had them to spare,
Plugging holes in the Zuider Zee.
Punishing Paul for Peter,
Don't ever trust those meters
What you believe is what you see.
In my town, there is a raincoat under a tree.
In the sky, there is a cloud containing the sea.
In the sea, there is a whale without any eyes.
In the whale, there is a man without his raincoat.
In another country, with another name
Maybe things are different, maybe they're the same.
Back on the trail,
The seven soldiers read the papers and mail
But the news, it doesn't change.
Swinging about through creepers,
Parachutes caught on steeples
Heroes are born, but heroes die.
Just a few days, a little practice and some holiday pay,
We're all sure you'll make the grade.
Mother of God, if you care,
We're on a train to nowhere
Please put a cross upon our eyes.
Take me - I'm nearly ready, you can take me
To the raincoat in the sky.
Take me - my little pastry mother take me
There's a pie shop in the sky.


text:
We've had a few spammers lately and some members do not know best how to get a hold of a mod. Unfortunately, I think you have to "friend" someone to message them. I know that can be a pain, so we'll just post info here so spammers can be taken care of quickly.
If you've been getting bothersome messages from someone, please post their ID/page here and we'll take a look and see if the account needs to be suspended.
Known spammers: Stella Kwale and Frank Kwabena. I am sure these aren't even real people, but their accounts come around every now and again.
Any questions - please post them here.
Views: 1252
Replies are closed for this discussion.
OozingLAVA.com is not our site. OozingGOO is ours. You will need to take up these complaints with a moderator from their forum.
In case anyone does not know who is on the mod team. Friend us and send us a message or post here. I'll be following this post so I'll get updates if anyone posts anything.
Dr. WHAT?!
Spam 2/15/17
I just suspended them all.
All pushing the same agenda, haha
Hitting hard tonight
© 2023 Created by Mark Goo. Powered by


text:
i-KNOW 2013 : 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Computing
Conference Series : International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies
|Link: http://i-know.tugraz.at/iscience-track/cfp
Call For Papers
Call for Papers I-KNOW 2013
13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Computing
Graz, Austria, 4 - 6 September 2013
I-KNOW proceedings published by ACM ICPS
Synergies of Knowledge Disciplines
The 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Computing (I-KNOW 2013) will be held from September 4 to 6, 2013 at the Messe Congress in Graz, Austria. I-KNOW is a top-tier international conference in the areas of knowledge management and knowledge computing. Since 2001, it has successfully brought together leading researchers and developers from the these communities and attracted annually over 500 international attendees.
The purpose of the conference is to provide a crystallization point for different disciplines of knowledge management (such as Business Science and the Social Sciences) and knowledge computing (such as knowledge discovery, social networks and context-aware computing). Renown researchers from these knowledge disciplines meet to identify challenging problems facing the development and introduction of future knowledge systems, and to shape future research directions through the publication of high quality, applied and theoretical research findings.
I-KNOW 2013 will continue the successful tradition of the conference series and will specifically provide interactive and innovative formats to support the synergies of knowledge management and knowledge computing fields. We encourage submissions of high quality papers on all topics in the general areas of knowledge & data analytics, social & ubiquitous computing, knowledge & innovation management, and science 2.0.
Based on successful collaboration, I-KNOW 2013 will continue the tradition of collocating with the I-SEMANTICS conference, the 9th International Conference on Semantic Systems (www.i-semantics.at).
