The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a self-perpetuating loan assistance authority for water quality improvement projects in the United States. The fund is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies. The CWSRF, which replaced the Clean Water Act Construction Grants program, provides loans for the construction of municipal wastewater facilities and implementation of nonpoint source pollution control and estuary protection projects. Congress established the fund in the Water Quality Act of 1987. Since inception, cumulative assistance has surpassed 153.6 billion dollars as of 2021, and is continuing to grow through interest earnings, principal repayments, and leveraging.

Revolving structure

All 50 states, plus Puerto Rico operate a CWSRF. The 51 CWSRF programs function like environmental infrastructure banks by distributing low interest rate loans for water quality projects. Loan repayments are recycled back into individual CWSRF programs. States can only use the funds to make loans, purchase local debt, or issue financial guarantees.  They cannot make grants or otherwise dissipate the capital in their funds. Principal repayments plus interest earnings become available to finance new projects, allowing the funds to "revolve" over time. States can also increase their CWSRF financing capacity by issuing CWSRF-backed revenue or general obligation bonds. As of 2007, 27 states have leveraged their programs in this way, raising an additional $20.6 billion for important water quality projects.

The 51 funds are capitalized in part by federal and state contributions. For every dollar contributed by the federal government, states contribute 20 cents. As of 2017, the cumulative federal appropriation to the 51 CWSRF programs had reached over $42 billion, with corresponding state contributions of $84 billion. Financial leveraging techniques conducted by state funds had snowballed federal and state contributions into $153 billion in 2021.

States are responsible for the operation of their CWSRF program. Under the CWSRF, states may provide various types of assistance, including loans, refinancing, purchasing, or guaranteeing local debt and purchasing bond insurance. States may also set specific loan terms, including interest rates from zero percent to market rate and repayment periods of up to 30 years. States have the flexibility to target financial resources to their specific community and environmental needs.

States may customize loan terms to meet the needs of small and disadvantaged communities, or to provide incentives for certain types of projects. Beginning in 2009, Congress authorized the CWSRFs to provide further financial assistance through additional subsidization, such as grants, principal forgiveness, and negative interest rate loans. Through the Green Project Reserve, the CWSRFs target critical green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency improvements, and other environmentally innovative activities.

Highlights

Since the inaugural CWSRF project was funded in 1988, the 51 state-run CWSRF programs have provided over $145 billion in assistance for water quality projects through 38,441 loans. In 2017, the programs provided over $7.4 billion in assistance to loan recipients of all sizes, including farmers, homeowners, small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and major municipalities. In 2017 the average loan interest rate was 1.4%, compared to the prevailing market rate of 3.5%.

While wastewater treatment projects have comprised 96 percent of all CWSRF funding to date, over $4.6 billion has gone to nonpoint source and estuary projects. The number of assistance agreements for nonpoint source projects has grown significantly over the years, from only two projects in 1990 to 1,305 in 2007. The low cost and flexibility of CWSRF financing has helped the programs serve communities of all sizes. In 2007, two-thirds of all loans went to communities with populations below 3,500. In addition, over $1.1 billion in assistance targeted communities with fewer than 10,000 people (see Figure 3).

The programs are projected to continue to grow over time, as interest earnings and repayments of loans increase (see Figure 4). Nationally, the CWSRF program provides a remarkable return on federal investment: as of 2017, the program has financed $3 in projects for every dollar the federal government has invested.

The demand for CWSRF funds nationwide can be attributed to high needs, low interest rates, and flexible financing options.  The rate of fund utilization has increased steadily since 1988, signaling increased demand for funds as well as efficient state operations. As of 2007, 97 percent of all available funds were committed to projects. To meet high levels of demand, 27 states have chosen to implement leveraging approaches by issuing revenue and general obligation bonds that are secured by CWSRF assets. Through leveraging, states have increased their capacity to finance important water quality projects.

Leverage

27 CWSRF's leverage their funds to increase the amount of capital available for loan assistance. This means that these states augment their CWSRF capital by issuing municipal bonds. Typically, they loan the proceeds of the bonds while investing their capitalization funds (both state and federal). These investments serve two purposes. First, they are pledged to the bondholders as additional collateral, thus more than assuring a AAA bond rating. Second, the interest on the invested capital is used to pay subsidies to the CWSRF program's local utility borrowers.

Benefits reporting system

The CWSRF Benefits Reporting (CBR) system, launched in 2005 and adopted by all 51 state programs, produces a quantifiable record of the environmental and public health impact of CWSRF investments. Figures 6 and 8 present data reported in the CBR System to date. CBR allows users to record anticipated water quality improvements from every CWSRF loan directed towards water quality improvement. The 51 state programs have used CBR to track the environmental impact of 4,878 projects. The data link $15.8 billion in CWSRF loans to projects that protect and restore drinking water sources, recreational areas, and aquatic wildlife throughout the country. In 2007, CWSRF programs funded more than 964 projects designed to protect and restore water bodies, including 597 projects with direct human health benefits.

Statutory authority

Clean Water Act sections 212, 319, and 320 provide the statutory authority for programs funded by the CWSRF. The CWSRF is authorized to provide financial assistance for the construction of publicly owned treatment works (sec. 212), the development and execution of state's comprehensive conservation management plans (sec. 319), and the development and execution of an estuary conservation and management plan (sec. 320).

Eligibility

Eligible projects under CWA section 212 include the capital costs for the construction and maintenance of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
 Wastewater collection and treatment
 Publicly owned municipal stormwater projects
 Combined sewer overflow
 Sanitary sewer overflow
 Water pipes, storage, and treatment systems
 Green infrastructure
 Water quality portions of municipal landfill projects
 Water conservation and reuse
 Energy Conservation and Efficiency.

Eligible projects under CWA section 319 (nonpoint source projects) may include:

 Agricultural runoff
 Leaking on-site septic systems
 Stormwater runoff
 Brownfield contamination
 Atmospheric deposition
 Runoff from closed landfills
 Leaking underground storage tanks.

CWA section 320 (estuary management) allows the CWSRF to fund publicly and privately owned projects, as long as the project is part of the state's Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) and is sanctioned in the plan.

 Planting trees and shrubs within the watershed (drainage basin)
 Purchasing equipment required for the CCMP
 Environmental clean-up
 Development and initial delivery of educational programs.
Projects must have a direct benefit to the water quality of an estuary. This includes:
 Protection of public water supplies
 Protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
 Actions that, in order to allow for recreational activities in and on water, require the control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of pollution.

In many cases, estuary level protection plans are combined with other elements of an overall project.  Where the water quality portion of a project is clearly distinct from other portions of the project, only the water quality portion can be funded by the CWSRF.

Eligible use of funds

The CWSRF employs a variety of loan assistance mechanisms.

Loans
 Terms may not exceed 20 years.
 Interest rates must be at or below market rate including interest-free.

Purchase of debt or refinance
 A community's debt may be purchased by an SRF program.
 Under the Extended Term Finance Policy, the purchase may have terms greater than 20 years, up to the useful life of the project.
 Targeted to disadvantaged communities, though a waiver of the restriction may be granted.
 An SRF program may refinance previously issued debt.

Guarantees and insurances
 Guarantees or insurance can be used where such assistance will result in improved credit market access or reduced interest rates.
 The SRF program does not disburse funds for construction; such funds are procured by a borrower in the market.

Guarantee SRF revenue debt
 Section 603(d)(3) of the Act authorizes CWSRF's to guaranty debt. Guaranty powers increase the funding capacity of CWSRF's as well as decrease annual payments which utility ratepayers must pay for their wastewater projects.  Guaranties work very much like municipal bond insurance.
 SRF programs may issue debt guaranteed by SRF funds.
 The revenue generated is used to provide assistance to borrowers for eligible projects.
 This greatly expands the capacity of a program in the near-term.

Provide loan guarantees
 Similar revolving funds established by municipalities or inter-municipal agencies can receive loan guarantees.

Additional Subsidization
 Under certain conditions, CWSRF programs may provide up to a fixed percentage of their capitalization grants as additional subsidization in the form of principal forgiveness, negative interest rate loans, or grants.
 The recipient must be a municipality or inter-municipal, interstate, or state agency.
 Additional subsidization may only be used to help address affordability issues or to implement a process, material, technique, or technology that addresses water or energy efficiency goals; mitigates stormwater runoff; or encourages sustainable project planning, design, and construction.

