In broadcasting, playout is a term for the transmission of radio or TV channels from the broadcaster into broadcast networks that delivers the content to the audience. Those networks can consist of terrestrial transmitters for analogue or digital radio and TV, cable networks or satellites (either for direct reception, DTH, or intended for cable television headends).
The playout happens in master control in a playout area, which can be either situated in the central apparatus room or in purposely built playout centres, which can be owned by a broadcaster or run by an independent specialist company that has been contracted to handle the playout for a number of channels from different broadcasters.
Some of the larger playout centres in Europe, Southeast Asia and the United States handle well in excess of 50 radio and TV „feeds“. Feeds would often consist of several different versions of a core service, often different language versions or with separately scheduled content, such as local opt outs for news or promotions.
Centralcasting is multi-channel playout that generally uses a broadcast automation systems with broadcast programming applications. These systems generally work in a similar way, controlling video servers, video tape recorder (VTR) devices, Flexicarts, audio mixing consoles, vision mixers and video routers, and other devices using a serial communications 9-Pin Protocol (RS-232 or RS-422). This provides deterministic control, enabling frame accurate playback, Instant replay or video switching. Many systems consist of a front end operator interface on a separate platform to the controllers – e.g. a Windows GUI will present a friendly easy to use method of editing a playlist, but actually control would be done on a platform with a „real time“ operating system such that any large scale playlist amendments do not cause any delays to device control.
Most broadcast automation systems will have a series of common device drivers built in, for example Sony VTR control (aka Sony Serial), Louth Video Disk Control Protocol (VDCP, a proprietary communications protocol), General Purpose Interface (GPI), or Grass Valley Group M21 Master Control. This ensures that a broadcast automation system bought „off the shelf“ will at least be able to ingest and playout content, although may not be able to take advantage of more efficient methods of control. Most server, and especially most digital on-screen graphic and character generator (CG) manufacturers will have a specific device driver for their device, with increasing degrees of complexity, and different automation companies will include these drivers to enhance their product or to fit a customers need.
This is the „traditional“ method of Playout Automation, where there are multiple devices. Modern automation systems use the Automated Playout method, which is where the broadcast server fulfills the functions of the multiple devices, and is a self-contained system (see Channel in a Box section below).
Playout will usually involve an airchain of devices which begin with content, typically stored on video server, and ultimately an output, either as an (Asynchronous serial interface) (ASI) / IP or (Serial Digital Interface) (SDI) for on pass to a distribution company.
The devices in the chain depend on the service required under the contact with the Channel. Typically a standard television channel would require a Master Control Video switcher, and/or a Video router to allow switching of live sources. This video switcher may include other functions such as keying (graphics) (also known as Down Stream Keyers), Audio Overs for mixing in voice overs (VO) or announcements, and facilitate transitions between events, such as a fade through black or crossfade (also known as mix).
Other devices include:
Graphics inserters – At least one Graphics inserter, or one with several layers. This allows for Station identification/Logo/Digital on-screen graphic (Dog or Bug) insertion, and can also be‘ used for end credits sequences, coming next graphics or programme information straps
Subtitling inserters – This can be either closed or open – i.e. in vision as a graphic for all to see, or closed either as an MPEG stream item, Closed Captioning or World System Teletext.
Audio servers – An audio playout system would provide scheduled voiceovers
Aspect Ratio Converters – These alter the picture shape or send an embedded signal to allow the material format to be displayed correctly on a particular feed (e.g. Widescreen on a standard non-widescreen Analogue terrestrial feed)
Some of these more advanced devices require information from the playlist, and so do not tend to use an RS422/232 driver, but a complex XML based system which allows for more complex metadata to be passed, e.g. a „Now“ or „Next“ Graphic can be created from a template using text information from the playlist.
In recent years there has been a move to replicate all of these functions in a single system, often called a „channel in a box“ solution. These are often cheaper to introduce and allow for a more scalable Playout system.
Playout is one of the basic infrastructure of a playout center. Mostly called as channel in a box server, but basically composed of playout servers with integrated graphics and IP or ASI output. Aim of playout centers is mostly to serve customers a simple file based television facility. Up-link and Channel in a box servers simply provide the facility latest football jersey.
A common workflow is for the broadcast automation system to have a recording schedule to ingest material from a satellite or line feed source and then time-shift that material based on a playlist or schedule.
The playout schedule will have been created in the customer’s broadcast programming scheduling system and exported into a format suitable to be used in the Playout system. There is a move to SMPTE-22, known as Broadcast Exchange Format (BXF) to try to standardise the messaging involved in this interaction.