Important Dates
Full Paper Submissions
* Abstract Submission Deadline: March 25, 2013
* Paper Submission Deadline: April 1, 2013
* Notification of Acceptance: May 3, 2013
* Camera-Ready Paper: June 10, 2013
Poster & Demonstration Submissions
* Submission Deadline: May 21, 2013
* Notification of Acceptance: June 18, 2013
Conference Topics
Knowledge & Data Analytics
I-KNOW 2013 seeks for novel contributions in advancing the field of knowledge & data analytics as well as in providing new means to utilize, navigate and search large, heterogeneous data pools. We aim to bridge data-centric and user-centric approaches and welcome contributions from both ends of the spectrum. Besides new algorithms and techniques, we are also interested on applications in the wild, user-centric evaluations of real-world applications as well as empirical studies. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):
Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
* Big Data in Knowledge Discovery
* Data Mining in the Linked Data Cloud
* Text/Web/Social/User Behaviour Mining
* Unsupervised Machine Learning
* Supervised and Semi-Supervised Learning
* Deep Machine Learning
* Enterprise Retrieval
* Temporal Knowledge Discovery
* Data Structures, Frameworks, and Models underlying Knowledge and Data Mining
* Natural Language Analysis and Sentiment Detection
* Data and Information Retrieval (e.g. cross-language retrieval, interactive retrieval methods, multimedia and cross-modal information retrieval)
* Data and Information Quality
* Knowledge Base Population and Information Extraction
Visual Analytics & Information Visualisation
* Visual Analytics and Intelligent User Interfaces for Data Analytics
* Information Visualisation
* Scalability of Visual Analytics and Knowledge Discovery Techniques
* Interactive Knowledge Discovery
* Visual Representations and Interaction Techniques
* Visualisation of Knowledge, Semantic Information and Linked Data
* Visualisation of Search Results, Text and Multimedia Corpora
* Visualisation of Temporal, Spatial and Sensory Data
* Process and Workflow Visualisation
* Visual Support for Reasoning and Decision Making
* Discourse and Collaborative Visualisation
* Cognitive and Perceptual Factors in Visualization
Social & Ubiquitous Computing
I-KNOW 2013 seeks for innovative contributions in the fields of social and ubiquitous computing, specifically with the focus on supporting to mobile knowledge work. We aim at developing deeper insights into the mechanisms of collaborations, communities, content quality, etc. - not only based on user behaviour in virtual environments but also in the real world. The currently open challenge is, to technically deal with behaviour and usage data and to analyse it in such a way as to benefit the individual in highly distributed and mobile situations at work and in personal tasks, such as in health care and crisis settings as well as in community engagements and self-directed learning. Besides new apps, methods, and architectures, we are also interested on applications in the wild, user-centric evaluations of real-world applications as well as conceptual overviews that help us understand – or challenge our understanding of – the impact of these technologies. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):
Social Computing
* Social Media, Social Web, and Social Network Analysis
* Web 2.0, Future Internet, and Web Science
* Collaborative Knowledge Creation and Crowdsourcing
* Information Quality and Knowledge Maturing
* Community Evolution
* Social Information Seeking and Recommender Systems
* Social Search and Retrieval Systems
* Temporal and Spatial Analysis of Social and Information Networks
* Social-Semantic-Content Networks and their Analysis
* Semantic Uplifting in Social Networks
* Spam, Misinformation and Malicious Activity Discovery in Social Systems
* Social Gaming and Human Computing
* Privacy & Trust
Ubiquitous Computing
* Mobile and Ubiquitous Data Management and Processing
* Bridging the Digital and Physical Worlds
* Sensors and Sensor Analytics
* Usage and Usage Data Analytics
* Mobile Social Networking and Mobile Web
* Mobile Work (requirements, characteristics, solutions...)