Earn Interest
 CWSRFs may invest available funds in short-term investments.
 All interest earnings must remain in the fund to be used for eligible purposes.

Return on federal dollar

Due to the income stream into the program from state match, loan repayments, interest earnings, investment earning, and bond proceeds from leveraging, the return on every federal dollar investment to the CWSRF is currently $3 as of 2017.

EPA has projected that over a twenty-year time horizon, the initial federal investment into the CWSRF can result in the construction of up to three to four times as many projects compared to programs that utilize a one-time federal grant, depending on the allocation of resources to the program.

Addressing climate change

Climate change threatens both water quality and water quantity.  The CWSRF can assist water utilities and municipalities mitigate the effects of climate change as they relate to water quality by capitalizing costs related to planning and implementing new technologies. Eligible criteria include the following.

Energy conservation

Wastewater and stormwater treatment facilities consume energy to collect and distribute treated water.  The CWSRF can fund capital costs needed to power these publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and strongly encourages the implementation of energy efficient technology.
 Energy efficient pumps
 Clean energy technology (e.g., solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal)
 Purchase of energy audits that have a reasonable prospect of resulting in a capital project
 Pro-rata share of capital costs for off-site publicly owned clean energy facilities that provides power to POTWs.

Green infrastructure

The CWSRF can fund the "capital costs" of green infrastructure projects with direct water quality benefits.  Capital costs include traditional infrastructure expenditures (such as pipes, pumps and treatment plants), as well as unconventional infrastructure costs (like land conservation, tree plantings, equipment purchases, planning and design, environmental cleanups and even the development and initial delivery of environmental education programs). One of the few things the CWSRF cannot fund is the operation and maintenance costs of a project.

The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 established additional financing mechanisms and includes eligibility for green infrastructure projects.

Carbon sequestration

The CWSRF can finance carbon sequestration through a variety of methods, including urban heat-island reduction, energy saving achievement, and habitat preservation.  Aquatic environments, green spaces, and geologic carbon storage are efficient carbon sinks that can be utilized with CWSRF loans.
 Wetlands restoration
 Land conservation (purchase of easements and preserved green spaces)
 Tree plantings (reforestation, green roofs, tree boxes, parks, vegetated swales and median strips)
  scrubbers on power plants that provide energy to POTWs.

Methane capture

 Publicly owned equipment for the capture of methane emitted from an anaerobic municipal wastewater treatment system and conversion to energy is eligible for CWSRF funding.
 Methane capture equipment can be privately owned if the project is located within a designated National Estuary.
 Public or privately owned equipment to capture methane emitted from manure-containing ponds on animal feeding operations (AFOs), not regulated as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and convert the methane to energy is eligible for CWSRF funding.
 This equipment can be located at CAFOs in designated National Estuaries.

Water conservation and reuse

Eligible water conservation and reuse projects include:
 Efficient plumbing fixture retrofits or replacement
 Grey water recycling in public buildings
 Efficient landscape irrigation equipment for public facilities
 Publicly owned stormwater treatment and reuse
 Publicly owned wastewater distribution lines to support effluent reuse/recycling uses, including piping the effluent to the property line of a privately owned effluent consumer, as well as publicly owned equipment to reuse effluent
 Water quality trading for construction projects that generate water pollution control credits or capital projects that may be located offsite the POTW
 Replacing inefficient irrigation practices with efficient drip irrigation.

Public-private partnerships

Public-private partnerships, or "P3s", are one investment technique by which municipalities can finance the upgrade, expansion, repair, or implementation of new technology for wastewater infrastructure. The CWSRF, because of its unique financing authorities, is authorized to oversee (in concert with the EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water), provide technical assistance, and guidance for municipalities that choose to investigate P3s for the provision of their wastewater services.

A P3, as defined by the Environmental Financial Advisory Board, is a contractual, institutional, or other relationship between government and a private sector entity that results in sharing of duties, risks, and rewards of providing a service in which the government has an interest, recognizing that the government retains ultimate responsibility for insuring that social needs and objectives are met.

P3s are sought by states and local governments as a way to reduce the financial burden of water pollution and infrastructure needs.  It has been estimated that, of the costly capital improvements, upgrades, expansions, and new compliance requirements imposed on water and wastewater utilities, local governments bear 95% of the costs. Among local government expenditures, only education is higher.

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA) to provide an expanded credit program for water and wastewater infrastructure projects, with broader eligibility criteria than the previously authorized revolving funds for wastewater and drinking water. Pursuant to the act, EPA established its Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center in 2015 to help local governments and municipal utilities design innovative financing mechanisms, including public-private partnerships. Congress amended the WIFIA program in 2015 and 2016.

See also

America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Sewerage
Water supply and sanitation in the United States
Water pollution

References

Further reading

KPMG white paper on P3's for Water
Congressional Research Service, Report to Congress. "Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act."

federal assistance in the United States
water supply and sanitation in the United States
water pollution in the United States


The Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, better known as the Filer Commission, was formed in 1973 to study philanthropy, the role of the private sector in American society, and then to recommend measures to increase voluntary giving. Organized as a privately supported citizen's board, the Commission came into being through the efforts of John D. Rockefeller III, Wilbur D. Mills, George P. Shultz, and William E. Simon. The selection of participants on the Commission reflected a desire for diversity of experience and opinions and included heads of religious and labor groups, former cabinet secretaries, corporate and fd Foreign Securities Corporation and President of Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Edwin D. Etherington, Former President of Wesleyan University and Trustee of Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Bayard Ewing, Tillinghast, Collins and Graham and Vice Chairman of United Way of America.
Frances Tarlton Farenthold, Past Chairperson of National Women's Political Caucus.
Max M. Fisher, Chairman of United Brands Company and Honorary Chairman of United Foundations.
Reverend Raymond J. Gallagher, Bishop of Lafayette-in-Indiana.
Earl G. Graves, Publisher of Black Enterprise and Commissioner of Boy Scouts of America.
Paul R. Haas, President and Chairman of Corpus Christi Oil and Gas Company and Trustee of Paul and Mary Haas Foundation.
Walter A. Haas Jr., Chairman of Levi Strauss and Company and Trustee of the Ford Foundation.
Philip M. Klutznick, Klutznick Investments and Chairman of Research and Policy Committee and Trustee of Committee for Economic Development.
Ralph Lazarus, Chairman of Federated Department Stores, Inc. and Former National Chairman of United Way of America.
Herbert E. Longenecker, President Emeritus of Tulane University and Director of United Student Aid Funds.
Elizabeth J. McCormack, Special Assistant to the President of Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.
Walter J. McNerney, President of Blue Cross Association.
William H. Morton, Trustee of Dartmouth College.
John M. Musser, President and Director of General Service Foundation.
Jon O. Newman, Judge, U.S. District Court and Chairman of Hartford Institute of Criminal and Social Justice.
Graciela Olivarez, State Planning Officer and Director of Council on Foundations, Inc.
Alan Pifer, President of Carnegie Corporation of New York.
George Romney, Chairman of the National Center for Voluntary Action.
William Matson Roth, Regent of University of California and Chairman of San Francisco Museum of Art.
Althea T. L. Simmons, Director for Education Programs of the NAACP Special Contribution Fund.
Reverend Leon H. Sullivan, Pastor of Zion Baptist Church, Philadelphia.
David B. Truman, President of Mount Holyoke College.

Findings
The Commission sought to gain knowledge about philanthropy and the motivations for giving in a variety of ways. An advisory panel of more than 100 specialists in the disciplines of economics, sociology, and law, together with advocates from the non-profit sector, directed the Commission's research focus. In the span of two years, the Commission directed more than 86 research projects concerning philanthropy and the role of the private nonprofit sector in the United States. These studies were crucial to the discussion and debate which took place during the Commission meetings that would later lead to the formation of policy recommendations. Conducted in specific areas such as arts and culture, health, education, taxation and regulation, foreign practices, and foundations in general, the studies provided the background information necessary to make sound decisions about the role of philanthropy in both the public and private sectors. The Commission dealt with the difficult political, social, and economic issues confronting the sector during the early 1970s, particularly its fiscal problems and the growing political opposition to charitable tax deductions.