The resulting playlist is „loaded“ into the appropriate channel of the broadcast automation system in advance of the transmission time. Various processes will take place to ensure the content is available on the correct servers for playout at the right time small water bottles, typically this involves advance requests to move material from deep storage such as Tape Archives or FTP Clusters to Broadcast Video servers, often using FTP.
On playing out the material, the audio and video signals are usually transported from the playout area to the network via a studio/transmitter link (STL), which may be fibre backlink, microwave or satellite uplink.
Playout is often referred to as Presentation or Transmission (TX), and is under control of an automatic transmission system.
корабль «Принц Густав» корабль «Исидор» корабль «Гавриил»
Русско-шведская война (1788—1790) Война второй коалиции Война шестой коалиции
брат М. Л. Трескин
Иван Львович Трескин ((1761) — после 1817) — русский вице-адмирал.
12 апреля 1773 года зачислен в Морской кадетский корпус, который окончил 1 мая 1777 года с производством в чин гардемарина.
1 мая 1779 года произведен в чин мичмана, а 1 января 1782 года — в чин лейтенанта.
В 1786—1787 годах командуя транспортным судном № 1 перевозил грузы для Александровского пушечного завода из Санкт-Петербурга в Петрозаводск.
В 1788 году на 66-пушечном корабле «Мстислав» участвовал в Гогландском сражении, затем плавал в финских шхерах, перехватывая отдельные шведские корабли. 1 мая 1789 года произведен в чин капитан-лейтенанта с назначением на 100-пушечный корабль «Кир Иоанн», на котором участвовал в Эландском, Ревельском и Выборгском сражениях и за отличия награждён орденом Св. Владимира 4-й степени с бантом и золотой шпагой «За храбрость».
23 сентября 1797 года произведен в чин капитана 2-го ранга и назначен командиром 74-пушечного корабля «Принц Густав» и в эскадре вице-адмирала М. К. Макарова послан в Англию, но корабль после шторма затонул, а команда спаслась на шлюпках. Трескин был назначен командовать кораблем «Исидор» и участвовал в Голландской экспедиции. 28 ноября 1799 года произведен в чин капитана 1-го ранга.
26 ноября 1802 года «за осьмнадцать шестимесячных морских компаний» награждён орденом Св. Георгия 4-й степени.
9 января 1803 года произведен в чин капитан-командора. В 1805 году командуя 130-пушечным кораблем «Гавриил» в составе эскадры под командованием адмирала Е. Е. Тета участвовал в перевозке десантных войск из Кронштадта, Риги и Ревеля в Шведскую Померанию.
1 января 1808 года Трескин был произведен в чин контр-адмирала и переведен на Черноморский флот, где в 1808—1810 годах командовал эскадрой, назначенной действовать у кавказских берегов, и участвовал в боевых операциях против турок. В 1811 году снова переведен на Балтийский флот и в следующем году, находясь в эскадре адмирала Е. Е. Тета, плавал в Англию. В 1813 году, командуя эскадрой из трех линейных кораблей, фрегата и брига, плавал у берегов Франции и Голландии и участвовал в сражении под Флиссингеном. В 1814 году находился при блокаде Берген-оп-Зома и взятии его десантным отрядом, за что награждён орденом Св. Анны 1-й степени. После окончания военных действий на своих кораблях перевозил войска Гвардейского корпуса в Петербург.
30 августа 1814 года произведен в чин вице-адмирала и назначен командовать 3-й дивизией Балтийского флота.
23 августа 1817 года уволен в отставку с мундиром и пенсией.
E.M.I.L.Y. (sometimes, EMILY or Emily; acronym for Emergency Integrated Lifesaving Lanyard) is a robotic device used by lifeguards for rescuing swimmers. It operates on battery power and is operated by remote control after being dropped into the water from shore, a boat or pier, or helicopter. Using an impeller motor to travel through water, it is able to reach victims much faster than a human lifeguard can by swimming, and it more compact and less expensive to maintain than manned watercraft. It can also operate in weather and surf conditions that make other rescue attempts impractical. Once it reaches the victims its foam core allows it to function as a floatation device for up to 4-6 people holding onto side ropes or handles cheap childrens replica football kits.
Emily was created by inventor Anthony Mulligan and Robert Lautrup, and named after Marie Mulligan’s friend, who died in a car accident. It was first tested in Zuma Beach near Malibu, California, and at Depoe Bay, Oregon and Westerly, Rhode Island beginning early 2010. In July, 2012 lifeguards there made one of the first rescues using Emily, pulling a father and son to shore after they had been caught in a rip current.
A new multi-day duration gasoline powered variant of EMILY for ocean based storm tracking and weather data collection has been developed under funding by NOAA.
In January 2016 EMILY joined Roboticist Without Borders team from The University of Texas A&M Center for Robotic Assisted Search and Rescue on successful mission to Lesvos Island, Greece to assist in ocean rescues of Syrian Refugees crossing the Aegean Sea from Turkey to Greece. In the first few days of embedded missions with the Hellenic Red Cross water backpack for running, EMILY assisted the Red Cross and other Lifeguard organizations to help 250+ refugees safely come ashore on Lesvos. There are currently systems with the Hellenic Red Cross, the Hellenic Coast Guard, and in Turkey.
Die Liste der Mannschaftskader der Extraliga (Tschechien, Schach) 2013/14 enthält alle Spieler, die in der tschechischen Extraliga im Schach 2013/14 mindestens einmal eingesetzt wurden mit ihren Einzelergebnissen.
Insgesamt setzten die 12 Vereine 150 Spieler ein, von denen 38 keinen Wettkampf verpassten. Der ŠK Labortech Ostrava, TJ Zikuda Turnov und TJ TŽ Třinec kamen mit je 10 eingesetzten Spielern aus, während bei TJ Ancora Tatran Litovel die meisten Spieler mindestens eine Partie spielten, nämlich 16 running belt.
Erfolgreichste Spieler der Saison war Vojtěch Rojíček (BŠŠ Frýdek-Místek) mit 8,5 Punkten aus 11 Partien. 8 Punkte aus 11 Partien erreichte Zbyněk Hráček (1 i love football t shirt. Novoborský ŠK), 7,5 Punkte aus 11 Partien Igor Rausis (BŠŠ Frýdek-Místek). Mit P. Harikrishna, Ján Markoš, K. Sasikiran (alle 1. Novoborský ŠK), Piotr Brodowski (Agentura 64 Grygov), Vigen Mirumian, Svatopluk Svoboda (beide Výstaviště Lysá nad Labem) und Jan Hučín (ŠK ERA Poštovní spořitelna) erreichten sieben Spieler 100 %, wobei Harikrishna und Markoš je vier Partien spielten, Sasikiran, Brodowski und Mirumian je zwei, Svoboda und Hučín je eine.
Die nachstehenden Tabellen enthalten folgende Informationen:
Alvin Toffler (Nueva York stainless steel toothpaste dispenser, 3 de octubre de 1928-Los Ángeles, 27 de junio de 2016 ) fue un escritor y futurista estadounidense, doctorado en Letras, Leyes y Ciencia, conocido por sus discusiones acerca de la revolución digital, la revolución de las comunicaciones y la singularidad tecnológica. Sus primeros trabajos están enfocados a la tecnología y su impacto (a través de efectos como la sobrecarga informativa). Más tarde se centró en examinar la reacción de la sociedad y los cambios que ésta sufre. Sus últimos trabajos han abordado el estudio del poder creciente del armamento militar del siglo XXI, las armas y la proliferación de la tecnología y el capitalismo. Entre sus publicaciones más famosas destacan La revolución de la riqueza, El cambio de poder, El shock del futuro y La tercera olameat tendrizer. Estaba casado con Heidi Toffler, también escritora y futurista, con quien residió en Bel Air, Los Ángeles.
Toffler explicaba: «La sociedad necesita personas que se ocupen de los ancianos y que sepan cómo ser compasivos y honestos. La sociedad necesita gente que trabaje en los hospitales. La sociedad necesita todo tipo de habilidades que no son sólo cognitivas, son emocionales, son afectivas. No podemos montar la sociedad sobre datos».
Se le suele atribuir la frase: «Los analfabetos del siglo XXI no serán aquellos que no sepan leer y escribir, sino aquellos que no sepan aprender, desaprender y reaprender.» Esta idea, sin embargo, es de Herbert Gerjuoy, citada por Toffler en El shock del futurosafe plastic water bottles.
En su libro La tercera ola, Toffler introduce un concepto de ola que engloba todas las consecuencias biológicas, psicológicas, sociales y económicas que se derivan de cada una de las civilizaciones verdaderamente distintivas.
Dentro de estas civilizaciones describe:
En una simplificación de la historia de la humanidad, sitúa en el centro de la evolución de cada sociedad la coexistencia y el reemplazamiento entre „olas“.
“Un analfabeto será aquel que no sepa dónde ir a buscar la información que requiere en un momento dado para resolver una problemática concreta. La persona formada no lo será a base de conocimientos inamovibles que posea en su mente, sino en función de sus capacidades para conocer lo que precise en cada momento».Alvin Toffler (La tercera ola)
En este trabajo, elaborado conjuntamente con Heidi Toffler, su compañera sentimental e intelectual, invita a una nueva reflexión sobre el mundo que nos rodea y los cambios que se avecinan.
A través de él nos introduce en el futuro de la riqueza visible e invisible, que modificará nuestras vidas, empresas y el mundo en general, lo cual posibilitará que se creen nuevas oportunidades, tanto a niveles personales, profesionales, sociales, culturales y educativos, como que se pueda atacar la pobreza a escala mundial o nacional. Todo ello irá acompañado, según nos advierte, de múltiples riesgos.
En su best-seller de 1975 titulado The Eco-Spasm Report, Alvin Toffler sugiere una solución positiva al problema mundial de la escasez de alimentos. Pronostica «la aparición repentina en Occidente de un movimiento religioso que prohíbe comer carne vacuna, ahorrando así cantidades enormes de toneladas de cereales que, de ese modo Fashion Jewelry for Women, se utilizan para dar de comer al mundo entero».
Títulos de Alvin Toffler coescritos con su mujer, Heidi. Algunas de sus obras más conocidas son:
Sumerologi er et delområde under assyriologien. Den beskjeftiger seg med det metopotamiske folket sumerernes språk, historie, litteratur, religion, mytologi og kultur.
Selv om det sumeriske språk var det eldste av de vestasiatiske kileskriftspråkene, ble gammelpersisk og akkadisk – med hoveddialektene babylonsk og assyrisk dechiffrert langt tidligere. Vel ble det nokså tidlig funnet tospråklige ordbøker i Ninive, men deres betydning ble lenge omstridt før de ble forstått. Jules Oppert forstod i 1869 at det dreide seg om et eget språk, og det var han som kalte det sumerisk. Det skulle imidlertid gå tyve år til før språkets – og folkets – eksistens ble bevist.
Fra 1877 oppdaget Ernest de Sarzec og Léon Heuzey i utgravningene av residensbyen Girsu i den sumeriske staten Lagasj, diverse sumeriske skriftvitnesbyrd. I 1909 klarte François Thureau-Dangin å dechiffrere det sumeriske språk, og dermed legge det faste fundament for sumerologien som vitenskap.
Sumer var et oldtidsrike som lå mellom elvene Tigris og Eufrat, midt i den såkalte «sivilisasjonens vugge», og er en av de eldste kulturene som er kjent. Selv om de tidligste historiske nedtegnelsene i regionen ikke går lengre tilbake enn til rundt 2500 f.Kr., har moderne historikere forsikret at Sumer ble først gang bosatt en gang mellom rundt 4500 og 4000 f.Kr. av et ikkesemittisk folk som muligens ikke snakket sumerisk språk (stedsnavn på byer, elver cheap glass water bottles, basisord og lignende som bevis). Dette første, førhistoriske folket er i dag kalt for «ureufratere» eller «ubaidere», og det er teoretisert at de har utviklet seg fra Samarrakulturen i nordlige Mesopotamia. Dette urfolket var den første siviliserte eller kultiverte makten i Sumer. De drenerte myrene for jordbruk, utviklet handel trail running waist pack, og etablerte industrier, inkludert veving, lærarbeid, metallarbeid best water bottles for toddlers, murerhåndverk, og keramikk.
Den sumerske sivilisasjonen tok form i Urukperioden (3000-tallet f.Kr.), fortsatte inn i Jemdat Nasr og de tidlige dynastiske periodene. Kulturen ble erobret av semittisktalende konger fra Det akkadiske rike en gang rundt 2270 f.Kr. (kort kronologi). Innfødt sumersk styre oppsto på nytt for rundt et århundre i Urs tredje dynasti på 2000- til 1900-tallet f.Kr. Byene i Sumer var de første sivilisasjonene som praktiserte intensivt jordbruk året rundt, kanskje allerede fra rundt 5000 f.Kr. som viser tegn på bruk av grunnleggende jordbruksteknikker, inkludert omfattende kultivering av land i stor skala, monoavling, organisert irrigasjon (vanning), og bruk av spesialisert arbeidskraft. Overskuddet av lagret mat skapt av denne økonomien førte til at befolkningen ble boende på et sted framfor å migrere etter avlingen og beitemarker. Det gjorde det også mulig å opprettholde en større befolkningstetthet. Sumer var også stedet for tidlig utvikling av skriftsystem, progresjonen fra et stadium av en form for urskrift på midten av 3000-tallet f.Kr stainless steel meat tenderizer. til et reellt utviklet skriftsystem på 2000-tallet f.Kr. (Jemdet Nasr-perioden).
american football, entstand im 19. jahrhundert, und seine popularität ist explodiert, seit beginn des 21. jahrhunderts.laut „usa today“, der meist gesehenen fußball – spiel war der super bowl 2012 zwischen den new york giants und die new england patriots, die einen rekord 111,3 millionen zuschauer.aber baseball hat die auszeichnung, der so genannten nationalen zeitvertreib, fußball hat eine hohe stellung im herzen und hirne vieler us – fans.
nach angaben des profifußballs researchers association, american football, fand seine erste heimat am college – campus in den frühen 18. jahrhundert zuvor gab es organisierte regeln oder sanktionierung gremien zu regeln.meist wurden die spiele von den härten der gewalttätigen ablenkungen leben am college.die rüpeihaftigkeit der spiele, die universitäten zu verbieten.die mit sitz in boston oneida football club wurde gegründet 1862.die mitglieder haben ihre lieblings – teile von rugby und fußball bilden, was bekannt wurde, wie der boston – spiel.
das erste college – football – spiel fand am 6. november 1869 in new brunswick, new jersey.rütgers besiegt princeton 4 in einem spiel, das mit 25 spielern pro seite, kein schiedsrichter und einen runden ball.walter lager ist die kollegialität in dem fußball der neuzeit.im jahr 1880, lager, der ehemalige yale – player, eine regelung eingeführt
, die elf spielern pro seite.im jahr 1882, fügte er eine regel besagt, dass die teams müssen den ball fünf meter werden in drei stücke.über 250 hochschulen hatten teams von der jahrhundertwende.
am 12. november 1892 die allegheny athletic association football – team übernahm die pittsburgh athletic club in einem football – spiel.william ¡° moppel ¡± heffelfinger, mitglied des allegheny – team, hat 500 dollar im spiel.das signalisiert den beginn des profifußballs.¡¯ heffelfinger ist der neue status als bezahlter spieler führte zu anderen sportgruppen in ihre haushalte zu erreichen, um sicherzustellen, dass sie die besten spieler.
1902, drei teams bildeten die erste inkarnation der national football league.die zahl der professionellen football teams erhöht, organisatoren sah die notwendigkeit eines formalen leitungsgremien zu regulieren, themen wie die spieler – gehälter, spieler, um von einem team andere teams mit college – spieler.die modernen nfl oder national football league, entwickelte sich aus dem amerikanischen profi – football association, gründete 1920; die apfa änderte seinen namen in der national football league im jahr 1922.
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket No. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which deliberately recalls the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge’s decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.
Eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, near the city of York, sued the Dover Area School District over the school board requirement that a statement presenting intelligent design as „an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view“ was to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC). The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, publisher of Of Pandas and People, tried to join the lawsuit late as a defendant but was denied for multiple reasons.
The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Since it sought an equitable remedy, by the Seventh Amendment, right to a jury trial did not apply. It was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005, to November 4, 2005, before Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush.
On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from „maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.“
All eight of the Dover school board members who were up for re-election on November 8, 2005, were defeated by a set of challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class. (The ninth member was not up for re-election.) The new school board president subsequently stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.
From 2002, William (Bill) Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, members of the Dover Area School District Board of Education who were young earth creationists, had made various statements supporting teaching creationism alongside evolution. At a board meeting on June 7, 2004, Buckingham mentioned creationism and raised objections to the proposed use of the textbook Biology written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, describing it as „laced with Darwinism“ and saying it was „inexcusable to have a book that says man descended from apes with nothing to counterbalance it.“
This story made the York newspapers, and Buckingham was telephoned by Discovery Institute staff attorney Seth Cooper, whose tasks included „communicating with legislators, school board members, teachers, parents and students“ to „address the topic of ID in a scientifically and educationally responsible way“ in public schools. He later stated that he made the call to „steer the Dover Board away from trying to include intelligent design in the classroom or from trying to insert creationism into its cirriculum [sic]“, an account Buckingham has disputed. Cooper sent the book and DVD of Icons of Evolution to Buckingham, who required the Dover High School science teachers to watch the DVD. They did not take up the opportunity to use it in their classes.
Cooper advised that the Discovery Institute was not offering legal advice, and soon afterwards Buckingham contacted Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, who agreed to represent the Dover Board, and recommended the book Of Pandas and People. On October 18, 2004, the school board voted 6–3 resolving that there were to be lectures on the subject, with Pandas as a reference book, and that the following statement was to be added to their biology curriculum: „Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.“
On November 19, 2004, the Dover Area School District issued a press release stating that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth-grade biology class at Dover High School:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
The three school board members who voted against it resigned in protest, and science teachers in the district refused to read the statement to their ninth-grade students, citing the Pennsylvania state code 235.10(2), which requires that „The professional educator may not … Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum.“ Instead, the statement was read to students by a school administrator.
The school board’s statement asserting that there are „gaps“ in evolution and that it specifically is a theory „not a fact“ singled out evolution, implying it is just a hunch, even though this is not the actual meaning of the term „scientific theory“. The reference to Of Pandas and People and presentation of intelligent design as an alternative „explanation of the origins of life“ presented it as though it were a scientific explanation, in contrast to the way that evolution was described. Encouraging students to „keep an open mind“ about alternatives without offering an alternative scientific explanation implied an invitation to meditate on a religious view, endorsing the religious view in a way similar to the disclaimer found to be unconstitutional in the Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education case. The school board claimed the statement does not teach intelligent design and simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution, but no such statements were made about other subjects. As part of the presentation, the administrators stated that „there will be no other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer questions on the issue“, giving intelligent design a position not applied to scientific topics. The board denied that intelligent design was „religion in disguise,“ despite being represented in court by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian not-for-profit law center that uses litigation to promote „the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values“. Its stated purpose is „…to be the sword and shield for people of faith“.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on December 14, 2004, on behalf of eleven parents from the Dover school district, and sought a law firm willing to take on the case at the risk of not being paid if the case was lost. Eric Rothschild, a partner at Pepper Hamilton LLP and a member of the National Center for Science Education legal advisory council, was quick to agree to take the case on such a contingency basis.
The Discovery Institute’s John West said the case displayed the ACLU’s „Orwellian“ effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court. „It’s a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not,“ West said. „That is a flagrant assault on free speech.“ Opponents, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers, contended that his statement is not just ironic, but hypocritical, as the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, which by definition is beyond natural explanation.
Despite its earlier involvement, the Discovery Institute was concerned that this would be a test case and that the defendants had earlier displayed their religious motivations. This tension led to disagreements with the Thomas More Law Center and the withdrawal of three Discovery Institute fellows as defense experts prior to their depositions – William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. This was purportedly because the Thomas More Law Center refused to allow these witnesses to have their own attorneys present during deposition, but Discovery Institute director Bruce Chapman later said that he had asked them not to testify (as well as Behe and Minnich, who testified anyway).
In May 2005, the publisher of Of Pandas and People, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), filed a motion seeking to intervene in the case. FTE argued that a ruling that intelligent design was religious would have severe financial consequences, citing possible losses of approximately half a million dollars. By intervening, FTE would have become a co-defendant with the Dover Area School Board, and able to bring its own lawyers and expert witnesses to the case. FTE’s president Jon Buell implied that if allowed to intervene, FTE would bring Dembski and Meyer as expert witnesses. In his decision on the motion, Jones ruled that FTE was not entitled to intervene in the case because its motion to intervene was not timely, describing FTE’s reasons for not trying to become involved earlier as „both unavailing and disingenuous.“ Jones also held that FTE had failed to demonstrate that it has „a significantly protectable interest in the litigation warranting intervention as a party“ and that its interests would not be adequately represented by the defendants.
In the November 2005 elections, none of the members of the Dover School Board who voted for the intelligent design policy were re-elected, and a new school board, which rejected the policy, took office. This effectively precluded the possibility of an appeal to a higher court.
The litigants of this trial were as follows:
The plaintiffs were all parents of students enrolled in the Dover Area School district.
The trial began on September 26, 2005.
Eric Rothschild gave the opening statement for the plaintiffs
. He said that the plaintiffs would be able to provide many examples of school board members wishing to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. He attacked prior defense claims that it was a minor affair by saying that there is no such thing as a „little“ constitutional violation. He also provided the definition of creationism given by an early draft of Pandas: „Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.“ He compared this with what was eventually published: „Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.“ (The definitions had come up in an earlier hearing in a July 14 pre-trial hearing.) He also argued that intelligent design was not science in its infancy, but rather was not science at all.
Patrick Gillen gave the opening arguments for the defense. He started by saying that the goal of the board and its supporters was to enhance science education. He argued that the policy was a „modest change.“ He distanced the policy from alleged statements by then board member William Buckingham that the plaintiffs argued showed clear religious intent: „The board listened to the science faculty more than it listened to Bill Buckingham.“ He argued that the policy did not have a „religious agenda.“ Gillen mentioned that board member Alan Bonsell had done his own reading. He said Bonsell was „aware of intelligent design theory, and that 300 or so scientists had signed a statement indicating that biologists were exaggerating claims for the theory. He had read about the famous Piltdown man hoax. He had an interest in creationism.“
Before her testimony, the TMLC filed a motion to have her excluded as an expert witness. In that motion they characterized her as „little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing, ‚cyber-stalker‘ of the Discovery Institute.“ Jones denied the motion.
Forrest gave testimony on the history of the intelligent design movement, citing writings of prominent figures (such as Discovery Institute’s „Wedge Document“, Phillip Johnson’s „How the Evolution Debate Can be Won“, and of William Dembski). She also testified that ID was merely another name for the creationism movement, attempting to present a religious proposition as a scientific viewpoint. She stated that Johnson „regards evolution as a threat to the Bible in its entirety and as a threat to the moral fabric of American culture,“ and that one of the goals of his movement is to unify the religious world. She added that there is „no way to reconcile […] at all“ the Dover school board newsletter statement that intelligent design is a scientific theory with Paul Nelson’s statements in the interview „The Measure of Design“.
Forrest noted that she was unaware of any evidence that the members of the School board had seen the „Wedge Document“ before the lawsuit.
Several days before her scheduled testimony, the Discovery Institute publicly ridiculed her on their website.
As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe’s critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, „There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.“ In response to a question about astrology he explained: „Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well.“
His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed „Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design“, but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.
Closing arguments were made on November 4, 2005. Upon completion of the closing arguments, Gillen asked Jones, „By my reckoning, this is the 40th day since the trial began and tonight will be the 40th night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose.“ Jones responded, „Mr. Gillen, that is an interesting coincidence, but it was not by design.“ This humorous exchange provided the title for Matthew Chapman’s book about the trial, 40 Days and 40 Nights.
On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
In his Conclusion, he wrote:
Jones anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Fulfilling Jones’s prediction, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said:
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.
Newspapers have noted that the judge is „a Republican and a churchgoer.“ In the months following the decision, Jones received death threats and he and his family were given around-the-clock federal protection.
On February 21, 2006, the newly elected Dover Area School Board voted, unanimously with one abstention, to pay $1,000,011 in legal fees and damages due to the parents and their lawyers as a result of the verdict in the case, a large sum of money for a small district. The previous school board had been offered the opportunity to rescind its policy, and avoid paying legal fees, immediately after the lawsuit was filed in 2004, but it declined. The parents‘ attorneys Pepper Hamilton stated that court records would show that they were entitled to more than $2 million, but were going to accept less than half that amount in recognition of the small size of the school district, and because the school board that voted for the policy had been voted out of office, leaving the new school board „having the bill placed in their laps.“ The previous school board had been defended without charge by the Thomas More Law Center. Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United, said of the trial’s cost, „Any board thinking of trying to do what the Dover board did is going to have to look for a bill in excess of $2 million,“ and „I think $2 million is a lot to explain to taxpayers for a lawsuit that should never be fought.“
After the trial, there were calls for the defendants, accused of not presenting their case honestly, to be put on trial for committing perjury. „Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions,“ Jones wrote. „The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony.“ An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behavior as both ironic and sinful, saying that the „unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed.“ Judge Jones recommended to the US Attorney’s office that the school board members be investigated for perjury.
The University of Montana Law Review published three articles addressing this topic in its winter 2007 issue. David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, senior fellows or officers of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, that the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the decision will have no effect on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory. Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al. article, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned how to tenderize tough steak, and that it marks the end to legal efforts by the intelligent design movement to introduce creationism in public schools. It had been an essential part of the ruling to consider whether ID was a legitimate scientific theory as claimed by its proponents, and DeWolf, et al. had implicitly recognised this by citing the Lemon test, which would have been irrelevant if ID were legitimate science. DeWolf et al. responded to the Irons article in the same issue.
Bank Sepah (Persian: بانک سپه), the first Iranian bank, was established in 1925 (corresponding to 1304 in the Iranian Calendar). Its first branch, in Rasht, opened that year.
The bank also has branches in Frankfurt, Paris and Rome as well as a subsidiary, Bank Sepah International plc, in London. „Sepah“ is the poetic Persian rendering for „Army“. The Bank was named so because its capital was provided by the Army Pension Fund.
Sanctions were imposed on Bank Sepah by the United States on January 9, 2007 due to Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program. The United States claimed that the bank assisted Iran in developing missiles that could carry nuclear weapons
. and all its branches and subsidiaries in Italy, UK, France and Germany will have their assets frozen by the United States in order to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons. The official website of Bank Sepah in Iran reacted by mentioning the American resolution „fabricated statements based on purely hypothetical pretext, made out of political inducements“ and promised that the bank will „continue with its efficient performance with due observance of internal and international regulations as before shaver repair.“
On the same basis, further sanctions have also been imposed by the United Nations through Resolution 1747 of 29 March 2007 coinciding with the arrest by the Iranian Government of some British army personnel in the Persian Gulf.
In early 2016, following the talks of P5+1 with Iran on the Nuclear program of Iran women skater dress, and the resultant Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, sanctions against Bank Sepah were lifted
Bank Sepah Coin Museum was established in 1963 and features a collection reflecting the periods of Iranian history dating back to over 2,500 years ago. The museum is also of international significance given the multiethnic nature of the Iranian ruling elites over time.
Vous pouvez partager vos connaissances en l’améliorant (comment ?) selon les recommandations des projets correspondants.
Homer le grand (Homer the Great) est le 12e épisode de la saison 6 de la série télévisée d’animation Les Simpson.
Homer découvre que Lenny et Carl lui cachent quelque chose. Il les suit et découvre qu’ils font partie d’une fraternité secrète, les tailleurs de pierre. Cette société dirige le monde et ses membres jouissent de multiples privilèges. Homer essaye donc par tous les moyens de rentrer dans la société. Après son échec, il avoue à sa famille que s’il veut absolument entrer dans cette société, c’est en grande partie parce qu’il a été refusé toute sa vie dans les clubs. C’est à ce moment que son père révèle qu’il est lui aussi un tailleur de pierre, ce qui donne le droit à Homer de rentrer dans la société.
Après un rite initiatique, Homer fait enfin partie des tailleurs de pierre. Il peut ainsi profiter des multiples avantages dont jouissent ses membres, notamment les nombreuses soirées alcoolisées où ils sont conviés. Lors d’un dîner solennel, Homer détruit le parchemin sacré de la société, en s’essuyant et se mouchant avec. Il se fait donc bannir, et doit rentrer chez lui nu, enchaîné à un rocher. Alors qu’il quitte la salle, « numéro un » découvre une marque de naissance sur le corps d’Homer, de la forme de l’emblème de la société : il est l’élu annoncé par la prophétie.
Homer devient donc le nouveau grand chef de la société. Mais sous son règne celle-ci décline rapidement. À tel point qu’il finit par être seul, avec comme uniques membres des singes, alors que les anciens membres ont fondé une autre société « interdite aux Homer ».
La confrérie des tailleurs de pierre est une parodie de confrérie. La confrérie des tailleurs de pierre attend un élu, qui, selon eux, les mènera à la gloire éternelle. L’organisation est divisée en loges, et les membres portent des numéros de loge ainsi qu’un numéro mondial lemon squeeze. Il existe une loge internationale, dont fait partie George Bush, Mister T, ainsi que plusieurs personnes très importantes. Les origines de la confrérie sont très floues : les maîtres de la loge 924 déclaraient, dans un épisode, qu’ils fêtaient le mille centième anniversaire de leur confrérie.
Le principe de la confrérie semble complexe : faire accéder au savoir absolu celui qui en est capable. Mais la confrérie vise surtout à boire et à jouer au tennis de table… En outre, les membres de la confrérie jouissent de certains privilèges, ainsi Lenny et Carl disposent de places de parking juste à côté de l’entrée de la centrale, là où Homer se gare juste derrière chez lui, de fauteuils vibrants, ne paient pas leurs boissons au distributeur. De même, Homer, après son admission, passe par un passage secret, situé sous le périphérique pour ne pas rester bloqué dans les embouteillages, au moyen d’un bouton portant l’insigne de la confrérie.
On nous apprend que tous les signataires de la déclaration d’indépendance étaient tailleurs de pierre. Mais le groupe a été dissous, après qu’Homer se révéla être l’élu à cause d’une tache de naissance buy football jerseys; il fit vite des abus de pouvoir et le groupe se fait désormais appeler « la confrérie des interdit-aux-Homers ».
Numéro des personnages principaux [réf. nécessaire] :
Dans l’album Liaisons dangereuses de Doc Gynéco, l’hymne de la Confrérie prend place entre deux morceaux.