* Context-aware Systems and Applications
* Ubiquitous Computing Architectures and Infrastructures
* User Interaction and Usability on Mobile Devices
* Security and Privacy Aspects of (mobile) Sensing Applications
Knowledge Management in Industry & Science
Like all major societal challenges, knowledge management touches diverse aspects of life and thus needs a multi-disciplinary approach for finding solutions. We seek for novel contributions from management science, social sciences, psychology and computer science which address the challenges of managing knowledge in increasingly distributed and mobile work settings as well as turning knowledge into high impact innovations. We will examine these topics within enterprise and the scientific settings. Besides new theories, models and approaches, we are also interested on applications in the wild, user-centric evaluations of real-world applications as well as empirical studies. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):
Knowledge Management
* Enterprise 2.0 and Corporate Web 2.0
* Mobile Work and Performance Support
* Creativity and Knowledge Work
* Personal Information Management
* Innovative Business Models
* Open Innovation and Crowd Funding
* Innovation Process and Knowledge Maturing
* Knowledge Transfer and Experience Management
* Process-oriented Knowledge Management
* Increasing Efficiency and Measurement Approaches
* Convergence of Knowledge Management and Learning
* Skill and Competency Management
* Service-oriented Architectures and Knowledge Infrastructures
* Trust & Privacy Approaches
Science 2.0
* New Publication and Research Processes
* Opportunities and Challenges for Researchers and Research organizations
* New Indicator Systems to Measure Scientific Quality
* Awareness-support for Science 2.0 Activities
* New Paradigms for Scientific Communication
* New Feedback Mechanisms among Researchers and between Science and Society
* Empirical Studies on the Use of Web 2.0 Tools for Science 2.0
* Marketplaces for Scientific Data and Publications
* Recommender Systems in Science 2.0
* Virtual Research Environments
* Digital Research Libraries
* Applications in and for Science 2.0
* Crowd-sourcing in Science
* Robust Methods for dealing with Noisy Crowd-sourced Data
* Data Schemes and Interoperability Formats
* Social Mining and Metadata Extraction in Academic Resources
* Metadata Quality and Quality Assessment
* Design and architecture of data sharing facilities
* Semantic Web Standards for Science 2.0
* Systems design accounting for standardized data sets
Conference Organizers
General Chairs
* Stefanie Lindstaedt, Know-Center and Graz University of Technology, Austria
* Michael Granitzer, University of Passau, Germany
Program Chairs Knowledge & Data Analytics
* Jörn Kohlhammer, FHG IGD, Germany
* Roman Kern, Know-Center Graz, Austria
* Vedran Sabol, Know-Center Graz, Austria
* Wolfgang Kienreich, Know-Center Graz, Austria
* Christin Seifert, University of Passau, Germany
Program Chairs Social & Ubiquitous Computing
* Denis Helic, Graz University of Technology, Austria
* Viktoria Pammer, Know-Center and Graz University of Technology, Austria
* Christoph Trattner, Know-Center Graz, Austria
Program Chairs Knowledge Management in Industry and Science
* Klaus Tochtermann, ZBW - Leibniz Information Center for Economics, Germany
* Peter Kraker, Know-Center Graz, Austria
Workshop Chairs
* Nina Simon, Know-Center Graz, Austria
* Lyndon Nixon, STI2, Austria
Poster & Demonstration Chairs
* Patrick Höfler, Know-Center Graz, Austria
* Jörg Simon, Know-Center Graz, Austria
Local Organization & Dissemination Chair
* Nina Simon, Know-Center Graz, Austria


text:
Micro Lab Tubes
"Q" Glass uses the highest quality glass to manufacturer our laboratory glassware micro lab tubes to the highest industry standards.
If you work with chemistry lab equipment or chemical glassware, you know the importance of finding durable, heat-resistant, transparent, and easy to customize chemical glassware. Our glassware varies and all of our items are customizable allowing you to order the perfect product! All catalog items are available to ship from New Jersey within one week of order if they are not in stock.
"Q" Glass has evolved to become one of the leading laboratory glassware manufacturers in the industry, serving the scientific, medical, and chemical research communities. Priding ourselves on having the "Q" in "Q" Glass, which stands for quality, this family own company holds our clients expectations for our chemical glassware to the highest standard. All of our glassware follows the same production and quality assurance testing that our family set forth in the 1946. Have a question about any of our products or a custom order? Our experienced staff will provide you with recommendations and suggestion to see that you're getting the best use of our glassware.
Call to place an order 973-335-5191 or click here to complete the order form.


text:
TV One has established a strong marketing factor for the network with its music series, "Unsung."
Past episodes have highlighted singers like Teddy Pendergrass, Teena Marie, Phyllis Hyman and plenty of others. The network attempted to cover the story of singer Stephanie Mills recently but was totally rejected.
The singer came forward to talk about why she refused the gig.
"I don't like that show," the Grammy Award winner revealed in a recent interview with The Huffington Post. "They have approached me quite a few times, but I [won't] do that show."
"I've always been very private and at 55 I don't want to open up my life to that," she continued. "They've done Angela Winbush and they even wanted me to say something about her on that show, and I love Angela, we're sisters. But I had to tell her, 'I don't want to do that.' … I'm not that girl."