After two years of holding meeting sessions and conducting research projects, the Commission issued its findings in its final report, Giving in America: Toward a Stronger Voluntary Sector, and closed its work in 1975. The Commission focused public attention on the sector and spurred academic inquiry into the field of philanthropy, charting the course of research for the following two decades. Its work was the first major investigation of the third sector and the most comprehensive examination of philanthropy to date. From its recommendations, the Independent Sector coalition was formed and emerged as one of the nation's most powerful advocates of non-profit organizations. After the publication of the final report, the Commission had completed its task. The Commission officially disbanded after the report's publication in 1975.

The findings of the Commission were:
     The voluntary sector is a large and vital part of American society, more important today than ever. But the sector is undergoing economic strains that predate and are generally more severe than the troubles of the economy as a whole.
     Giving in America involves an immense amount of time and money, is the fundamental underpinning of the voluntary sector, encompasses a wide diversity of relationships between donor, donations and donee, and is not keeping pace.
     Decreasing levels of private giving, increasing costs of nonprofit activity and broadening expectations for health, education and welfare services as basic entitlements of citizenship have led to the government's becoming a principal provider of programs and revenues in many areas once dominated by private philanthropy. And government's growing role in these areas poses fundamental questions about the autonomy and basic functioning of private nonprofit organizations and institutions.
     Our society has long encouraged "charitable" nonprofit activity by excluding it from certain tax obligations. But the principal tax encouragement of giving to nonprofit organizations - the charitable deduction in personal include taxes - has been both challenged from some quarters in recent years on grounds of equity and eroded by expansion of the standard deduction.

The Commission offered several recommendations to the public, foundations, and the government. It recommended:

   That all taxpayers who take the standard deduction should also be permitted to deduct charitable contributions as an additional, itemized deduction.
     That families with incomes below $15,000 a year be allowed to deduct twice the amount of their giving, and those with incomes between $15,000 and $30,000 be allowed to deduct 150 per cent of what they contribute.
     That corporations set as a minimum goal, to be reached no later than 1980, the giving to charitable purposes of 2 per cent of pretax net income, and that further studies of means to stimulate corporate giving be pursued.
     That all larger tax-exempt charitable organizations except churches and church affiliates be required to prepare and make readily available detailed annual reports on their finances, programs and priorities.
     That larger grant-making organizations be required to hold annual public meetings to discuss their programs, priorities and contributions.
     That legal responsibility for proper expenditure of foundation grants, now imposed on both foundations and recipients, be eliminated and the recipient organization be made primarily responsible for their own expenditures.
     That tax-exempt organizations, particularly funding organizations, recognize an obligation to be responsive to changing viewpoints and emerging needs and that they take steps such as broadening their boards and staffs to insure that they are responsive.
     That all tax-exempt organizations be required to maintain "arms-length" business relationships with profit-making organizations or activities in which any principal of the exempt organization has a financial interest.
     That a system of federal regulation be established for interstate charitable solicitations and that intrastate solicitations be more effectively regulated by state governments.
     That nonprofit organizations, other than private foundations, be allowed the same freedom to attempt to influence legislation as are business corporations and trade associations, that toward this end Congress remove the current limitation on such activity by charitable groups eligible to receive tax-deductible gifts.
     That a permanent national commission on the nonprofit sector be established by Congress.

The above Findings and Recommendations were taken from the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, 1964-1980, Ruth Lilly Special Collections and Archives, IUPUI University Library, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis.

References

External links
 The  Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs records are available at the Ruth Lilly Special Collections & Archives, IUPUI University Library.
  Giving in America: Toward a Stronger Voluntary Sector report is available at the eArchives hosted by the Ruth Lilly Special Collections & Archives, IUPUI University Library.

Philanthropic organizations based in the United States
1973 establishments in the United States


Harald Svergja (born 1964) is a Norwegian ski-orienteering competitor and world champion. He won a gold medal in the relay event at the World Ski Orienteering Championships in Val di Non in 1994, together with Kjetil Ulven, Lars Lystad and Vidar Benjaminsen.

He finished third in the overall World Cup in Ski Orienteering in 1993.

References

1964 births
Living people
People from Hedmark
Norwegian orienteers
Male orienteers
Ski-orienteers
Sportspeople from Innlandet
20th-century Norwegian people


Isaac Newton's rotating spheres argument attempts to demonstrate that true rotational motion can be defined by observing the tension in the string joining two identical spheres. The basis of the argument is that all observers make two observations: the tension in the string joining the bodies (which is the same for all observers) and the rate of rotation of the spheres (which is different for observers with differing rates of rotation). Only for the truly non-rotating observer will the tension in the string be explained using only the observed rate of rotation. For all other observers a "correction" is required (a centrifugal force) that accounts for the tension calculated being different from the one expected using the observed rate of rotation.  It is one of five arguments from the "properties, causes, and effects" of true motion and rest that support his contention that, in general, true motion and rest cannot be defined as special instances of motion or rest relative to other bodies, but instead can be defined only by reference to absolute space. Alternatively, these experiments provide an operational definition of what is meant by "absolute rotation", and do not pretend to address the question of "rotation relative to what?" General relativity dispenses with absolute space and with physics whose cause is external to the system, with the concept of geodesics of spacetime.

Background
Newton was concerned to address the problem of how it is that we can experimentally determine the true motions of bodies in light of the fact that absolute space is not something that can be perceived.  Such determination, he says, can be accomplished by observing the causes of motion (that is, forces) and not simply the apparent motions of bodies relative to one another (as in the bucket argument). As an example where causes can be observed, if two globes, floating in space, are connected by a cord, measuring the amount of tension in the cord, with no other clues to assess the situation, alone suffices to indicate how fast the two objects are revolving around the common center of mass. (This experiment involves observation of a force, the tension). Also, the sense of the rotation—whether it is in the clockwise or the counter-clockwise direction—can be discovered by applying forces to opposite faces of the globes and ascertaining whether this leads to an increase or a decrease in the tension of the cord (again involving a force).  Alternatively, the sense of the rotation can be determined by measuring the apparent motion of the globes with respect to a background system of bodies that, according to the preceding methods, have been established already as not in a state of rotation, as an example from Newton's time, the fixed stars.

In the 1846 Andrew Motte translation of Newton's words:

To summarize this proposal, here is a quote from Born:

Mach took some issue with the argument, pointing out that the rotating sphere experiment could never be done in an empty universe, where possibly Newton's laws do not apply, so the experiment really only shows what happens when the spheres rotate in our universe, and therefore, for example, may indicate only rotation relative to the entire mass of the universe.

An interpretation that avoids this conflict is to say that the rotating spheres experiment does not really define rotation relative to anything in particular (for example, absolute space or fixed stars); rather the experiment is an operational definition of what is meant by the motion called absolute rotation.

Formulation of the argument
This sphere example was used by Newton himself to discuss the detection of rotation relative to absolute space. Checking the fictitious force needed to account for the tension in the string is one way for an observer to decide whether or not they are rotating – if the fictitious force is zero, they are not rotating. (Of course, in an extreme case like the gravitron amusement ride, you do not need much convincing that you are rotating, but standing on the Earth's surface, the matter is more subtle.) Below, the mathematical details behind this observation are presented.

Figure 1 shows two identical spheres rotating about the center of the string joining them.  The axis of rotation is shown as a vector Ω with direction given by the right-hand rule and magnitude equal to the rate of rotation: |Ω| = ω. The angular rate of rotation ω is assumed independent of time (uniform circular motion). Because of the rotation, the string is under tension. (See reactive centrifugal force.) The description of this system next is presented from the viewpoint of an inertial frame and from a rotating frame of reference.

Inertial frame

Adopt an inertial frame centered at the midpoint of the string. The balls move in a circle about the origin of our coordinate system. Look first at one of the two balls. To travel in a circular path, which is not uniform motion with constant velocity, but circular motion at constant speed, requires a force to act on the ball so as to continuously change the direction of its velocity. This force is directed inward, along the direction of the string, and is called a centripetal force. The other ball has the same requirement, but being on the opposite end of the string, requires a centripetal force of the same size, but opposite in direction. See Figure 2. These two forces are provided by the string, putting the string under tension, also shown in Figure 2.

Rotating frame

Adopt a rotating frame at the midpoint of the string. Suppose the frame rotates at the same angular rate as the balls, so the balls appear stationary in this rotating frame. Because the balls are not moving, observers say they are at rest. If they now apply Newton's law of inertia, they would say no force acts on the balls, so the string should be relaxed. However, they clearly see the string is under tension. (For example, they could split the string and put a spring in its center, which would stretch.) To account for this tension, they propose that in their frame a centrifugal force acts on the two balls, pulling them apart. This force originates from nowhere – it is just a "fact of life" in this rotating world, and acts on everything they observe, not just these spheres. In resisting this ubiquitous centrifugal force, the string is placed under tension, accounting for their observation, despite the fact that the spheres are at rest.

Coriolis force

What if the spheres are not rotating in the inertial frame (string tension is zero)? Then string tension in the rotating frame also is zero. But how can that be? The spheres in the rotating frame now appear to be rotating and should require an inward force to do that. According to the analysis of uniform circular motion:

where uR is a unit vector pointing from the axis of rotation to one of the spheres, and Ω is a vector representing the angular rotation, with magnitude ω and direction normal to the plane of rotation given by the right-hand rule, m is the mass of the ball, and R is the distance from the axis of rotation to the spheres (the magnitude of the displacement vector, |xB| = R, locating one or the other of the spheres).  According to the rotating observer, shouldn't the tension in the string be twice as big as before (the tension from the centrifugal force plus the extra tension needed to provide the centripetal force of rotation)? The reason the rotating observer sees zero tension is because of yet another fictitious force in the rotating world, the Coriolis force, which depends on the velocity of a moving object. In this zero-tension case, according to the rotating observer, the spheres now are moving, and the Coriolis force (which depends upon velocity) is activated. According to the article fictitious force, the Coriolis force is:

where R is the distance to the object from the center of rotation, and vB is the velocity of the object subject to the Coriolis force, |vB| = ωR.

In the geometry of this example, this Coriolis force has twice the magnitude of the ubiquitous centrifugal force and is exactly opposite in direction. Therefore, it cancels out the ubiquitous centrifugal force found in the first example, and goes a step further to provide exactly the centripetal force demanded by uniform circular motion, so the rotating observer calculates there is no need for tension in the string  − the Coriolis force looks after everything.

General case

What happens if the spheres rotate at one angular rate, say ωI (I = inertial), and the frame rotates at a different rate ωR (R = rotational)? The inertial observers see circular motion and the tension in the string exerts a centripetal inward force on the spheres of:

This force also is the force due to tension seen by the rotating observers. The rotating observers see the spheres in circular motion with angular rate ωS =  ωI − ωR (S = spheres). That is, if the frame rotates more slowly than the spheres, ωS > 0 and the spheres advance counterclockwise around a circle, while for a more rapidly moving frame, ωS < 0, and the spheres appear to retreat clockwise around a circle. In either case, the rotating observers see circular motion and require a net inward centripetal force:

However, this force is not the tension in the string. So the rotational observers  conclude that a force exists (which the inertial observers call a fictitious force) so that:

or,

The fictitious force changes sign depending upon which of ωI and ωS is greater. The reason for the sign change is that when ωI > ωS, the spheres actually are moving faster than the rotating observers measure, so they measure a tension in the string that actually is larger than they expect; hence, the fictitious force must increase the tension (point outward). When ωI < ωS, things are reversed so the fictitious force has to decrease the tension, and therefore has the opposite sign (points inward).

Is the fictitious force ad hoc?

The introduction of FFict allows the rotational observers and the inertial observers to agree on the tension in the string. However, we might ask: "Does this solution fit in with general experience with other situations, or is it simply a "cooked up" ad hoc solution?" That question is answered by seeing how this value for FFict squares with the general result (derived in Fictitious force):

The subscript B refers to quantities referred to the non-inertial coordinate system. Full notational details are in Fictitious force.  For constant angular rate of rotation the last term is zero. To evaluate the other terms we need the position of one of the spheres:

and the velocity of this sphere as seen in the rotating frame:

where uθ is a unit vector perpendicular to uR pointing in the direction of motion.

The frame rotates at a rate ωR, so the vector of rotation is Ω = ωR uz  (uz a unit vector in the z-direction), and Ω × uR = ωR (uz × uR) = ωR uθ ; Ω × uθ = −ωR uR. The centrifugal force is then:

which naturally depends only on the rate of rotation of the frame and is always outward. The Coriolis force is

and has the ability to change sign, being outward when the spheres move faster than the frame ( ωS > 0 ) and being inward when the spheres move slower than the frame ( ωS < 0 ). Combining the terms:

Consequently, the fictitious force found above for this problem of rotating spheres is consistent with the general result and is not an ad hoc solution just "cooked up" to bring about agreement for this single example. Moreover, it is the Coriolis force that makes it possible for the fictitious force to change sign depending upon which of  ωI, ωS is the greater, inasmuch as the centrifugal force contribution always is outward.

Rotation and cosmic background radiation
The isotropy of the cosmic background radiation is another indicator that the universe does not rotate.

See also

Bucket argument
Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)
Fictitious force
Mach's principle
Mechanics of planar particle motion
Sagnac effect
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

References and notes

Isaac Newton
Classical mechanics
Thought experiments in physics


Oterå or Otterå is a farm in Austevoll municipality in Vestland county, Norway.

Location
The farm is located on the eastern coast of the island of Huftarøy, the largest island in Austevoll municipality. The farm is located along a strait, across from the island of Reksteren in Tysnes municipality. The farm is located between the neighboring farms Såtendal and Brekke. Outside the eastern use is a headland known as Oteråneset. County Road 546 runs on the west side of the farm area.  Historically it was one large farm, but it has since been divided into two separate farms (eastern and western) with different owners, although they both share the same name.  Today, there are many cabins surrounding the main farm.

History
The farm has been in use since around 1600. The name (Otterå, Otteraano, Oteråni and similar spellings) refers to river that runs through the valley. It was historically part of the municipality/parish of Fitjar until the municipal boundaries were changed in 1964.  The three neighboring farms of Husavik, Brekke, and Otterå had naturally close contact due to their proximity.

The first time the farm is mentioned in historical records is in 1590, however at that time it was deserted. In 1610, it is cleared, but in use by "ødegaardsmænd", so there were barren conditions.  Since 1799, the land has been owned by the farmers who lived there.  Lars Knutsson was the first farmer-landowner.  Before that time, the land was owned and then leased to the farmer. Lars Knutsson had married Ildrid Jonsdotter Haukanes who had inherited the farm by his father. Before 1766, it was a part of greater estates in Sunnhordland, self-owned in shorter periods. In the first part of the 17th century, the nobleman Aksel Mowatt owned Otterå, and from 1660, Baron Louis Rosenkrantz was the owner. In the first part of the 18th century, the big farmers in Fitjar are owners, before Ivar Nilsson Haukanes bought the farm in 1766.

References

Farms in Vestland
Austevoll


This article summarizes the outcomes of all official matches played by the Palestine national football team by opponent and by period, since they first played in official competitions in 1953.

Results in chronological order

1953–1997

1998–2009

2010–2019

105 matches played:

2020–present

4 matches played:

See also
Palestine national football team records and statistics

Notes

References

External links
FIFA.com
World Football Elo Ratings: Palestine
Wildstat


Big Shot's Funeral (, Mandarin colloquialism for "big shot") is a 2001 Chinese black comedy film directed by Feng Xiaogang. It was written by Feng, Li Xiaoming and Shi Kang. The black comedy starred Ge You, Rosamund Kwan and Donald Sutherland.

The film follows a temporary photographer (Ge You), who befriends a famed American film director (Sutherland) and goes to raise money for his friend's funeral after an accident during the shooting of a documentary.

Released on 21 December 2001 as a Chinese New Year film, the film is produced by Huayi Brothers Advertising, Taihe Films, and Columbia Pictures. It marked the fourth collaboration between director Feng Xiaogang and actor Ge You. The film received mixed reviews and modest box office performance, and won the Best Feature Film Award at China's 25th Hundred Flowers Awards in 2002, and actor Ge You won the Best Actor Award.

Plot
World-renowned American film director Don Tyler (played by Donald Sutherland) is shooting a remake of The Last Emperor in the Forbidden City, Beijing.  The director's assistant Lucy, a Chinese American (Rosamund Kwan), hires a Beijing cameraman named YoYo (Ge You) to shoot a "making of" documentary. The director discovers he has ailing health and is booted by the film's producer from the shoot. After witnessing a Chinese funeral for the elderly, Tyler tells YoYo he wants to have a similar "comedy funeral". Soon afterwards, the American director falls into a coma.  YoYo is officially allowed to plan Tyler's funeral and he enlists the help of a businessman friend to attract as many sponsors as the funeral process would permit.

Everyone decides to organize a decent funeral to honour the big name director. As a result, Youyou, a laid-off photographer from the film studio, and Louis Wang, a dull and pedantic businessman, take up the job. For a time, the funeral becomes the focus of all media attention, and no one is willing to miss such a great business opportunity. Taylor is taken to the hospital by ambulance, and before leaving, he says to Youyou: "Don't forget, I need a comedy funeral."

The doctor says to Youyou and Lucy, who are standing outside the emergency room, "The patient's life is irreversible, and the family can prepare for the funeral." According to Taylor's wishes, Tony decides to give Youyou the sole discretion of Taylor's funeral. Youyou takes over the job with a chivalrous attitude. He finds help from Louis Wang, an old classmate who owns a performance company and claims to have organized many large-scale concerts. King Louis cannot believe his ears; he slaps Youyou on the shoulder and says, "I'll give you a commission!"

The news of Tyler's death is a rare business opportunity for Tony, the Japanese producer and King Louis. Only Youyou and Lucy face this matter with simple emotions. According to King Louis's plan, Taylor will hold a "rich and colorful program, similar to the Spring Festival Gala, Happy Camp, Happy General Mobilization, and at the same time a little like a disaster relief charity performance. The funeral will be broadcast live on TV to the world."

The more than 3 million funeral expenses for You You and Lucy are not available, but King Louis is very happy. He can find someone to pay, but the person who pays the money has his own request. Therefore, the performance company wants to make the newly signed actress "next to" Taylor famous, and many companies do not hesitate to spend a lot of money to advertise products at the funeral. "Dead Taylor" becomes a money-making machine in their eyes. Just when everyone was dreaming of making a fortune, on this day, Lucy visits Taylor in the ward and is pleasantly surprised to find that Taylor has come back from death. Tony and Taylor decide to block the news and let the "play" continue.

At the advertising auction, the price of funeral advertisements soars, and the solemn portrait of Taylor is also designed as an advertising carrier, rolling from top to bottom like a wave of water, turning into a brightly colored "ridiculous" fitness drink advertisement. Tony and Tyler are leisurely smoking cigars in the hospital, waiting for the outcome of the show. Almost every detail of the funeral is advertised, and every part of Taylor's "body" is fully utilized. Even the makers of counterfeit products are reluctant to lose this great business opportunity.

When everyone's dream of making a fortune reaches its climax, the news of Taylor's recovery pours on people's heads like a basin of cold water. King Louis could not stand this unexpected blow and becomes mentally ill. Youyou doesn't know how to face the many advertisers and pretends to be sick and is admitted to a mental hospital.

After this farce, You and Lu deepen their understanding of each other and find love. The film ends with the two hugging and kissing.

Cast
 Ge You as Yoyo
 Rosamund Kwan as Lucy
 Paul Mazursky as Tony
 Christopher Barden as Peter
 Donald Sutherland as Don Tyler

Soundtrack
'Idiot' (白痴/bái chī) from Faye Wong's 2001 album Faye Wong is the theme song.

Accolades

Receptions

Box office
Since 7 January 2002, after only 10 days on-air, the film had already reached 10 million dollars which collected by the box office (only in Beijing). The entire county was 33 million and more.

Critical responses

References

External links

2001 films
2001 comedy films
2000s Mandarin-language films
Films set in Beijing
Films directed by Feng Xiaogang
Chinese comedy films
Films with live action and animation
Films about film directors and producers
Chinese New Year films
2000s Chinese films


Brasileirinho (Little Brazilian) is a 1947 choro composed by Waldir Azevedo. It is considered one of the most successful and influential choros of all time; this standard has been covered by many artists, like singer Carmen Miranda, acoustic guitarist , guitarist Pepeu Gomes, and cellist Yo-Yo Ma (Obrigado Brazil). It was voted by the Brazilian edition of Rolling Stone as the 53rd greatest Brazilian song. The 2005 documentary Brasileirinho, about the choro genre, is named after the 1947 song.

References

1947 songs
Songs with music by Valdir Azevedo
Choro songs
Brazilian patriotic songs


Sarah Maple is a British visual artist. She was recognised for her work after being awarded the "New Sensations" prize.

Early life and education
Maple was born in 1985 to a Punjabi Muslim mother and British father.  In 2003, she went through a Foundation Course at the University of the Creative Arts. Four years later, she received a BA of Fine Art with honours at Kingston University.

Awards
In 2007 she won the "4 New Sensations" competition, run by Channel 4 in conjunction with the Saatchi Gallery.  The competition's aim is "to find the most exciting and imaginative artistic talent in the UK" from among art students graduating that year.

In 2015 she won a Sky Academy Arts Scholarship to produce a new body of work for a new solo exhibition in 2017  Maple has exhibited her work at galleries and institutions such as Tate Britain, The New Art Exchange, Golden Thread Gallery  and Kunstihoone Tallinn

In 2015 she released her first book You Could Have Done This, a hardback art book of selected works with contributions from Beverley Knowles (curator and writer), Margaret Harrison (artist), Oreet Ashery (artist) and Anne Swartz (professor Art History)

In 2019 her debut U.S. mixed-media solo exhibit took place at The Untitled Space in New York City, entitled "Thoughts and Prayers," with work that spanned 10 years. It explored topical issues including the immigrant experience and gun violence.

References

External links

Interview with Sarah Maple on Indechs - contemporary online archive
Interview with Sarah Maple on Myartspace
Interview with The Independent

Living people
British women artists
English artists
Feminist artists
1985 births


George Franklin Comstock (1811–1892) was an American lawyer and politician. He was Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals from 1860 to 1861.

Personal life
Comstock was born on August 24, 1811, in Williamstown, New York. He graduated from Union College in 1834. Then he studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1837. He was married to Cornelia, daughter of his friend and law partner, B. Davis Noxon, and had a son and daughter. Comstock died in Syracuse on September 27, 1892, and was buried at the Oakwood Cemetery.

Career
Comstock was Solicitor of the United States Treasury from 1852 to 1853, during the administration of President Millard Fillmore.

He was a judge of the New York Court of Appeals from 1856 to 1861, elected on the American Party ticket to fill the remainder of the unexpired term of Charles H. Ruggles who had resigned in October 1855. In 1856, Union College conferred the honorary degree of LL.D. on him. He was Chief Judge from 1860 to 1861. He published the first four volumes of the law reports of the Court of Appeals. In 1861, he ran for re-election on the Democratic ticket, but was defeated by the Union candidate William B. Wright.

Syracuse University
Comstock was an influential figure in the founding of Syracuse University and a member of the new university's board of trustees. In 1870, he donated fifty acres of farmland on a hillside to the southeast of the city center, then valued at $60,000, to establish the university. He also donated additional $35,000. Comstock intended Syracuse University and the hill to develop as an integrated whole; a contemporary account described the latter as "a beautiful town ... springing up on the hillside and a community of refined and cultivated membership ... established near the spot which will soon be the center of a great and beneficent educational institution."

Comstock tract of buildings
The Comstock Tract Buildings, a historic district of older buildings on the Syracuse University campus, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. Three buildings on campus—the Crouse Memorial College and the Hall of Languages, and the Pi Chapter House of Psi Upsilon Fraternity—are individually listed on the National Register.

References

External links

1811 births
1892 deaths
People from Williamstown, New York
Chief Judges of the New York Court of Appeals
Politicians from Syracuse, New York
Union College (New York) alumni
Comptrollers of the United States Treasury
New York (state) Know Nothings
19th-century American politicians
New York (state) Democrats
United States Department of the Treasury officials
Burials at Oakwood Cemetery (Syracuse, New York)
Manlius Pebble Hill School
Lawyers from Syracuse, New York
19th-century American judges
19th-century American lawyers
19th-century American businesspeople
Syracuse University trustees


Silver Gate is an unincorporated community and census-designated place (CDP) in Park County, Montana, United States. As of the 2010 census, it had a population of 20. Prior to 2010, it was part of the Cooke City-Silver Gate CDP.

The community sits northeast of Yellowstone National Park on the Beartooth Highway (U.S. Route 212). It is the closest community to the park's Northeast Entrance Station.

Geography
Silver Gate is in the southeast part of Park County, bordered to the south by the North Absaroka Wilderness within Shoshone National Forest in the state of Wyoming, to the west by Yellowstone National Park, and to the east by Cooke City. The two towns sit in the valley of Soda Butte Creek, which flows southwest into Wyoming to join the Lamar River within Yellowstone Park. The valley is part of the Yellowstone River watershed.

Climate

Demographics

References

Census-designated places in Park County, Montana
Census-designated places in Montana


Leninist Group in the Iraqi Communist Movement () was a grouping of Iraqi communist exiles, dissidents from the Iraqi Communist Party. The main leaders of the group were two university professors at the University of Algiers, Khalid Abdullah as-Salam and Khalil al-Jazairi. Towards the late 1980s, the group began issuing a broadsheet publication, Nashrah.

The group signed an appeal of leftist and democratic exiles in the Baathist newspaper at-Thawra in December 1991. In the wake of the  Gulf War, the Iraqi government issued a pardon for Iraqi exiles. As-Salam and al-Jazairi both returned to Iraq.

References

Defunct communist parties in Iraq
Iraqi Communist Party breakaway groups


Danilo "Danny" Guades is a Filipino spree killer who hacked to death 10 people with a bolo and injured 17 more on a drunken rampage through his neighbourhood in Gadgaran, Calbayog, on June 2, 2007.

Life
Danny Guades was jailed for seven years at the (Abuyao) Caloocan City Jail for stabbing his elder brother Toto to death some time in the 1980s. He had been married, but his wife died in December 2006. After her death, he began to stay at his cousin's house. He had a child, who was in fourth grade at the time of the murders. Throughout the village, Guades was known as a mentally unstable troublemaker who was often drunk, sometimes staying awake for two days, before running to the mangroves to sleep there on the ground for the following two days. Apparently, Guades had also told others that he was being followed by someone.

Murders
Guades began his rampage at the home of his cousin Emily Guades Ponce. Entering her house at about 2 a.m., he attacked her husband Benjamin with a 22-inch long bolo knife, hitting him in the left shoulder, before turning against her sleeping children, killing her son Eric with a blow to the head and injuring her other son Benjie and her daughter Marylin with hits to the head and arms. Emily Guades Ponce, though also suffering head injuries, managed to jump out of a window and escape.

Subsequently, Guades attacked the Jadulco family, who was living nearby, killing pregnant Gemma Jadulco and five of her children and leaving two others injured, before walking to the Conteras' home. There, he killed Candido Conteras, injured his wife Maria, daughter Jennelyn, and mortally wounded their son Danilo. In the backyard of the house, Guades attacked Carlito Layam, who suffered minor injuries to his right arm, but managed to fight off the attacker.

Afterwards, Guades entered the house of Enis Lecis through the window and hit the sleeping Eduardo and Enis Lecis in the head, killing Eduardo and wounding Enis. At a wake for a member of the Ramada family, where Guades had spent some time drinking earlier, he cut Francisco Ramada's throat, hit Ernesto Ramada's neck, and stabbed Armando Ramada in the left side of his body. Michael Caber and Myra Manlapid were also injured before people attending the wake managed to fight Guades off. Guades fled to a road junction, where he attacked his final victims, Eddie and Jocelyn Gonzaga, who were on a motorcycle. Guades assaulted them with the bolo and a club, hitting Eddie Gonzaga in the arm, jaw, and forehead, and his wife in her left elbow, before the driver of the motorcycle was able to escape.

Guades finally surrendered himself to Fortunato Burbana, a villager, at about 3 a.m. He stated that he surrendered, fearing police might chase and kill him. Burbana then turned him over to police, ending Guades' hour-long rampage. At the police station, Guades denied killing anyone but his brother years prior to the rampage. He was charged with multiple murder.

Victims

Deaths

Injured

Motive
It was said that Guades apparently had a quarrel with Gemma Jadulco's husband, Totoy, before the rampage, when both were attending the wake. Police later disclosed that Guades told them he committed the crime to strengthen his amulet, a piece of paper with Latin words on it.

References

External links
Killing Rampage In Calbayog Samar, Tingog.com (June 3, 2007)
Eight killed as amok rampages in Samar, The Manila Times (June 3, 2007)
Deranged man kills 10, hurts 16 in Samar village, Philippine Headline News (June 3, 2007)
Jobless man runs amuck, kills 10 in Samar, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 3, 2007)
10 killed, 16 wounded as man runs amok in Samar, Philippine Daily Inquirer (June 2, 2007)
Drunk man kills 10 in Philippines, Reuters (June 3, 2007)
Killing spree in Calbayog a wake-up call, say top cops, Leyte Samar Daily Express
Multiple murder charges filed vs amok, Philippine Information Agency (June 5, 2007)

1960s births
2007 murders in the Philippines
Filipino mass murderers
Filipino murderers of children
Fratricides
Living people
Mass murder in 2007
Massacres in the Philippines
People from Calbayog
Spree killers


Mylara Lingeshwara Temple is a Hindu temple dedicated to the god (Mailara dynasty), a form of the god Shiva in Mylara. Located at center of Karnataka, It is in the extreme south-western corner of Hoovina Hadagali taluk, Vijayanagara district, Karnataka, India. It is 2 km from Tungabhadra river and 36 km  from Hadagali 36  km from Ranebennur and 39 km from Harapanahalli

According to legend
Mallasura (demon) and his brother performed a severe penance extracted from Brahma and, with a promise that they should never be harmed by any human being, began to harass the sages or rishis. The sages appealed Shiva to protect them; Shiva took on a new form and, taking with him his forces of seven crores goravas, warred with Mallasura and his brother Manikasura for 10 days> He then slew them both with his bow. During the battle, Lord Veerabhadra, Shiva's aide, struck the earth with his long hair and Kanchaveeras emerged from the spot. The Kanchaveeras confronted Mallasura and Manikasura and handed them over to Mailara. After killing Mallasura and Manikasura, Mailara (Shiva) wore their intestines as his turban, their teeth as a cowrie necklace, their mouths as a damaruga (hand drum), skulls as a doni (meal bowl) and their skins as a long coat. The fat of the demons was used as oil and their nerves as the lamp wick.

Karnika Utsava (prophecy)
Rituals during the Mylar Jatre (fair) include the Karanika Utsava (bow-climbing and prophecy-uttering ritual) and Pavada (body piercing ritual). Karanika Utsava is performed by the Karanika gorava, who fasts for 12 days, after which he climbs a 12-meter bow and utters a euphoric prophecy regarding regional agriculture, animal husbandry, and politics.

Karnikotsava Gorava's utterance tumbida koda mooru bhaga aadeethale parakh! means "A full pot may get split into three parts". Karnikotsava means the prophecy; it is like a puzzle. Some guess it to be an indication of political situation in the state and some guess about rain and crop that means it is an indication of some threat to the agriculture so, the prophecy warns the farmers to be very careful. It is believed that the saying would indicate the future of the coming year.

Goravara kunita

The gorava dance (goravara kunita), a dance of the Shiva cult, is popular in areas of North Karnataka. The goravas worship Mylara linga (Shiva), wear the costume of a black woolen rug, on shoulder hanging bag made out of skin. Some of them wear a black coat and white dhoti. In traditional contexts, the gorava devotees who dance in trance sometimes bark like dogs. It is believed that the totem of the Mylaralinga is a dog. The dancers' feet move in clockwise and zigzag forms. Gorava wears yellow powder on his forehead and gives it to his believed devotees. Artists holds instruments, like damaru (percussion), or sometime holds kolalu (flute), and a few artists wear a small bronze bell on their shoulders. A few followers hold cowbells called paarigante.

References

Hindu temples in Vijayanagara district
Shiva temples in Karnataka


The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) is a member-based association and advocacy group based in Washington, DC, United States, that promotes partnerships and awareness of emerging technologies amongst technology decision-makers in K-12 education.

History
CoSN, formed in 1992, is the premier professional association for K-12 EdTech leaders, their teams, other school district leaders, and represents over 13 million students. CoSN provides thought leadership resources, community, best practices, and advocacy tools to help leaders succeed at digital transformation.

In the early years, CoSN became part of a coalition which advocated for the 1997 enactment of E-rate, a component of the Universal Service Fund, which provides discounts to assist most schools and libraries in the United States (and U.S. territories) to obtain affordable telecommunications and Internet access. Since then, CoSN has since continued its advocacy for the program and has become a powerful and influential voice in K-12 education.

CoSN also provides opportunities for companies that support the K-12 EdTech community to participate as corporate members.

 CoSN also played a leading role in advocating for sound technology policies within the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

References

External links
 CoSN website
 Universal Service Administrative Company

Educational organizations based in the United States
Organizations established in 1992
United States schools associations
Non-profit organizations based in Washington, D.C.


David Delmar Watson (July 1, 1926 – October 26, 2008) was an American child actor and news photographer.

Life and career
Watson was one of nine children born to actor, stuntman, and pioneer special effects artist Coy Watson Sr. The family lived in the old Edendale area (now Echo Park) of Los Angeles. Watson attended Belmont High School.

Watson acted in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington alongside James Stewart and in Heidi with Shirley Temple. His eight siblings (five brothers and three sisters) also acted in films, including Coy Jr., Harry and Bobs. He and his brothers played the governor's sons in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The family was honored by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce by placing the Watson family ("the First Family of Hollywood") star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, at 6674 Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood.

Watson edited and published five books: "Quick, Watson, The Camera''' (1976), Los Angeles The Olympic City, 1932–1984 (1984), The 10th Olympiad – Japan (1984), Goin' Hollywood 1887–1987 (1988), and Delmar Watson's "Babe", The One and Only (1992).

Watson died from prostate cancer at his home in Glendale, California, on October 26, 2008, at the age of 82.

Partial filmography

 Taxi 13 (1928) - Mactavish Child (uncredited)
 Blue Skies (1929)
 The Valiant (1929) - Little Boy Who Falls Down (uncredited)
 Lucky Star (1929) - Young Tucker (uncredited)
 Love, Live and Laugh (1929) - Little Boy (uncredited)
 The Lone Star Ranger (1930) - Baby Jones
 Outside the Law (1930) - The Kid
 Mothers Cry (1930) - One of the Williams Children - Age 3 (uncredited)
 Riders of the Purple Sage (1931) - Young Boy (uncredited)
 Compromised (1931) - Sandy Brock
 The Fourth Horseman (1932) - Young Boy (uncredited)
 Wild Girl (1932) - Willie - Red Pete's Boy (uncredited)
 Goldie Gets Along (1933) - Autograph Seeking Boy Outside Restaurant (uncredited)
 The Last Trail (1933) - Pupil with Tom's Hat (uncredited)
 To the Last Man (1933) - Tad Stanley (uncredited)
 The Right to Romance (1933) - Bill
 Fugitive Lovers (1934) - Tommy (uncredited)
 Straight Is the Way (1934) - Crying Boy (voice, uncredited)
 Chained (1934) - Boy Shipboard Swimmer (uncredited)
 Among the Missing (1934) - First Boy
 Gentlemen Are Born (1934) - Crying Boy (uncredited)
 The Painted Veil (1934) - Crying Boy (scenes deleted)
 Life Begins at 40 (1935) - Meriwether Son (uncredited)
 Silk Hat Kid (1935) - Child (uncredited)
 Freckles (1935) - Little Boy (uncredited)
 Annie Oakley (1935) - Wesley Oakley
 We're Only Human (1936) - Tommy Anderson (uncredited)
 Sutter's Gold (1936) - 3rd Newsboy (uncredited)
 The Country Doctor (1936) - Oldest Wyatt Boy (uncredited)
 Silly Billies (1936) - Martin
 Show Boat (1936) - Boy (uncredited)
 Old Hutch (1936) - Allie Hutchins
 The Great O'Malley (1937) - Tubby
 Maytime (1937) - Maypole Singer (uncredited)
 We Have Our Moments (1937) - Little Boy (uncredited)
 Let Them Live (1937) - Boy in Orphanage (uncredited)
 The Road Back (1937) - Boy (uncredited)
 It Happened in Hollywood (1937) - Boy (uncredited)
 Heidi (1937) - Peter
 52nd Street (1937) - Young Benjamin (uncredited)
 Outlaws of the Prairie (1937) - Dart Collins Jr. (uncredited)
 Clipped Wings (1937) - Mickey Lofton - as a Boy
 Tovarich (1937) - Urchin Stealing Groceries (uncredited)
 Change of Heart (1938) - Jimmy Milligan
 Hunted Men (1938) - Robert Harris aka Butch
 Breaking the Ice (1938) - Reuben Johnson
 A Christmas Carol (1938) - Snowballer in Gang (uncredited)
 Kentucky (1938) - Thad Goodwin Jr. - 1861
 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1939) - Joe (uncredited)
 You Can't Cheat an Honest Man (1939) - Boy with Slingshot (uncredited)
 The Family Next Door (1939) - Boy (uncredited)
 Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) - Admiring Boy in New Salem (uncredited)
 When Tomorrow Comes (1939) - Boy in Wagon (uncredited)
 Those High Grey Walls (1939) - Boy (uncredited)
 Here I Am a Stranger (1939) - Shoeshine Boy (uncredited)
 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) - Hopper Boy #2
 Legion of the Lawless (1940) - Lafe Barton Jr.
 His Girl Friday (1940) - Skinny (uncredited)
 I Take This Woman (1940) - Smaller Murphy Kid (scenes deleted)
 My Little Chickadee (1940) - Boy (uncredited)
 The Lady from Cheyenne (1941) - Toothless Boy (uncredited)
 New York Town (1941) - Hungarian Boy (uncredited)
 Among the Living (1941) - Newsboy (uncredited)
 Gas House Kids Go West (1947) - Young Boy (uncredited) (final film role)

See also

Watson family

References

 Bibliography

 Holmstrom, John (1996). The Moving Picture Boy: An International Encyclopaedia from 1895 to 1995''. Norwich: Michael Russell, p. 144-145.

External links

1926 births
2008 deaths
20th-century American male actors
20th-century American photographers
American male child actors
American male film actors
Belmont High School (Los Angeles) alumni
Deaths from cancer in California
Deaths from prostate cancer
Male actors from Los Angeles
Male Western (genre) film actors
People from Echo Park, Los Angeles
Delmar


Beecher Community School District is a public school district in Genesee County in the U.S. state of Michigan and in the Genesee Intermediate School District. It serves the census-designated place of Beecher which is just north of Flint.

Notable events
The district gained national attention on February 29, 2000, when six-year-old Kayla Rolland was shot and killed by a classmate at Buell Elementary School.

Athletics
Beecher's mascot is the Beecher Buccaneer.

Notable graduates

 Carl Banks, linebacker for the New York Giants, Washington Redskins, and Cleveland Browns
 Duane D. Hackney, the most decorated enlisted person in history of the U.S. Air Force
 Courtney Hawkins, wide receiver for Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Pittsburgh Steelers
 Roy Marble, former Iowa Hawkeyes and NBA player
 Monté Morris, point guard for the Denver Nuggets of the NBA, former standout point guard for Iowa State Cyclones, former Mr. Basketball Michigan, winner of 3 Class C MHSAA State Championships

References

External links

School districts in Michigan
Education in Genesee County, Michigan


Kjetil Ulven (born 16 November 1967) is a Norwegian ski-orienteering competitor and world champion. He won a gold medal in the relay event at the World Ski Orienteering Championships in Val di Non in 1994, together with Lars Lystad, Harald Svergja and Vidar Benjaminsen. He received a bronze medal in the short distance in Windischgarsten in 1998, and a bronze medal in the middle distance in Borovetz in 2002.

References

1967 births
Living people
Norwegian orienteers
Male orienteers
Ski-orienteers
20th-century Norwegian people


The term grex (plural greges or grexes; abbreviation gx), derived from the Latin noun , , meaning 'flock', has been expanded in botanical nomenclature to describe hybrids of orchids, based solely on their parentage. Grex names are one of the three categories of plant names governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants; within a grex the cultivar group category can be used to refer to plants by their shared characteristics (rather than by their parentage), and individual orchid plants can be selected (and propagated) and named as cultivars.

Botanical nomenclature of hybrids
The horticultural nomenclature of grexes exists within the framework of the botanical nomenclature of hybrid plants. Interspecific hybrids occur in nature, and are treated under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants as nothospecies, ('notho' indicating hybrid). They can optionally be given Linnean binomials with a multiplication sign "×" before the species epithet for example Crataegus × media.  An offspring of a nothospecies, either with a member of the same nothospecies or any of the parental species as the other parent, has the same nothospecific name. The nothospecific binomial is an alias for a list of the ancestral species, whether the ancestry is precisely known or not.

For example:
 a hybrid between Cattleya warscewiczii Rchb.f. 1854 and Cattleya aurea Linden 1883 can be called Cattleya × hardyana Sander 1883 or simply Cattleya hardyana. An offspring of a Cattleya × hardyana pollenized by another Cattleya × hardyana would also be called Cattleya × hardyana.  Cattleya × hardyana would also be the name of an offspring of a Cattleya × hardyana pollenized by either a Cattleya warscewiczii or a Cattleya aurea, or an offspring of either a Cattleya warscewiczii or a Cattleya aurea pollenized by a Cattleya × hardyana.
 × Brassocattleya is a nothogenus including all hybrids between Brassavola and Cattleya. It includes the species Brassocattleya × arauji, also known simply as Brassocattleya arauji, which includes all hybrids between Brassavola tuberculata  and Cattleya forbesii.

An earlier term was nothomorph for subordinate taxa to nothospecies. Since the 1982 meeting of the International Botanical Congress, such subordinate taxa are considered varieties (nothovars).

Horticultural treatment of greges
Because many interspecific (and even intergeneric) barriers to hybridization in the Orchidaceae are maintained in nature only by pollinator behavior, it is easy to produce complex interspecific and even intergeneric hybrid orchid seeds:  all it takes is a human motivated to use a toothpick, and proper care of the mother plant as it develops a seed pod. Germinating the seeds and growing them to maturity is more difficult, however.

When a hybrid cross is made, all of the seedlings grown from the resulting seed pod are considered to be in the same grex. Any additional plants produced from the hybridization of the same two parents (members of the same species or greges as the original parents) also belong to the grex. Reciprocal crosses are included within the same grex. If two members of the same grex produce offspring, the offspring receive the same grex name as the parents.

If a parent of a grex becomes a synonym, any grex names that were established by specifying the synonym are not necessarily discarded; the grex name that was published first is used (the Principle of Priority).

All of the members of a specific grex may be loosely thought of as "sister plants", and just like the brothers and sisters of any family, may share many traits or look quite different from one another. This is due to the randomization of genes passed on to progeny during sexual reproduction. The hybridizer who created a new grex normally chooses to register the grex with a registration authority, thus creating a new grex name, but there is no requirement to do this. Individual plants may be given cultivar names to distinguish them from siblings in their grex. Cultivar names are usually given to superior plants with the expectation of propagating that plant; all genetically identical copies of a plant, regardless of method of propagation (divisions or clones) share a cultivar name.

Grex naming

The rules for the naming of greges are defined by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP).
The grex name differs from a species name in that the gregaric part of the name is capitalized, is not italicized, and may consist of more than one word (limited to 30 characters in total, excluding spaces).
Furthermore, names of greges are to be in a living language rather than Latin.

For example:  an artificially produced hybrid between Cattleya warscewiczii and C. dowiana (or C. aurea, which the RHS, the international orchid hybrid registration authority, considers to be a synonym of C. dowiana) is called C. Hardyana gx.  An artificially produced seedling that results from pollinating a C. Hardyana gx with another C. Hardyana gx is also a C. Hardyana gx.  However, the hybrid produced between Cattleya Hardyana gx and C. dowiana is not C. Hardyana gx, but C. Prince John gx. In summary:
C. Hardyana gx = C. warscewiczii × C. dowiana
C. Eleanor gx = C. Hardyana gx × C. warscewiczii
C. Prince John gx = C. dowiana × C. Hardyana gx

Registration of greges
When the name of a grex is first established, a description is required that specifies two particular parents, where each parent is specified either as a species (or nothospecies) or as a grex. The grex name then applies to all hybrids between those two parents. There is a permitted exception if the full name of one of the parents is known but the other is known only to genus level or nothogenus level.

New grex names are now established by the Royal Horticultural Society, which receives applications from orchid hybridizers.

Relationship with nothospecies
The concept of grex and nothospecies are similar, but not equivalent.  While greges are only used within the orchid family, nothospecies are used for any plant (including orchids).

Furthermore, a grex and nothospecies differ in that a grex and a nothospecies can have the same parentage, but are not equivalent because the nothospecies includes back-crosses and the grex does not. They can even have the same epithet, distinguished by typography (see botanical name for explanation of epithets), although since January 2010 it is not permitted to publish such grex names if the nothospecies name already exists.

Hybrids between a grex and a species/nothospecies are named as greges, but this is not permitted if the nothospecies parent has the same parentage as the grex parent. That situation is a back-cross, and the nothospecies name is applied to the progeny.

References

Bibliography

External links
 "Quarterly Supplement To The International Register And Checklist Of Orchid Hybrids (Sander’s List) January – March 2014 Registrations" Distributed with The Orchid Review 122(1306) (June 2014), The Royal Horticultural Society.
 Guide lines and rules for composing grex, group and cultivar names. Summary of ICNCP rules and guidelines for Grex and Cultivar epithets.

Botanical nomenclature
Orchid hybrids


Vargulin, also called Cypridinid luciferin, Cypridina luciferin, or Vargula luciferin, is the luciferin found in the ostracod Cypridina hilgendorfii, also named Vargula hilgendorfii. These bottom dwelling ostracods emit a light stream into water when disturbed presumably to deter predation. Vargulin is also used by the midshipman fish, Porichthys.

History
A partial extraction procedure was developed in 1935 which involved reacting the compound with benzoyl chloride to allow it to be separated from the water-soluble components. The compound was first isolated and purified to crystals by Osamu Shimomura. The structure of the compound was confirmed some years later. Feeding experiments suggest that the compound is synthesized in the animal from three amino-acids: tryptophan, isoleucine, and arginine.

Biochemistry
Vargulin is oxidized by the Vargula luciferase, a 62 kDa enzyme, to produce blue light at 462 nm (max emission, detected with a 425 to 525 nm filter).
The vargulin does not cross react with luciferases using coelenterazine or Firefly luciferin.

Uses
Vargulin (with the associated luciferase) has applications in biotechnology:
 in a variety of assays, to report gene or gene expression after luciferase have been genetically introduced in cells,
 to detect ATP, that is used in the vargulin/luciferase reaction (cell viability assays).

Although less stable, the Cypridina system is useful because can be used in multiplex assays with other (red-emitting) luciferin assays.

References

External links

Luciferins
Bioluminescence
Indoles
Guanidines
Imidazopyrazines
Lactams
Laboratory techniques
Microbiology techniques
Toxicology tests


Export of the revolution is actions by a victorious revolutionary government of one country to promote similar revolutions in unruled areas or other countries as a manifestation of revolutionary internationalism of certain kind, such as the Marxist proletarian internationalism.

Fred Halliday analyzes the traits of the export of revolution by case studies of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.

See also
 Cultural Revolution
 Democracy promotion
 Domino theory
 Empire of Liberty
 French Revolution
Sister republic
 Interventionism
 Iranian Revolution
 The policy of exporting the Islamic Revolution
 Regime change
 Revolutionary wave
 Russian Revolution
 Workers of the world, unite!
 World revolution

References

Foreign intervention
Revolution terminology
Political theories