She said her life is her own business and her career is what it was, a career.
"I feel like I've had a wonderful career. I've done wonderful things and met some many wonderful different people. So I don't feel like I'm unsung at all."


text:
Naperville, IL -- (SBWIRE) -- 07/11/2012 -- Pregnancy Global Clinical Trials Review, H1, 2012 provides data on the Pregnancy/Impaired Glucose Toleranceclinical trial scenario. This report provides elemental information and data relating to the clinical trials on Pregnancy/Impaired Glucose Tolerance. It includes an overview of the trial numbers and their recruitment status as per the site of trial conduction across the globe. The databook offers a preliminary coverage of disease clinical trials by their phase, trial status, prominence of the sponsors and also provides briefing pertaining to the number of trials for the key drugs for treating Pregnancy/Impaired Glucose Tolerance.
- Data on the number of clinical trials conducted in North America, South and Central America, Europe, Middle-East and Africa and Asia-pacific and top five national contributions in each, along with the clinical trial scenario in BRIC nations
- Clinical trial (complete and in progress) data by phase, trial status, subjects recruited and sponsor type
- Listings of discontinued trials (suspended, withdrawn and terminated)
Reasons to buy
- Understand the dynamics of a particular indication in a condensed manner
- Abridged view of the performance of the trials in terms of their status, recruitment, location, sponsor type and many more
- Obtain discontinued trial listing for trials across the globe
- Espy the commercial landscape of the major Universities / Institutes / Hospitals or Companies
Pregnancy/Impaired Glucose Tolerance Clinical Trials, Trial Designs, Subjects Recruited, Unaccomplished Trials of Pregnancy/Impaired Glucose Tolerance, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Abbott Laboratories, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Celgene Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd., Bayer AG, Eisai Inc., GE Healthcare, Biogen Idec Inc., Copharos Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., National Cancer Center, The University of Texas, M.D. Andersons, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Cancer Research UK, North Central Cancer Group, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, The Cancer and Leukemia Group B, Columbia University, UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Duke University, Ohio State University, National Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania.
To view table of contents for this market report please visit


text:
Every time I step out into the garden I cannot help but admire the vibrant colours of Bougainvillea. For special occasions I love to make ice bowls and sometimes decorate them with the colourful papery leaves of Bougainvillea. Serving cold foods in decorated ice bowls adds a sophisticated touch to special occasions and will deliver a few oohs and ahhas from your guests. I was first inspired by the idea of making ice bowls after reading about a restaurant that made them for their dessert trolley, to serve ice cream from, loved the idea and have made ice bowls since.
Ice bowls are easy to make and no special molds are required (although handy if you come across them), all you need is a pair (or pairs) of nesting bowls. Sometimes I make one large ice bowl as a centerpiece for the table and other times I make individual ice bowls for serving, depending on the occasion. As Bougainvillea is non edible I place a smaller glass dish inside the ice bowl, so the food will not come in contact with the leaves… just to be on the safe side. Other times I place the food directly into the ice bowl when using edible decorations. Only limited by your imagination, ice bowls and can be decorated with flowers, herbs, fruits, sweets and whole spices. Wonderful for serving prawns, ice creams, sorbet, chilled soups and fruit.
A few ice bowl tips:
- Make sure you have enough room in your freezer to accommodate the ice bowls. Ceramic, metal and glass bowls can be used, make sure they are suitable for the freezer.
- Using bottled water makes a more transparent ice, using drinkable tap water gives a frosted look.
- Adding lots of decorations makes the ice bowl melt faster.
- Make sure the inside space between the two bowls is at least half an inch to three-quarters of an inch, the thicker the ice bowl the longer it will last.
- Water expands, do not fill the bowls completely with water, over filling makes the ice bowl harder to remove.
- Do not stand the bowl in hot water when removing the ice bowl, this will crack the ice bowl.
- When serving place the ice bowl on a suitable plate, to catch water as it melts. Also you might want to fold a small square of kitchen paper to place under the ice bowl, stops it from sliding around, the kitchen paper also absorbs some of the melting ice. A napkin or doily can also be placed under the ice bowl.
- Food placed into the ice bowl should be thoroughly chilled.
Making and Ice Bowl
You will need:
- 2 bowls that fit inside each other, with 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch gap at the sides
- cold bottled water
- strong sticky tape
- decorations of your choice, rinsed with water
Directions: Fill the larger bowl part way with cold water. Place the smaller bowl inside and fill with water, to weigh it down until the top of both bowls are level. Use pieces of sticky tape to secure the small bowl (make sure it is centered) from moving around. Add decorations to the sides and gently push them down using the handle of a spoon, if necessary. Freeze the mold overnight or for 24 hours if making a larger bowl.
When completely frozen remove the bowl from the freezer and allow to stand for around 10 to 15 minutes. Remove the inner bowl, it should twist easily around the ice. Turn the larger bowl upside down on a clean work surface and shake the bowl gently with your fingers placed underneath, to catch the ice bowl when released. I usually do this ahead of time and place the ice bowl back into the freezer on a tray lined with non-stick paper until needed.


text:
Suspect arraigned in motorcycle-SUV Brawl in NYC
A motorcyclist was charged Wednesday with reckless driving after prosecutors said he touched off a tense encounter with the driver of an SUV and a throng of other bikers that ended with blood and broken bones on a Manhattan street.
Christopher Cruz, 28, of Passaic, N.J., was also charged with unlawful imprisonment. His bail was set at $1,500 cash. His attorney, H. Benjamin Perez, said his client denied all the allegations.
"He will come back to fight this case and clear his name," he said.
Cruz, who has had previous criminal cases in New Jersey, including one in which he pleaded guilty to theft, is the only person charged criminally so far in the Sunday incident that was caught on a helmet-mounted camera worn by another biker and was posted online anonymously.
The Manhattan district attorney's office decided not to immediately prosecute a second suspect, Allen Edwards, 42, who surrendered to police on Tuesday. But prosecutors said the investigation continues, and they served notice that they intend to take the case against Cruz to a grand jury — a sign that more serious charges are likely.
Prosecutors and police said Cruz was participating in a motorcycle rally speeding along Manhattan's West Side Highway. Cruz cut in front of a black Range Rover and, still staring at its driver, slowed down so much that the rear tire of his chopper bumped the front of the SUV, they said. He got out and approached the SUV, prosecutors said.
Video captured the moment as about two dozen riders slowed down, swarming the SUV and blocking its path. Some dismounted and approached the vehicle. Police said some of the bikers then began damaging the Range Rover.
The driver, who police say was frightened for his family in the car, suddenly lurched forward, plowing over another rider before heading north. The cyclists gave chase, pursuing the driver for about 2.5 miles. The bikers succeeded in getting the SUV to stop.
The chase ended when the SUV exited the highway and got stuck in street traffic. The video showed one biker using his helmet to smash the driver's window. Police said the group then pulled the man from the SUV and beat him, although that part isn't shown on the recording posted online. The police department confirmed that the video circulating online is authentic.
The driver of the SUV, Alexian Lien, 33, was taken to a hospital where he needed stitches for his face. His wife and 2-year-old were not injured.
The biker struck, Edwin Mieses, Jr., remained hospitalized Wednesday. His legs were broken and he has spine injuries that will leave him paralyzed, his wife said. She said her husband is the victim, not the driver of the SUV. At least one other biker was injured.
"Everyone wants to blame the bikers for something this man did," Dayana Mieses said.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the motorcyclists were participating in a periodic rally in which more than 1,000 bikers head for Times Square. He said police were caught by surprise by the unpermitted event last year but were aware it was taking place this year and "did a fair amount of enforcement" to break up the procession.
A Brooklyn rider present during the chase told the New York Times, "No biker became aggressive with the driver after the incident." People were just trying to find out what just happened," said Rene Towles, 43, a member of a Brooklyn motorcycle club.
There were 15 other arrests and 55 motorcycles confiscated, Kelly said.
Charisma L. Miller, Esq., Brooklyn Daily Eagle contributing.
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment