Need for chronic tests and other tests

Chronic toxicity tests (both with males and females) and reproductive tests with pregnant females and then with the developing progeny over several generations (none of these steps exist at present) are called as a whole the Toxotest approach (or Risk management test, see "Details on the new suggested Toxotest approach").

This could address the long-term physiological or pathological relevance of the previous observations.

The physiological interpretations of 90-day-based effects are otherwise somewhat limited.

These studies should be complementary to the present regulations or the Safotest and the sentinel test suggested by EFSA [1].

The Toxotest could provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.

Additionally, it is obvious that the 90-day-long trials on mature animals performed today cannot scientifically replace the sensitivity of developmental tests on neonates.

A good example is the gene imprinting by drugs that will be revealed only at maturity; this is an important subject of current research, and many findings have been reported for some chemicals such as bisphenol A [26, 27].

Even transgenerational effects occur after epigenetic imprinting by a pesticide [28].

These effects cannot be detected by classical 90-day feeding trials and will be visible after many decades by epidemiology in humans if any, as illustrated in the case of diethylstilbestrol, which induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation [29].

The F3 multigenerational study for a GMO (Table 1) was too rarely performed.

This is why, because of the number of parameters disrupted in adult mammals within 90 days, the new experiments should be systematically performed to protect the health of billions of people that could consume directly or indirectly these transformed products.

The acute toxicity approach (less than a month of investigations on rodents with high doses) may give effects which are more proportional to the dose, as it might correspond to a rapid poisoning of the animals, generally with force-fed experiments.

However, for many pesticide studies in the scientific literature, some long-term side effects of pesticides at environmental doses are described, which are not apparent in short-term experiments [30].

Classical toxicology is quite often based on the concept of revealing linear dose-responses as defined by Paracelsus, which generally fails to evidence U or J curves observed after hormonal sex-specific disruptions.

Moreover, the effects of mixtures are also neglected in long-term studies, when supposed active principles of pesticides are not assessed with their adjuvants, which also are present as residues in GMOs.

Such pesticides may have the capacity to disrupt the "cell web", i.e., to interfere with a signaling pathway, and this could be unspecific.

For instance Roundup is known to disrupt the EPSPS in plants, but is also known to interact with the mammalian ubiquist reductase [21] common and essential to cytochromes P450, a wide class of detoxification enzymes.

The so-called Roundup active principle, glyphosate, acts in combination with adjuvants to increase glyphosate-mediated toxicity[21, 31], and this may apply to other environmental pollutants [22].

Moreover, all new metabolites in edible Roundup ready GMOs, as acetyl-glyphosate for the new GAT GMOs, have not been assessed for their chronic toxicity [11], and we consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.

Therefore, as xenobiotic effects are complex, the determination of their toxic effects cannot be determined using a single method, but rather converging pieces of evidence.

In GMO risk assessment, the protocols must be optimized to detect side effects, in particular for herbicide-treated GM plants.

These cannot be reduced to GM assessment on one side and herbicide residues with any diet on the other side, but unfortunately this has been the case, and this approach has been promoted up to now by regulatory authorities.

In fact, it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one.

It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests, as suggested by EFSA, since at least one third of chronic effects visible with chemicals are usually new in comparison to the ones highlighted in subchronic studies [1].

The so-called Toxotests, which are supposed to include the studies of chronic pathologies in particular, should be performed on three mammalian species, with at least one non-rodent, similar to the type of rodents used for pesticides and drugs.

However, the chronic feeding tests for GMOs cannot be based on the no observed adverse effect level, nor on the lowest observed adverse effect level approach, as in classical toxicology.

There is not only one chemical, but also several unknown metabolites and components, in Roundup tolerant varieties for instance, and therefore toxicity is enhanced thanks to the fact that they are mixed together.

There is also no possibility of increasing the doses of GMOs in an equilibrated diet over an acceptable level.

The diets should be rather representative of an equilibrated diet with GMOs like it could be the case in a real population in America.

To prolong 90-day subchronic tests with three normal doses of GM in the diet (11%, 22%, 33% for instance) is the solution.

Sex- or dose-specific pathological effects are common

When there is a low or environmental dose impregnation of the feed (with a pesticide GM plant for instance), the chronic effects could be more differentiated according to the sex, the physiological status, the age, or the number of intakes over such and such a period of time in the case of a drug.

These parameters (chronic intake, age of exposure, etc.)

are more decisive for pathologies like cancers, than the actual quantity of toxin ingested in one intake.

This is in part because the liver, kidney, and other cytochrome P450-rich organs are concerned for long-term metabolism and detoxification, and this phenomenon is hormone dependent.

It is also due to the process of carcinogenesis or hormone-sensitive programming of cells [32].

The liver for instance is a sex differentiated organ as far as its enzymatic equipment is concerned [4].

An effect in subchronic or chronic tests cannot be disregarded on the rationale that it is not linear to the dose (or dose-related) or not comparable in genders.

This would not be scientifically acceptable.

However, this reasoning was adopted both by companies and EFSA for several GMOs, as underlined by Doull et al. [

Indeed, most xenobiotics or pollutants may have non-linear effects, and/or may have sex- and age-specific impacts.

One of the pivotal requirements for regulators nowadays, in order to interpret a significant difference as biologically relevant, is to observe a linear dose-response.

However, this dose-response cannot be studied with only two points, which is nonetheless the case for all major commercial GMOs today, which are given in the diet in 11% and 33% concentrations only, in subchronic tests.

This is true overall if no preliminary data has been obtained to choose the given doses, which is the case in regulatory files.

As we have already emphasized, most of pathological and endocrine effects in environmental health are not directly proportional to the dose, and they have a differential threshold of sensitivity in both sexes [34].

This is, for instance, the case with carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption.

Improving the knowledge on impacts of modified Bt toxins

One of the interpretations of the side effects observed (Tables 1 and 2) would be that the insecticide toxins in maize lines may have more pleiotropic or specific actions than originally supposed.

The toxins could generate particular metabolites, either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.

The Bt toxins in GMOs are new and modified, truncated, or chimerical in order to change their activities/solubility in comparison to wild Bt.

For instance, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 and its wild counterpart [10].

None of the modified Bt toxins have been authorized separately for food or feed, neither has the wild Bt, and neither have they been tested by themselves on animal or human health to date.

Even if some studies were performed, the receptors have not been cloned and the signaling pathways have not been identified as yet, nor required for authorizations, and the metabolism of these proteins in mammals are unknown [35].

Thus, the argument about "safe use history" of the wild Bt protein (not designed for direct consumption, in contrast to several GMOs) cannot, on a sound scientific basis, be used for direct authorizations of the above-cited GM corns, overall without in vivo chronic toxicity tests (or Toxotest approach), as it is requested for a pesticide.

Some improvements may even be included with regard to pesticide legislation, since these human modified toxins considered as xenobiotics are continuously produced by the plants devoted to consumption.

The proteins usually compared (modified Bt toxins and wild ones) are not identical, and the tests on human cells of Bt proteins are not performed nor are they requested by authorities.

Their stability has been assessed in vitro, and GM insecticide toxins are never fully digested in vivo [36].

If some consumers suffer from stomach problems or ulcers, the new toxins will possibly act differently; the digestion in children could be affected too; however, these GMOs could be eaten anywhere and all proteins are never fully decomposed in amino acids by the digestive tract.

Details on the new suggested Toxotest approach

The suggested Toxotest would basically include an extension of the existing 90-day tests, but with at least three doses plus controls (0%, 11%, 22%, 33% GMOs for instance; today the equilibrated diets tested contain 0%, 11%, and 33% GMOs in the best regulatory tests).

The purpose would be to characterize scientifically the dose-response approach.

The latter cannot be taken seriously with only two GM doses.

The final goal is the best health protection for the population without really possible clinical trials, in our case for practical and ethical reasons.

There is also no epidemiological follow-up for lack of traceability and labeling in GM-producing American countries.

In addition, the fact that the Toxotest includes the best possible toxicological approach will also be in favor of the biotechnology economy and the European Community because it is more expensive to address an issue concerning a whole population afterwards, rather than to work with laboratory animals beforehand; it is also more ethical to work on rats and other mammalian experiments, in order to get the relevant information, rather than to give pesticide plants directly to humans on a long-term basis.

As previously underlined, the health effects such as those suggested in Table 2 (if any, are revealed by adapted studies, such as Safotests or Toxotests), could only be due to two possibilities:

Firstly, the side effects may be directly or indirectly due to a pesticide residue and/or its metabolites.

The direct effect is about the pesticide effect on the consumer, and the indirect one is about a metabolism disruption that it has provoked within the plant first.

This could not be visible by a detailed compositional analysis, such as the one performed to be assessed by a substantial equivalence study.

This concept is not a well-defined one (how many cultivations of crops, over how many years, under which climate, and to measure what precise parameters).

Secondly, the pathological signs may be due to the genetic transformation itself, its method provoking either insertional mutagenesis or a new metabolism by genetic interference.

This is the reason why separating intended effects (the direct genetic trait consequence itself) from unintended effects (linked to biotechnology, e.g., insertional mutagenesis), such as spiking the control diet with the purified toxin in the Toxotest approach, is clearly inadequate.

It could work in the case of a direct action of the toxin in mammals, but conversely one could not conclude, between an insertional mutagenesis and a specific metabolic action in the plant due to the toxin.

However, this is more a research question about the mode of genesis of an effect on health, and new research avenues could be, for instance, to compare the GM diet with or without herbicide treatment in long-term tests with the isogenic control diet including herbicide residues added.

This is only necessary for the understanding of the potential signs of toxicity and not for a conclusion of the Safotest or the Toxotest, which would rather suggest, if positive, excluding immediately the corresponding GMO from food and feed.

Improvement of statistical analysis

A serious experimental design is based on a proper choice of the groups, with only one question studied per experiment if possible, and balanced sample sizes.

In several authorized GMOs, the sample sizes appear inadequate in 90 days: ten animals per group for the measurement of biochemical parameters out of 20, as performed by the major stakeholders, and accepted by EFSA for MON863, MON810, or NK603 for instance.

This is too limited a size to ensure that parametric statistical methods used by the company are reliable.

Moreover, an important discrepancy between GMO-treated rats (40 measured out of 80) and the total number of animals (400) renders more difficult the evidencing of relevant effects, and confusion factors are brought in at the same time with six different reference diets in addition to the two normal control groups as performed in three commercialized GMOs at least [5, 6].

This introduces new uncontrolled sources of variability about the effects of the diets and new unnecessary questions not relevant to the GMO safety.

The representation of a standard diet with multiple sources could have been studied with only one control group of the same size than the GMO group, eating a mix of six different regular non-GM diets.

Several questions have been raised by companies and authorities as well as comments on statistically significant effects that would supposedly not be biologically meaningful.

A subjective part is introduced at this level because it is necessary to take into account the context and the general and detailed knowledge of toxicology and endocrine disruption, as EFSA underlines.

This is why, to avoid or prevent any misunderstanding, we suggest, in addition to a new statistical approach based on classical methods, to analyze the 90-day tests, even with control and reference diets called the "SSC method" (according to the initials of the authors in [2]).

Briefly, following the necessity to model and analyze the growth curves, multivariate data analysis and data mining of all parameters can be used to correlate, cluster, and select meaningful variables.

This kind of approach is not performed at all today.

Thereafter, the detailed comparison between GM-treated and control groups, fed with the near isogenic line (because the real isogenic line does not often exists anymore), will necessarily be followed by the study of specific diet effects, when there are non-substantially equivalent diets for reference groups.

For that purpose, the controls will be first compared using multivariate inference with reference groups, and thereafter, similarly GMO-treated groups with reference groups.

The significant differences linked to the GMO and/or the composition of the diet will be classified according to organ and function.

The results will appear more clearly than with the simple statistics accepted today by the authorities (that is, comparison of the highest GM dose group with the mean value of all six control groups), and will reveal in addition new information, as it can be demonstrated.

As recommended by EFSA, an appropriate and relevant statistical analysis is crucial.

It should follow the following series of steps, allowing the use of several methods depending on the questions raised:

Obtaining and modeling the growth curves and feed consumption, assessed by non-linear regression, validation, and statistical comparisons in order to test if the curves are significantly different, thus taking into account individual variability.

This necessitates the use of time series analysis, selection models, and non-parametric tests, Akaike Information Criteria and related methods.

Water consumption should also be an important factor to follow-up and therefore better understand kidney and urine data.

The study of dose-response predictions using non-linear regression should be the goal, but the only two doses generally used in these tests do not make it possible to evidence linearity as we indicated.

Moreover, in the cases where there are not dose-related trends or relationships using the two doses mentioned, the absence of linear dose-response curves cannot be a reason to neglect the effects.

For instance, as previously cited, U or J curves may be characteristic of endocrine effects [37], and spiky irregular curves may be detected in carcinogenesis.

Simultaneous analysis of all observed variables: multivariate data analysis, principal component analysis, correlations analysis, factorial analysis and clustering

Multivariate comparisons of the different variables: hypothesis testing, multiple ways ANOVA, MANOVA, and others to determinate if the groups differ relative to the different questions: specific GMO effect or diet effect per se.

To evidence a detail, when comparing two mean values, SEM should be calculated to determine confidence intervals; however, SD have been used up to now by the company for MON863 and NK603 files for instance.

Apart from empirical curves in some instances, ANOVA and univariate hypothesis testing only the GMO effect, none of the other statistical approaches is currently used nor requested by the authorities.

Human tests and post-market monitoring

For the record, it must be said that very few tests on humans have been carried out up to now.

Moreover, epidemiological studies are not feasible in America, since there is no organized traceability of GMOs anywhere on the continent, where, by far, most of edible GMOs are cultivated (97%).

As a consequence, a post-market monitoring (PMM) is offered to the population.

The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol identifying GMOs at the borders of a country has now been signed by over 150 countries, including the member states of the European Union.

PMM may have some value in detecting unexpected adverse effects.

It could therefore be considered as a routine need.

This approach makes it possible to collect information related to risk management.

It can be relied upon as a technique for monitoring adverse events or other health outcomes related to the consumption of GM plant-derived foods, provided that the Toxotest approach, together with the SSC method, should have already been applied.

The PMM should be linked with the possibility of detecting allergenicity reactions to GMOs in routine medicine, thanks to the very same routine cutaneous tests that should be developed prior to large-scale commercialization.

A screening of serum banks of patients with allergies could be also put forward in order to search for antibodies against the main GMOs and not only their transgenic proteins, since they may induce secondary allergenic metabolites in the plant not visible in the substantial equivalence study.

The traceability of products from animals fed on GMOs is also crucial.

The reason for this is because they can develop chronic diseases which are not utterly known today.

Such possible diseases could be linked to the hepatorenal toxicity observed in some GMO-related cases (Table 1).

Moreover, labeling animals fed on GMOs is therefore necessary because some pesticide residues linked to GMOs could pass into the food chain and also because nobody would want to eat disabled or physiologically modified animals after long-term GMOs ingestion, even if pesticides residues or DNA fragments are not toxic nor transmitted by themselves.


The transition to harm reduction: understanding the role of non-governmental organisations in Malaysia.

The transition of drug policy from prohibition to harm reduction has never been easy.

The deeply entrenched belief in prohibition shared by policy makers and religious leaders provided little room for alternatives, and change came only slowly.

The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Malaysia played a pivotal role in effecting such a change.

Understanding how they did so may be instructive for other similarly placed countries.

Data collected via reviews of published secondary sources, media reports and in-depth interviews with pioneers of harm reduction drawn from NGOs, medical practitioners and the police were analysed to construct the paper.

The policy change was the outcome of competition between three groups in the drug policy subsystem--the state, the Muslim religious lobby and the NGOs.

Developments such as the poor outcomes from the prohibition programmes and the outbreak of HIV/AIDS did not change policy but did lead to a rethink of core beliefs in the state alliance and spawned a state-NGO partnership.

The subsequent failure to meet the Millennium Development Goal with respect to HIV/AIDS in 2005 was seen as a failure of the Health Ministry which then led the final charge for a policy change arguing that a health crisis was imminent.

The NGOs played a pivotal role in this process by educating their partners in the state coalition, by drawing academics and medical practitioners into advocacy and by engaging the religious lobby (albeit with varying success).

They were also frontline players in implementing harm reduction programmes and successfully deflected criticisms from unconvinced Islamic groups away from the state.

Given their central role in the needle-syringe exchange programme, the NGOs are well positioned to convince injecting drug users to opt for voluntary medical treatment.

This can potentially reduce both the harm from drug use and the prevalence of it.


Q:

Python, not supported between instances of 'int' and 'str' error

here is my function
def find_short(s):
    s = s.split()
    max = len(s[0])
    for i in s:
        if len(i) <= max:
            max = i
    return max

    print(find_short("bitcoin take over the world maybe who knows perhaps"))

What is incorrect here?

A:

You've forgotten to add some len  to i in your for loop.

def find_short(s):
    s = s.split()
    if not s:
       return 0,""
    max = len(s[0])
    argmax = s[0]
    for i in s:
        if len(i) <= max:
            max = len(i)
            argmax = i
    return max,argmax

print(find_short("bitcoin take over the world maybe who knows perhaps"))
(3, 'who')


The present invention relates to cyclohexadiene derivatives having the formula: ##STR3## wherein R is one of C.sub.1 -C.sub.5 alkyl, R.sub.1 is methyl when R.sub.2 is hydrogen, and R.sub.1 is hydrogen when R.sub.2 is methyl, produced by the processes of our invention and novel compositions using one or more of such cyclohexadiene derivatives to augment or enhance the flavor and/or aroma of consumable materials or impart flavor and/or aroma to consumable materials.

There has been considerable work performed relating to substances which can be used to impart (modify, augment or enhance) flavors and fragrances to (or in) various consumable materials.

These substances are used to diminish the use of natural materials, some of which may be in short supply, and to provide more uniform properties in the finished product.

Sweet, hay-like, heliotropine-like, black pepper-like, woody, tobacco-like and "Oriental" aroma characteristics with sweet, hay-like, heliotropine-like, black pepper-like, woody, tobacco, "Oriental" flavor characteristics are particularly desirable for many uses in foodstuff flavorings, chewing gum flavors, toothpaste flavors, and medicinal product flavors.

Warm, sweet, slightly minty, woody, natural green, herbaceous, Jasmine-like, fruity aromas are desirable in several types of perfume compositions, perfumed articles, and colognes.

"Dry black tobacco-like" notes, spicey notes, celery-like notes, black pepper-like notes, sweet notes and Virginia tobacco-like notes prior to and on smoking in both the main stream and side stream, are desirable in tobaccos and tobacco flavors.

In the paper by Demole and Enggist, Helv.

7):2087-2091 (1974), compounds having the following structures have been found to be present in Burley tobacco flavor: ##STR4## None of the compounds of Demole and Enggist have properties bearing any relationship to the properties of the cyclohexadiene derivatives of the instant application.


Q:

Inline ifelse assignment in data.table

Let the following data set be given:
library('data.table')

set.seed(1234)
DT       <- data.table(x = LETTERS[1:10], y =sample(10))
my.rows  <- sample(1:dim(DT)[1], 3)

I want to add a new column to the data set such that, whenever the rows of the data set match the row numbers given by my.rows the entry is populated with, say, true, or false otherwise.

I have got DT[my.rows, z:= "true"], which gives
head(DT)
   x y    z
1: A 2   NA
2: B 6   NA
3: C 5 true
4: D 8   NA
5: E 9 true
6: F 4   NA

but I do not know how to automatically populate the else condition as well, at the same time.

I guess I should make use of some sort of inline ifelse but I am lacking the correct syntax.

A:

We can compare the 'my.rows' with the sequence of row using %in% to create a logical vector and assign (:=) it to create 'z' column.

 DT[, z:= 1:.N %in% my.rows ]

Or another option would be to create 'z' as a column of 'FALSE', using 'my.rows' as 'i', we assign the elements in 'z' that correspond to 'i' as 'TRUE'.


/*
Copyright 2017 The Kubernetes Authors.

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.

You may obtain a copy of the License at

    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.

See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.

*/

package csi

import (
	"errors"
	"fmt"
	"time"

	"github.com/golang/glog"
	api "k8s.io/api/core/v1"
	meta "k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/apis/meta/v1"
	"k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/types"
	"k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/util/mount"
	"k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/volume"
)

const (
	csiPluginName = "kubernetes.io/csi"

	// TODO (vladimirvivien) implement a more dynamic way to discover
	// the unix domain socket path for each installed csi driver.

	// TODO (vladimirvivien) would be nice to name socket with a .sock extension
	// for consistency.

	csiAddrTemplate = "/var/lib/kubelet/plugins/%v/csi.sock"
	csiTimeout      = 15 * time.

Second
	volNameSep      = "^"
	volDataFileName = "vol_data.json"
)

type csiPlugin struct {
	host volume.

VolumeHost
}

// ProbeVolumePlugins returns implemented plugins
func ProbeVolumePlugins() []volume.

VolumePlugin {
	p := &csiPlugin{
		host: nil,
	}
	return []volume.

VolumePlugin = &csiPlugin{}

func (p *csiPlugin) Init(host volume.

Info(log("plugin initializing..."))
	p.host = host
	return nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) GetPluginName() string {
	return csiPluginName
}

// GetvolumeName returns a concatenated string of CSIVolumeSource.

VolumeHandle
// That string value is used in Detach() to extract driver name and volumeName.

func (p *csiPlugin) GetVolumeName(spec *volume.

Spec) (string, error) {
	csi, err := getCSISourceFromSpec(spec)
	if err !

GetVolumeName failed to extract volume source from spec: %v", err))
		return "", err
	}

	// return driverName<separator>volumeHandle
	return fmt.

VolumeHandle), nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) CanSupport(spec *volume.

Spec) bool {
	// TODO (vladimirvivien) CanSupport should also take into account
	// the availability/registration of specified Driver in the volume source
	return spec.

= nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) RequiresRemount() bool {
	return false
}

func (p *csiPlugin) NewMounter(
	spec *volume.

Mounter, error) {
	pvSource, err := getCSISourceFromSpec(spec)
	if err !

= nil {
		return nil, err
	}
	readOnly, err := getReadOnlyFromSpec(spec)
	if err !

= nil {
		return nil, err
	}

	// before it is used in any paths such as socket etc
	addr := fmt.

V(4).Infof(log("setting up mounter for [volume=%v,driver=%v]", pvSource.

Driver))
	client := newCsiDriverClient("unix", addr)

	k8s := p.host.

GetKubeClient()
	if k8s == nil {
		glog.

Error(log("failed to get a kubernetes client"))
		return nil, errors.

New("failed to get a Kubernetes client")
	}

	mounter := &csiMountMgr{
		plugin:       p,
		k8s:          k8s,
		spec:         spec,
		pod:          pod,
		podUID:       pod.

Name(),
		csiClient:    client,
		readOnly:     readOnly,
	}
	return mounter, nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) NewUnmounter(specName string, podUID types.

V(4).Infof(log("setting up unmounter for [name=%v, podUID=%v]", specName, podUID))
	unmounter := &csiMountMgr{
		plugin:       p,
		podUID:       podUID,
		specVolumeID: specName,
	}
	return unmounter, nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) ConstructVolumeSpec(volumeName, mountPath string) (*volume.

Name=%v, path=%v]", volumeName, mountPath))

	volData, err := loadVolumeData(mountPath, volDataFileName)
	if err !

ConstructVolumeSpec failed loading volume data using [%s]: %v", mountPath, err))
		return nil, err
	}

	glog.

ConstructVolumeSpec extracted [%#v]", volData))

	pv := &api.

ObjectMeta{
			Name: volData[volDataKey.specVolID],
		},
		Spec: api.

PersistentVolumeSpec{
			PersistentVolumeSource: api.

CSIPersistentVolumeSource{
					Driver:       volData[volDataKey.driverName],
					VolumeHandle: volData[volDataKey.volHandle],
				},
			},
		},
	}

	return volume.

NewSpecFromPersistentVolume(pv, false), nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) SupportsMountOption() bool {
	// TODO (vladimirvivien) use CSI VolumeCapability.

MountVolume.mount_flags
	// to probe for the result for this method:w
	return false
}

func (p *csiPlugin) SupportsBulkVolumeVerification() bool {
	return false
}

// volume.

AttachableVolumePlugin methods
var _ volume.

AttachableVolumePlugin = &csiPlugin{}

func (p *csiPlugin) NewAttacher() (volume.

Error(log("unable to get kubernetes client from host"))
		return nil, errors.

New("unable to get Kubernetes client")
	}

	return &csiAttacher{
		plugin:        p,
		k8s:           k8s,
		waitSleepTime: 1 * time.

Second,
	}, nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) NewDetacher() (volume.

GetKubeClient()
	if k8s == nil {
		glog.

Second,
	}, nil
}

func (p *csiPlugin) GetDeviceMountRefs(deviceMountPath string) ([]string, error) {
	m := p.host.

GetMountRefs(m, deviceMountPath)
}

func getCSISourceFromSpec(spec *volume.

CSIPersistentVolumeSource, error) {
	if spec.

Errorf("CSIPersistentVolumeSource not defined in spec")
}

func getReadOnlyFromSpec(spec *volume.

Errorf("CSIPersistentVolumeSource not defined in spec")
}

// log prepends log string with `kubernetes.io/csi`
func log(msg string, parts ...interface{}) string {
	return fmt.

Sprintf("%s: %s", csiPluginName, msg), parts...)
}


[CustomMessages]
IDP_FormCaption           =Downloading additional files
IDP_FormDescription       =Please wait while Setup is downloading additional files...
IDP_TotalProgress         =Total progress
IDP_CurrentFile           =Current file
IDP_File                  =File:
IDP_Speed                 =Speed:
IDP_Status                =Status:
IDP_ElapsedTime           =Elapsed time:
IDP_RemainingTime         =Remaining time:
IDP_DetailsButton         =Details
IDP_HideButton            =Hide
IDP_RetryButton           =Retry
IDP_IgnoreButton          =Ignore
IDP_KBs                   =KB/s
IDP_MBs                   =MB/s
IDP_X_of_X                =%.2f of %.2f
IDP_KB                    =KB
IDP_MB                    =MB
IDP_GB                    =GB
IDP_Initializing          =Initializing...
IDP_GettingFileInformation=Getting file information...
IDP_StartingDownload      =Starting download...
IDP_Connecting            =Connecting...
IDP_Downloading           =Downloading...
IDP_DownloadComplete      =Download complete
IDP_DownloadFailed        =Download failed
IDP_CannotConnect         =Cannot connect
IDP_CancellingDownload    =Cancelling download...
IDP_Unknown               =Unknown
IDP_DownloadCancelled     =Download cancelled
IDP_RetryNext             =Check your connection and click 'Retry' to try downloading the files again, or click 'Next' to continue installing anyway.

IDP_RetryCancel           =Check your connection and click 'Retry' to try downloading the files again, or click 'Cancel' to terminate setup.

IDP_FilesNotDownloaded    =The following files were not downloaded:
IDP_HTTPError_X           =HTTP error %d
IDP_400                   =Bad request (400)
IDP_401                   =Access denied (401)
IDP_404                   =File not found (404)
IDP_407                   =Proxy authentication required (407)
IDP_500                   =Server internal error (500)
IDP_502                   =Bad gateway (502)
IDP_503                   =Service temporaily unavailable (503)


Q:

Simplifying a logical equivalence

http://www2.ift.ulaval.ca/~dadub100/cours/H09/22257/ntsLogique.pdf
If you look in Annex B, I am allowed to use all laws from chapter 3 and below.

https://imgur.com/a/vf2do
This is the problem itself.

If there are any missing brackets, this is how the problem was given to me.

I can't use a truth table, I have to simplify it to an existing theorem to prove its validity.

A:

HINT
Start out observing that:
$$S \equiv [\neg (Q \land R) \land (R \rightarrow Q)] \equiv S \Leftrightarrow$$
$$S \equiv S \equiv [\neg (Q \land R) \land (R \rightarrow Q)] \Leftrightarrow$$
$$vrai \equiv [\neg (Q \land R) \land (R \rightarrow Q)] \Leftrightarrow$$
$$[\neg (Q \land R) \land (R \rightarrow Q)]$$
Now do a DeMorgan and an Implication to simplify this even further, and you're almost there!


The full cost of damage in Newton Stewart, one of the areas worst affected, is still being assessed.
Repair work is ongoing in Hawick and many roads in Peeblesshire remain badly affected by standing water.
Trains on the west coast mainline face disruption due to damage at the Lamington Viaduct.
Many businesses and householders were affected by flooding in Newton Stewart after the River Cree overflowed into the town.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon visited the area to inspect the damage.
The waters breached a retaining wall, flooding many commercial properties on Victoria Street - the main shopping thoroughfare.
Jeanette Tate, who owns the Cinnamon Cafe which was badly affected, said she could not fault the multi-agency response once the flood hit.
However, she said more preventative work could have been carried out to ensure the retaining wall did not fail.
"It is difficult but I do think there is so much publicity for Dumfries and the Nith - and I totally appreciate that - but it is almost like we're neglected or forgotten," she said.
"That may not be true but it is perhaps my perspective over the last few days.
"Why were you not ready to help us a bit more when the warning and the alarm alerts had gone out?"
Meanwhile, a flood alert remains in place across the Borders because of the constant rain.
Peebles was badly hit by problems, sparking calls to introduce more defences in the area.
Scottish Borders Council has put a list on its website of the roads worst affected and drivers have been urged not to ignore closure signs.
The Labour Party's deputy Scottish leader Alex Rowley was in Hawick on Monday to see the situation first hand.
He said it was important to get the flood protection plan right but backed calls to speed up the process.
"I was quite taken aback by the amount of damage that has been done," he said.
"Obviously it is heart-breaking for people who have been forced out of their homes and the impact on businesses."
He said it was important that "immediate steps" were taken to protect the areas most vulnerable and a clear timetable put in place for flood prevention plans.
Have you been affected by flooding in Dumfries and Galloway or the Borders? Tell us about your experience of the situation and how it was handled. Email us on selkirk.news@bbc.co.uk or dumfries@bbc.co.uk.

Summary: Clean-up operations are continuing across the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway after flooding caused by Storm Frank.


A fire alarm went off at the Holiday Inn in Hope Street at about 04:20 BST on Saturday and guests were asked to leave the hotel.
As they gathered outside they saw the two buses, parked side-by-side in the car park, engulfed by flames.
One of the tour groups is from Germany, the other from China and Taiwan. It was their first night in Northern Ireland.
The driver of one of the buses said many of the passengers had left personal belongings on board and these had been destroyed.
Both groups have organised replacement coaches and will begin their tour of the north coast later than they had planned.
Police have appealed for information about the attack.
Insp David Gibson said: "It appears as though the fire started under one of the buses before spreading to the second.
"While the exact cause is still under investigation, it is thought that the fire was started deliberately."

Summary: Two tourist buses have been destroyed by fire in a suspected arson attack in Belfast city centre.


Ferrari appeared in a position to challenge until the final laps, when the Mercedes stretched their legs to go half a second clear of the red cars.
Sebastian Vettel will start third ahead of team-mate Kimi Raikkonen.
The world champion subsequently escaped punishment for reversing in the pit lane, which could have seen him stripped of pole.
But stewards only handed Hamilton a reprimand, after governing body the FIA said "no clear instruction was given on where he should park".
Belgian Stoffel Vandoorne out-qualified McLaren team-mate Jenson Button on his Formula 1 debut.
Vandoorne was 12th and Button 14th, complaining of a handling imbalance on his final lap but admitting the newcomer "did a good job and I didn't".
Mercedes were wary of Ferrari's pace before qualifying after Vettel and Raikkonen finished one-two in final practice, and their concerns appeared to be well founded as the red cars mixed it with the silver through most of qualifying.
After the first runs, Rosberg was ahead, with Vettel and Raikkonen splitting him from Hamilton, who made a mistake at the final corner on his first lap.
But Hamilton saved his best for last, fastest in every sector of his final attempt, to beat Rosberg by just 0.077secs after the German had out-paced him throughout practice and in the first qualifying session.
Vettel rued a mistake at the final corner on his last lap, but the truth is that with the gap at 0.517secs to Hamilton there was nothing he could have done.
The gap suggests Mercedes are favourites for the race, even if Ferrari can be expected to push them.
Vettel said: "Last year we were very strong in the race and I think we are in good shape for tomorrow. We will try to give them a hard time."
Vandoorne's preparations for his grand prix debut were far from ideal - he only found out he was racing on Thursday when FIA doctors declared Fernando Alonso unfit because of a broken rib sustained in his huge crash at the first race of the season in Australia two weeks ago.
The Belgian rookie had to fly overnight from Japan, where he had been testing in the Super Formula car he races there, and arrived in Bahrain only hours before first practice on Friday.
He also had a difficult final practice, missing all but the final quarter of the session because of a water leak.
Button was quicker in the first qualifying session, but Vandoorne pipped him by 0.064secs when it mattered.
The 24-year-old said: "I knew after yesterday I had quite similar pace to Jenson and I knew if I improved a little bit I could maybe challenge him and even out-qualify him and that is what has happened.
"Jenson is a very good benchmark for me because he is a world champion and he is well known to the team so I am very satisfied with the qualifying."
Button, who was 0.5secs quicker than Vandoorne in the first session, complained of oversteer on his final run in the second: "Q1 was what I was expecting. Q2 he did a good job and I didn't. Very, very good job. We knew how quick he was."
The controversial new elimination qualifying system was retained for this race despite teams voting at the first race in Australia to go back to the 2015 system.
FIA president Jean Todt said earlier on Saturday that he "felt it necessary to give new qualifying one more chance", adding: "We live in a world where there is too much over reaction."
The system worked on the basis of mixing up the grid a little - Force India's Sergio Perez ended up out of position in 18th place after the team miscalculated the timing of his final run, leaving him not enough time to complete it before the elimination clock timed him out.
But it will come in for more criticism as a result of lack of track action at the end of each session. There were three minutes at the end of the first session with no cars on the circuit, and the end of the second session was a similar damp squib.
Only one car - Nico Hulkenberg's Force India - was out on the track with six minutes to go. The two Williams cars did go out in the final three minutes but were already through to Q3 and so nothing was at stake.
The teams are meeting with Todt and F1 commercial boss Bernie Ecclestone on Sunday at noon local time to decide on what to do with qualifying for the rest of the season.
Todt said he was "optimistic" they would be able to reach unanimous agreement on a change.
"We should listen to the people watching on TV," Rosberg said. "If they are still unhappy, which I am sure they will be, we should change it."
Red Bull's Daniel Ricciardo was fifth on the grid, ahead of the Williams cars of Valtteri Bottas and Felipe Massa and Force India's Nico Hulkenberg.
Ricciardo's team-mate Daniil Kvyat was eliminated during the second session - way below the team's expectation - and the Renault of Brit Jolyon Palmer only managed 19th fastest.
German Mercedes protege Pascal Wehrlein managed an excellent 16th in the Manor car.
Bahrain GP qualifying results
Bahrain GP coverage details

Summary: Lewis Hamilton stormed to pole position at the Bahrain Grand Prix ahead of Mercedes team-mate Nico Rosberg.


John Edward Bates, formerly of Spalding, Lincolnshire, but now living in London, faces a total of 22 charges, including two counts of indecency with a child.
The 67-year-old is accused of committing the offences between March 1972 and October 1989.
Mr Bates denies all the charges.
Grace Hale, prosecuting, told the jury that the allegations of sexual abuse were made by made by four male complainants and related to when Mr Bates was a scout leader in South Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire.
"The defendant says nothing of that sort happened between himself and all these individuals. He says they are all fabricating their accounts and telling lies," said Mrs Hale.
The prosecutor claimed Mr Bates invited one 15 year old to his home offering him the chance to look at cine films made at scout camps but then showed him pornographic films.
She told the jury that the boy was then sexually abused leaving him confused and frightened.
Mrs Hale said: "The complainant's recollection is that on a number of occasions sexual acts would happen with the defendant either in the defendant's car or in his cottage."
She told the jury a second boy was taken by Mr Bates for a weekend in London at the age of 13 or 14 and after visiting pubs he was later sexually abused.
Mrs Hale said two boys from the Spalding group had also made complaints of being sexually abused.
The jury has been told that Mr Bates was in the RAF before serving as a Lincolnshire Police officer between 1976 and 1983.
The trial, which is expected to last two weeks, continues.

Summary: A former Lincolnshire Police officer carried out a series of sex attacks on boys, a jury at Lincoln Crown Court was told.


Patients and staff were evacuated from Cerahpasa hospital on Wednesday after a man receiving treatment at the clinic threatened to shoot himself and others.
Officers were deployed to negotiate with the man, a young police officer.
Earlier reports that the armed man had taken several people hostage proved incorrect.
The chief consultant of Cerahpasa hospital, Zekayi Kutlubay, who was evacuated from the facility, said that there had been "no hostage crises", adding that the man was "alone in the room".
Dr Kutlubay said that the man had been receiving psychiatric treatment for the past two years.
He said that the hospital had previously submitted a report stating that the man should not be permitted to carry a gun.
"His firearm was taken away," Dr Kutlubay said, adding that the gun in the officer's possession on Wednesday was not his issued firearm.
The incident comes amid tension in Istanbul following several attacks in crowded areas, including the deadly assault on the Reina nightclub on New Year's Eve which left 39 people dead.

Summary: An armed man who locked himself into a room at a psychiatric hospital in Istanbul has ended his threat to kill himself, Turkish media report.


Simone Favaro got the crucial try with the last move of the game, following earlier touchdowns by Chris Fusaro, Zander Fagerson and Junior Bulumakau.
Rynard Landman and Ashton Hewitt got a try in either half for the Dragons.
Glasgow showed far superior strength in depth as they took control of a messy match in the second period.
Home coach Gregor Townsend gave a debut to powerhouse Fijian-born Wallaby wing Taqele Naiyaravoro, and centre Alex Dunbar returned from long-term injury, while the Dragons gave first starts of the season to wing Aled Brew and hooker Elliot Dee.
Glasgow lost hooker Pat McArthur to an early shoulder injury but took advantage of their first pressure when Rory Clegg slotted over a penalty on 12 minutes.
It took 24 minutes for a disjointed game to produce a try as Sarel Pretorius sniped from close range and Landman forced his way over for Jason Tovey to convert - although it was the lock's last contribution as he departed with a chest injury shortly afterwards.
Glasgow struck back when Fusaro drove over from a rolling maul on 35 minutes for Clegg to convert.
But the Dragons levelled at 10-10 before half-time when Naiyaravoro was yellow-carded for an aerial tackle on Brew and Tovey slotted the easy goal.
The visitors could not make the most of their one-man advantage after the break as their error count cost them dearly.
It was Glasgow's bench experience that showed when Mike Blair's break led to a short-range score from teenage prop Fagerson, converted by Clegg.
Debutant Favaro was the second home player to be sin-binned, on 63 minutes, but again the Warriors made light of it as replacement wing Bulumakau, a recruit from the Army, pounced to deftly hack through a bouncing ball for an opportunist try.
The Dragons got back within striking range with some excellent combined handling putting Hewitt over unopposed after 72 minutes.
However, Favaro became sinner-turned-saint as he got on the end of another effective rolling maul to earn his side the extra point with the last move of the game, Clegg converting.
Dragons director of rugby Lyn Jones said: "We're disappointed to have lost but our performance was a lot better [than against Leinster] and the game could have gone either way.
"Unfortunately too many errors behind the scrum cost us a great deal, though from where we were a fortnight ago in Dublin our workrate and desire was excellent.
"It was simply error count from individuals behind the scrum that cost us field position, it's not rocket science - they were correct in how they played and we had a few errors, that was the difference."
Glasgow Warriors: Rory Hughes, Taqele Naiyaravoro, Alex Dunbar, Fraser Lyle, Lee Jones, Rory Clegg, Grayson Hart; Alex Allan, Pat MacArthur, Zander Fagerson, Rob Harley (capt), Scott Cummings, Hugh Blake, Chris Fusaro, Adam Ashe.
Replacements: Fergus Scott, Jerry Yanuyanutawa, Mike Cusack, Greg Peterson, Simone Favaro, Mike Blair, Gregor Hunter, Junior Bulumakau.
Dragons: Carl Meyer, Ashton Hewitt, Ross Wardle, Adam Warren, Aled Brew, Jason Tovey, Sarel Pretorius; Boris Stankovich, Elliot Dee, Brok Harris, Nick Crosswell, Rynard Landman (capt), Lewis Evans, Nic Cudd, Ed Jackson.
Replacements: Rhys Buckley, Phil Price, Shaun Knight, Matthew Screech, Ollie Griffiths, Luc Jones, Charlie Davies, Nick Scott.

Summary: Defending Pro12 champions Glasgow Warriors bagged a late bonus-point victory over the Dragons despite a host of absentees and two yellow cards.


Veronica Vanessa Chango-Alverez, 31, was killed and another man injured when an Audi A3 struck them in Streatham High Road at 05:30 GMT on Saturday.
Ten minutes before the crash the car was in London Road, Croydon, when a Volkswagen Passat collided with a tree.
Police want to trace Nathan Davis, 27, who they say has links to the Audi. The car was abandoned at the scene.
Ms Chango-Alverez died from multiple injuries, a post-mortem examination found.
No arrests have been made as yet, police said.
Ms Chango-Alverez was staying at her mother's home in Streatham High Road.
She was born in Ecuador and had lived in London for 13 years, BBC London reporter Gareth Furby said. At the time of the crash, she was on her way to work in a hotel.
The remains of the bus stop, which was extensively damaged in the crash, have been removed.
Flowers have been left at the site in tribute to the victim.
A statement from her brother Kevin Raul Chango-Alverez said: "My family has had its heart torn out, at this Christmas time, we will never be the same again.
"On Friday night we were together as a family with Veronica meeting her newly born nephew and preparing for Christmas.
"I last saw her alive as she left to go to work on Saturday morning, but moments later I was holding her hand as she passed away in the street."
Describing the crash as "horrific" Det Insp Gordon Wallace, said: "The family are devastated. The memory of this senseless death will be with them each time they leave their home.
"The driver fled the scene abandoning the grey Audi, which was extensively damaged.
"We are looking to speak to Mr Nathan Davis in relation to this collision."
The 51-year-old man injured at the bus stop remains in a critical condition in hospital while the condition of the 29-year-old driver of the Volkswagen is now stable.

Summary: A man with links to a car that was involved in a fatal bus stop crash in south London is being sought by police.


Belgian cyclist Demoitie died after a collision with a motorbike during Belgium's Gent-Wevelgem race.
The 25-year-old was hit by the motorbike after several riders came down in a crash as the race passed through northern France.
"The main issues come when cars or motorbikes have to pass the peloton and pass riders," Team Sky's Rowe said.
"That is the fundamental issue we're looking into.
"There's a lot of motorbikes in and around the race whether it be cameras for TV, photographers or police motorbikes.
"In total there's around 50 motorbikes that work on each race.
"We've got a riders union and we're coming together to think of a few ideas, whether we cap a speed limit on how fast they can overtake us.
"Say we put a 10 kilometres per hour limit on it, if we're going 50kph they're only allowed to pass us 60kph or something like that."
Demoitie, who was riding for the Wanty-Gobert team, was taken to hospital in Lille but died later.
The sport's governing body, the UCI, said it would co-operate with all relevant authorities in an investigation into the incident.
The Professional Cyclists' Association (CPA) issued a statement asking what would be done to improve safety.
Despite Demoitie's death, attitudes to road racing will stay the same says Rowe, who has been competing in Three Days of De Panne race in Belgium.
"As soon as that element of fear slips into your mind and you start thinking of things that could happen, that's when you're doomed to fail," he told BBC Wales Sport.
"If you start thinking about crashes and the consequences and what could potentially happen then you're never going to be at the front of the peloton and you're never going to win any races."
In a separate incident, another Belgian cyclist, Daan Myngheer, 22, died in hospital after suffering a heart attack during the first stage of the Criterium International in Corsica.

Summary: Welsh cyclist Luke Rowe says changes to the sport must be made following the death of Antoine Demoitie.


The crash happened about 07:20 GMT at the junction of the A127 and Progress Road in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex.
The man, who police said is aged in his 20s, was treated at the scene for a head injury and suspected multiple fractures, the ambulance service said.
He was airlifted to the Royal London Hospital for further treatment.
The Southend-bound carriageway of the A127 was closed for about six hours while police conducted their initial inquiries.
A spokeswoman for Essex Police said it was not possible comment to further as this time as the "investigation is now being conducted by the IPCC".

Summary: A jogger has been hit by an unmarked police car responding to an emergency call, leaving him with "serious life-changing injuries".


Verification of credentials: see Minutes

Verificarea prerogativelor: a se vedea procesul-verbal


I suppose if you like pure action... you'll find it here. I suppose if you find a gorgeous blonde designed to be screwed... find it here. I suppose if you want to find a couple of extra baddies, headed by 1-2 extra, EXTRA baddy bosses who meat a nasty end... you'll find it here.

Overall, routine stuff, and the good guys come out on top big time under extra-ordinary circumstances.

What I marvel most at... How the good guys armed only with pistols, can kill dozens of bad guys with machine guns who are shooting at them at point blank range... and missing. The goodies even get time to reload their pistols amid the hail of machine guns bullets.

Ho-hum!!!


Please don't waste your time. This movie rehashes the worst of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Van Helsing), Anne Rice's Vampire Lestat (rock music and silly biblical references), and Blade (high-tech toys). I really like vampire movies and novels, and there are many out there that are very good . But not this stinker. Not even the soundtrack helps it, mostly because the movie resorts to ridiculous scary classical music rather than the "kick-ass metal" some reported. Only a few times did I hear any metal; mostly it was tortured violins. Avoid it like garlic and crucifixes.


Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.

All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!

No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse.


If you weren't there, then unfortunately this movie will be beyond compassion for you. Which as I say is a shame because although some of the acting is amateurish, it is meant to be for realism. Let's face it--in real life, we don't say things in an exacting or perfect way, even when we mean to. In this sense, it works. This, however, does not apply to our "known" actors in this film, notably Jodie Foster (born a natural). The fact that the other 3 girls are not accomplished only adds to the story--Jodie plays the glue that struggles to keep their friendship close, even with the obvious feeling of fatality. Meaning that no matter how close friends are, eventually there are some people that just fade away, no matter how you try.

And therein is the core of the movie. It's not about partying, it's not about sexuality, but about these 4 girls and their final time as still young girls before they have to go the world alone.

If you have ever had a friendship like that in your life, you will feel this movie--it will mean a lot to you, no matter what era it is set in, or what era you grew up in. We all knew these girls in school, or at the very least knew of them. We all knew the frustrated virgin, half wanting to hold onto childhood and half wanting desperately to grow up and thinking that will do it for her. We all knew the boy-crazy one, the fashion plate whose vanity hides her fear of the world, her fear of acceptance. We all knew the party girl, the one they whispered about, with tales of not only her sad home life but of her notorious exploits. And we all knew the "mother figure", the one a little more real, a little more grounded, a little more sad because she knew what would happen. Maybe you were one of those girls. Maybe, like me, you had been each one at one time or another...

This film really captures that fragile time in life when want, needs, pressures, womanhood, childhood, the world and loneliness are all embodied in each female's head, each factor on the precipice. Which aspect do you hang on to? What do you toss over the edge, no matter how you may want to hold on? And how painful is goodbye to everything you've known? That's what this movie is--steps into womanhood while clinging onto childhood, and how damn tough it is to keep walking. If you were there, you know...and love this film, as I do. Aching and tenderly done. A fine piece of captured femininity.


The plot of the story and the performance of the lead actors are very much down-to-earth! The romance between two teen-age boys on the screen was done in good taste. You can easily relate to their emotions if you are one but if you are not one, you can appreciate the kind of love the film is trying to impart.


This film screened last night at Austin's Paramount theater as part of the SXSW Film Festival. We were graced with the presence of director Mike Binder and stars Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle who took audience questions after the film. It is a remarkable and powerful film about what it is like to lose yourself and begin to find your way back. The performances are phenomenal and the story manages to be both tragic and funny in a way that is all too rare. (The trailer for the film tries a little too hard to emphasize the comedic aspects.)

This is a breakout role for Adam Sandler. While he has begun to transition to more dramatic roles with Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish, this role is a significant step forward for him as a dramatic actor. He deserves an Oscar nomination as he continues down to transition to more dramatic roles as Tom Hanks did and Jim Carrey is also doing. In this role, he seemed to be trying to channel Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Although playing an autistic man is certainly very different than Sandler's traumatized character, both characters for different reasons are trapped in their own worlds of child-like isolation and confusion.

Don Cheadle's performance is less surprising, but just as good. After Hotel Rwanda and Crash, we've come to expect remarkable nuanced performances from Cheadle. He has the qualities of sincerity and honesty that comes through in this role. But he, too, is also broken and struggling if not in the such profound ways as Sandler's character. Cheadle is struggling with difficulties in both his marriage and in his professional life as a dentist. Together the characters played by Cheadle and Sandler struggle to heal each other in the way that true friends often do (in a way that reminds me of Matt Damon and Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting). They are both searching for that part of the themselves that they have lost and trying to find again.

Reign over Me is one of the best major studio films to be released this year. The soundtrack, which is almost another character in the plot is wonderful. The filming in the streets of New York - a city that suffered a great tragedy and has also had to heal itself - is also quite beautiful. The supporting roles by Jada Pinkett Smith, Liv Tyler, Saffron Burrows (in a very odd role), Donald Sutherland, and Mike Binder himself are all quite good.

Writer/Director Mike Binder has really delivered a story that so many will be able to connect with on numerous levels. This is a story about grief, family, healing, male friendship, mental health, and the meaning of love. Reign over Me does not disappoint. The film is almost hypnotic as it draws you into the lives of its characters. Hollywood would have a much better reputation if it made more character-driven charming films like Reign over Me.


So, I know that I voted 1 out of 10 but really this deserves no more than half of a star. I hated it. It was so stupid and unrealistic, I can't believe any of the stars signed on to make this ridiculously absurd project.

James G. and Cathrine O'Hara were excellent in their characters and Ben Affleck and Christina Applegate were just as good too, but the story sucked and I encourage anyone who sees this in the video store to not even bother picking it up and reading the back cover, but to just walk away...I don't even want to get into what the movie is about, because it is too stupid to pontificate about.

Don't rent this! It's horrible! Horrible!


It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.


(CNN) -- Shelling hit areas near two key cities in eastern Ukraine on Sunday morning, intensifying fears that a ceasefire that took effect less than two days ago may be falling apart. Why is the ceasefire under strain? A variety of fighting factions in the conflict zone -- on both sides -- may not fall directly under a military chain of command. The pro-Russian rebels are mostly volunteer militias; fighting against them on the Ukrainian side are at least some far-right nationalist militias. Controlling these groups is difficult and some may have different aims, including sabotaging the truce. At this point it's been nearly impossible to figure out who's doing the firing and why. The conditions of the ceasefire agreement don't help either. The conditions are vague and at this point there doesn't seem to be an effective mechanism in place inside the conflict zone to monitor and enforce the agreement. Why can't the two sides' leaders control their forces? It's unclear if Kiev has control over all of the fighting forces in eastern Ukraine. Some of the volunteer militias fighting alongside Ukrainian soldiers are far-right nationalists who've been critical of the current government in Kiev, but they're still fighting because they feel Ukraine is under attack by Russia. And who controls the pro-Russian rebels? Is it the local commanders? Is it Russian President Vladimir Putin? None of that is clear. Which side has the most to gain from the truce? If the truce leads to good-faith negotiations and a compromise, then both sides can gain. A compromise could look like something like this: The pro-Russian region of Donbas gets autonomy and self-determination under a federalized Ukrainian government, and in return the rebels drop their demand for independence and Kiev gets to protect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. There are elements on both sides that don't want a compromise, and they could certainly have the potential of undermining the truce. What happens next? We wait to see if the overnight shellings and firings are an anomaly or if they're a sign of more violence and more fighting. If the ceasefire sticks, both sides have agreed to hold talks that will address the core issues and demands on both sides that are still unresolved -- including the disarming of the rebels, a guarantee of self-determination for the pro-Russian Donbas region, the fate of Russian-annexed Crimea, constitutional reform, and a solution to the humanitarian crisis in the conflict zone. Obviously if the fighting continues, all bets are off. What effect does this have on the rest of the world? What happens in the coming days will determine the next move by NATO and Western leaders. If the ceasefire falls apart, the West will likely turn up the pressure by following through with sanctions and bolstering Western forces in NATO's Baltic-member states. Moscow has already threatened to respond if that happens. The bottom line is, the conflict will escalate and so will the prospects of a regional conflict -- although at this point that seems unlikely.

Shelling in eastern Ukraine raises fears that a ceasefire may fall apart .
Reza Sayah: It's been nearly impossible to say who's doing firing and why .
It's unclear who has control over fighting forces on either side in east Ukraine .
There are elements on both sides that don't want a compromise .


(CNN) -- Remember when oil giant BP paid billions of dollars to clean up its own mess from the 2010 Gulf oil spill? Then the company agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay an unprecedented $4 billion fine for the spill. In the latest development, Wednesday, BP was essentially told to stand in the corner when it comes to winning new federal contracts -- a potentially huge blow to the company's bottom line. And it's still likely on the hook for civil penalties the federal government hopes to recover for environmental damages. So, is BP being punished enough for the deadly and destructive Deepwater Horizon spill, or too much? It depends on who you ask. This matters. BP says it supports nearly a quarter of a million American jobs and has invested $52 billion in the United States since 2007. Experts suggest punishments ranging from massive fines to banning the company from offshore drilling. However this all shakes out, it likely will send a powerful message to the industry. Families of killed rig workers react to BP settlement . First, here's what happened Wednesday: . The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it will block BP from new government contracts due to its "lack of business integrity" stemming from the 2010 explosion and oil spill. It was a tragedy that killed 11 oil workers and dumped 205 million gallons of oil into the Gulf in a slow-moving, 85-day national drama that prosecutors called the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. This month hasn't been good to BP. The decision follows the London-based company's agreement November 15 to plead guilty to criminal charges including manslaughter, obstruction of Congress and environmental violations related to the explosion and spill -- an agreement that still requires a judge's approval. What it means . Wednesday's EPA decision means BP won't be allowed to compete for new contracts, grants or other business until the company shows it meets federal business standards. As of February, BP had $9 billion in contracts to supply the U.S. government with fuel, most of it destined for military users, said Christine Tiscareno, a London-based analyst with S&P Capital IQ. Those contracts aren't affected by the EPA decision, the agency said. BP said it's already filed paperwork to get back in good graces with the EPA, said the agency is already preparing an administrative agreement to lift the suspension and highlighted what the company says it's done to rectify the situation. "As BP's submissions to the EPA have made clear, the company has made significant enhancements since the accident," the company said in a statement. "The company launched an internal investigation immediately after the accident, publicly released the results, and has been implementing all 26 of the investigation's recommendations." What's ahead . The next big step in the case comes in February, when a civil trial is expected to begin over the government's demand for civil damages under the Clean Water Act. That case could draw huge new fines for the company. The disaster, in addition to claiming 11 lives, caused disruption to countless residents and businesses, many of whom counted on the Gulf for their livelihoods, whether in the oil fields, fishing grounds or tourist beaches. For some, including environmentalists, the company couldn't be fined enough or spend enough money to get back on their good side. "Well, you know, we're discussing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history," said Matt Dundas, acting campaign director at the environmental group Oceana. "The punishment needs to fit the crime." But, he said, the record $4 billion fine BP is expected to pay as a result of the criminal case is a tenth of the maximum it could have faced, making it small consolation to BP's harshest critics. The fine, while a record for the U.S. justice system, represents less than three months worth of profits for BP. The company reported $5.2 billion in profits in the quarter that ended September 30. Dundas is now rooting for the maximum possible verdict in the civil case -- $50 billion in fines. But he says there's only one punishment that would really get BP and other oil companies to sit up and take steps to prevent what Dundas says is the overwhelming risk of another large oil spill: being kicked out of the game entirely. "I think a terrific minimum would be to bar them from offshore drilling," he said. "That's really the only standard that's going to get oil companies to pay attention." The head of a trade association representing BP and other oil and gas operators in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico said Wednesday that BP has already complied with government requirements. "BP has done everything that the federal government has asked and more. ... This new EPA designation is another layer," said Chris John, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. "How much is enough, when the economy in America is trying to dig out of the recession, and energy ... is a very important component to getting Americans back to work?" The EPA's decision could have a negative impact beyond BP, he said, affecting other companies in the industry who have also complied with regulators. "The companies that operate out in the Gulf of Mexico, they can go anywhere, they're global. They can drill anywhere in the world," John said. "They have chosen to come back to the Gulf in the past few years. ... This additional statement and designation by the EPA has to play into their decision of where to put their capital." BP didn't directly address whether it believes it has paid enough for the disaster, but noted Wednesday that it has spent $14 billion in response and cleanup costs, $1 million on restoration projects and $9 billion in compensation and expects to spend $7.8 billion more to resolve the majority of outstanding claims. Owning up . The company also pointed out it has acknowledged criminal responsibility, carried out recommendations made by investigators who studied the incident and has taken actions to strengthen safety and drilling standards that exceed federal regulations. Tiscareno, the oil analyst, said that while the costs to BP have been steep, they are bearable for the company. The big question is what happens in February, when the civil case goes to trial. Tiscareno said she expects BP, which has taken a long-term approach to recovering from the spill, will recover financially unless the civil trial nets an "irrational" decision. A huge verdict could pose problems for BP, Tiscareno said, but she said the government can't go too far in gutting the firm because of all the jobs and tax revenues the company provides. BP has invested $52 billion in the U.S. in the last five years, employs 23,000 U.S. residents and indirectly supports nearly 250,000 jobs, the company said Wednesday. "The U.S. needs BP as much as BP needs the U.S.," Tiscareno said. CNN's Kendra Wates and Catherine E. Shoichet contributed to this report.

NEW: Trade association: "BP has done everything that the federal government has asked"
Two years after the oil spill, experts weigh in on possible punishments for BP .
BP says it expects the temporary ban will be lifted soon .
The EPA says the oil giant showed a "lack of business integrity"


Adel Taarabt appeared for QPR for the first time since his public fall-out with Harry Redknapp in Monday afternoon's reserve game against Ipswich Town. The Moroccan's days at Loftus Road appeared to be numbered after his extraordinary spat with Redknapp last month. Taarabt claimed his manager never takes a training session after Redknapp had accused the midfielder of being 'three stone overweight' following the 3-2 defeat to Liverpool. VIDEO Scroll down to watch Harry Redknapp say  Taarabt's camp have told blatant lies . Adel Taarabt has played just three first-team games for QPR this season after returning from loan at AC Milan . Taarabt laughed off claims by QPR manager Harry Redknapp that the midfielder was 'three stone overweight' The 25-year-old was due to play for the club's Under 21s last week, but wasn't included in the draw against Swansea. However, Taarabt came through 90 minutes in the 3-0 win against Ipswich Town as he tries to prove his fitness to his boss. The former Spurs man, who has been hampered by an ankle injury, has been limited to just three appearances for the R's this season after returning from a loan spell at AC Milan. Taarabt hit back at Redknapp during an exclusive interview with Sportsmail last month . Taarabt spent last campaign on loan at Fulham and then Serie A side AC Milan .

Moroccan played 90 minutes for Under 21s in 3-0 win against Ipswich Town .
Taarabt has made just three first-team appearances for the R's this season .
Midfielder was accused of being 'overweight' by manager Harry Redknapp .
Taarabt hit back and claimed Redknapp never took training sessions .


By . Wills Robinson . PUBLISHED: . 11:14 EST, 6 March 2014 . | . UPDATED: . 12:19 EST, 6 March 2014 . Members of the feminist punk group Pussy Riot have been attacked by a gang of men inside a Russian McDonalds. Nadya Tolokonnikova and Masha Alyokhina were covered in paint while they sat and had breakfast in the city of Nizhny Novgorod. The pair, who were jailed for hooliganism in 2012, also had pepper spray, green antispetic and metal thrown in their faces during the assault. Scroll down for video . Attacked: Nadya Tolokonnikova and Masha Alyokhina were covered in paint during the assault while they sat and had breakfast in the city of Nizhny Novgorod . Distressed: The pair spoke directly into the camera after the incident . They were visiting the area to inspect a local prison with Peter Verzilov and members of NGO 'Zone of the Rights'. Tolonnikova allegedly left the restaurant with a 'cut forehead' and the group have complained to the police. She was seen getting up from her seat and clutching her face during the incident. while the gang of men continually shouted abuse. When the attack eventually stopped, one of the men held up a sign to the camera while another was seen shouting down the lens. At around 7.00 am the group barged into the fast food restaurant where the musicians and their crew were eating. Gang: They were covered in paint, antiseptic and pepper spray by the group of men . Prolonged: The gang shouted abuse while they continued to launch the liquids at the members of the feminist band . Close: One of the attackers faced up to Nadya Tolokonnikova, preparing to throw something at her . Abuse: The individuals continued to shout at the musicians while a crowd built up behind them . It is not the first time the group have been targeted by members of the public. At the start of the Sochi winter . Olympics, members of the group were whipped and tackled to the ground by Cossacks as . they sang in protest. The . band started to perform an anti-Putin song under a sign advertising the . Winter Olympics. But singer Tolokonnikova was brutally whipped . in the attack and the guitarist was left bloodied and bruised. Last month, Tolokonnikova was filmed saying the anti-government protests in Ukraine were an 'inspiation'. She was also among those arrested during protests outside a Moscow courthouse. Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina were released from seperate prisons on December 23, 2013 after the Russian State Duma approved an amnesty. Speech: An attacker spoke into a camera owned by the NGO 'Zone of the Rights' in the aftermath of the assault . Slogan: One man holds up a sign to the camera before the group leave the restaurant .

Nadya Tolokonnikova and Masha Alyokhina were also pepper sprayed .
The pair were in city of Nizhny Novgorod visiting a local prison .
Alyokhina reportedly left the fast food restaurant with a 'cut forehead'


is there anything to wear it on this one or have your our colloquy with you already developed what you need on this this is the attorney's fees yes or i do want to point out to you simply that

i thought the law was that we don't have jurisdiction to review went through more warts that's true however if the amount exceeds the total amount i think the total amount is two hundred sixty one thousand dollars

this you know what happened there was a single home with about seven thousand dollars and what happened is that my wife dawn martin kyle made a

motion to abandon the quantity because nothing had been done on it the property was going to be raised and she was going to be held in contempt of court because of her own failure to keep the property here so she made a

say because it was an interim and not a final letter and say we want you to invite of what the bankruptcy appellate court said i e that there was a lot of time wasted here we want you to reconsider the interim award because it's not final yet could you do that i suspect you co

you thank you your honors on i stand on the tiles frustration and the trustees also been frustrated by this case i mean what is clearly evident

is that the dead in this car will needs to claim that the property was her property in order to obtain the homestead exemption and then her husband is now representing her not about what has been

understand yes your honor i fight i will answer your question if you just give me a brief second in bankruptcy cases there the conclusion of the case is usually done by the trustee

filing his final report an account and which time counsel if there is counsel seeks allowance on a final basis of all fees including those that may have been issued prior as an interim award

in this particular case are application wasn't titled interim application i believe was in title the first interim application the order that was issued by the bankruptcy court provided that it was the order granting interim

fees and this is interim war and it is this it is i'm sorry for cutting you off your honor it is subject to final review even though it's not interim only in the sense that it only covers a parrot and it

statutory provision so i don't know if this matters but i suppose that at the end of this case i don't know when that will be it's been a very

hotly litigated case could be a long time the judge says you know i worded too much money in attorney's fees in the interim feet i'm going to change my mind i'm going to cut it to fifty thousand dollars

what would happen would be with the law firm have to disgorge sixty six thousand dollars that it had been paid that the money not get paid until the final order what happens when there's

an interim award not appealable to the ninth circuit for one hundred sixteen and then a final award of fifty i mean what happens in real life in real life it will be disclosed because the interim award allows

for the payment to be made and it would be discourse i would be the only remedy because and i cited in my brief it was a case that there just were three cases i mean does that sometimes happen that the

torrie order is because it's always subject to that final reveal so are there cases where the bankruptcy court in the final award awards less than it did in the interim award because of this issue and have for one reason i don't know i didn't

do that research on that the research i did was finding that interlock atory order is not a final order therefore the there's no jurisdiction to bankruptcy lawyers have to keep these interim wards and

accounts or something or is it just their problem with this courtroom is ordered to the best i understand and i haven't had this situation before i believe it is just the problem of the council so the judge tells you to

to represent them and we always take that case it's basically taking it as a contingency case now you know i just stand that you're getting the money in the interim for cash flow purposes but it's not a final or

yeah and i just want to point out a couple things the first thing in my briefs on this matter when i submitted it the ninth circuit had issued i said i guess it was a published asian the cases in re strand and at the

time that i filed the case all that i had was the case number of legal tending before this court and since then i have seen that it is published and the cite for that case is three seven five

third eight five for ninth circuit two thousand and four and that case stands for the proposition that an interim award is not a final order and it's always subject to the final review of the bankruptcy

looked at it and that the your case it was the trustee it's not final compensation and the compensation was reduced because there was an issue

that needed to be further dealt with so the court granted and interim award defeat intil they dealt with the other issues and then had a final hearing so the court found that because they were an interim

order even though it may have been brought by a final application that it was only an interim order and because it was an interim order the court didn't have jurisdiction

it is an interim board the motion the initial application says it's interim the order approving it says it's interim and i think the case law on the ninth circuit plus the other cases that we did say it's very clear that in the interim order is not final and it is

[ i s t h e r e a n y t h i n g t o w e a r i t


first of all it's found in the central part of its opinion that mr tallies independent claims against the defendants that were supposedly barred by the bar order were in fact independent claims that were not the skies in denver the contribution claims

specifically said we have to defer to a federal court bar order which may or which even though it's on appeal or may be overturned is binding upon us now and if it's overturned the court's pacifically left open the issue of really addressing these claims that

not dismissed the case without prejudice in fact against one of the defendants against whom it borrowed or had not yet been issued valuation counselors and us trust the court affirmed our appeal and reinstated our case the only reason the court dismissed

we like to get these ahead of time doesn't do you very much good to come in a boss fight it out by accident for the evening before we haven't had time to really digest this well that and i apologize the reason i don't think i'll walk

paragraph but secondly we have never thought i think we argued in the brief that it was not the purview of the district court to make a finding of whether they're independent claims the court is empowered by statute which is the first thing they tell you in law school you know the start of the statu

the statute says you bar future claims for contributions that's all the district court had before it mr talley was not a party before the court at the time of the borrower's his claims were not pending there this court made no the district court excuse me made no

determination as to whether bar the state court mr talley state court claims were independent or contribution or indemnity claims or not and in fact the case was that came up in the research indicated that it was not the purview of a district

basis to find that they were not masquerading and that was not the purview of the court on a bar order hearing the bar or hearing used the term whether defendants who are settling with plaintiffs in a federal court class action case have paid their fair share s

they get a bargain for future contribution claims they don't get a bar against any old tort claim that's out there because to do so would allow somebody to say i want to bar all related claims and may not even have to tell people the th

court claims that they they have the right to bring them in and say your honor these are disguised contribution claims they never did that even in the state court appeal they never did that all they did was show the court the bar order that says mr

claims nobody has made any analysis except in the case of valuation counselors and us trust whether mr tallies claims are independent non contribution claims and when the court made that

determination did in fact found that they were not contributions are going to the claims but those were never before this court the district court never even heard that or analyzed that issue he had nothing before him except labels now the court

the question i would ask you is is is that the party who was attempting to save my claims are not barred by the bar order not barred by the bar order isn't the obligation on him to put sufficient facts forward that the court can make that determination not of the

those but he doesn't make the determination of what's being masqueraded that's up to the defendants to say we have a bar to judge now analyze that in the state court all they get is a border which bars contribution claims it doesn't make a determination as to every

before in the san diego accords which are saying looks at it let's suppose that the state court errors and really does give a pass to pursuing those claims even though they

think this is fair so we're going to let we're going to construe it this these claims that are being made here are not being are not barred even though if this were fairly good a gated fairly

and someone has to make that factual determination and that's the court where the factual issues are pending which is the state court in that situation your honor invision a court and they latently violates that as a matter of clear fact and law the federal court doesn't


points out the courts reverse the ruling of the patent trials held or ruling that are certain kinds of our patents were invalid in view of the goldstein reference we do so both on the merits and based on procedural violation occurred before the board which violated

process rights under the administrative procedure act i'd like to focus my argument today on three points first a quick let me ask you just as a housekeeping matter i'm correct that you're only appealing to dependent claims that

strike or allow us to find out depends on how you look at it i mean there is some confusion here about the use of terminology in my tractor and my contact but the concept that was describe

right i assume you meant correct i actually don't because an eye contact sensor doesn't do that and the thing is all i track of sensors even ones that they long since disclaimed would do that

being sensed absolutely so in that sense yes but that was certainly not enabled why didn't queens dispute the sensing eye contact issue at its first chance in the pet nor her response in the

have never seen a denial of an institution based on enablement argument because what with the board do are we would raise the argument samsung would have an opportunity response there wouldn't be kind of this for some develop

obviousness to show that you know that there are certain elements here that were simply not met as opposed to an ailment and we also knew that we were going to get different arguments in our response after institution which is you know that's just the way it's set

up so you don't want to make the exact same arguments in those two briefs or you're probably going to be in trouble who want to make the argument they were in poems on this or i absolutely agree they were entitled to response and what the board ultimately

that goldstein described i contact that is contact looking at the screen or not looking at the screen and that that was enabled by various other references for example if you look at a thirty

issue right we were not allowed to do anything other than argue against these references we're not allowed to submit it acts for decoration explaining not understanding what's wrong here i mean the yellow skin describes i contact with the people looking at the screen or

perhaps done by people who are super skilled in the art in a lab i think they're somewhere over in europe i don't understand how that could enable somebody looking at the patent to do it you know if you one thing if it said go to the smart

prototype it was published here it was done this i don't think that's consumedly make a enablement argument based on something where there's not even a date it's not even

there and we were not allowed to do it so i'm sitting here i'm arguing with you judge i can based on incomplete record i didn't go back to my expert you know it's one hundred thousand dollars having him draft day

distinction between i contact sensors and i trackers claim one doesn't limit how quote the device determines whether the user is looking my reading of

and claim one isn't challenged on appeal they both would be covered by claim one but i tracker like true eye tracking is not enabled on the seller fun fact sampson totally disclaimed that before the board in fact said no no we never even

tracking in or on a cellular phone at that time which is why in reply they switched my contacts sensing choir's less power

and i see that i am now into my rebuttal time you know from the question well i'm troubled by the argument that queens makes regarding what it says is the effective denial of queens

that they would deny that one of the keys or they were like these observations i toss out they do not substitute for the ability to spy argument and evidence including expert decorations and the reason for that is if i'm able to argue as an attorney against sixty

declaration sixty five new pieces of evidence i can argue that's all they were that can be dismissed simply attorney argumentation and you're in a position where i've been today that i'm simply arguing from our patents attempting to explain why we think this was

wrong because we were not able to put any of this evidence in the re

sensing technology to sense i contact the goldstein uses queen's experts also admitted other facts from its initial from their initial expert declarations that her queens case and so having passed on that initial opportunity

evidence on those issues the board correctly denied queens a second chance to do so i'd like to spend most of my time showing that they did have notice of the relevant issues pending of course other questions from the court but before i do that i think

it's worth noting what the board did give queens as the court pointed out queen's goddess or reply where they could make whatever argument they wanted they were allowed to cross examine our reply x for seven hours and during that time they could have introduced whatever impeachment

were our theories i contact not tracking but then there are some additional dependent claims in their patent that are narrow specifically to just i contact and so we said goldstein disclose that and so that the the onus would have been on

them in the patent owner response to challenge that disclosure and bolt in and they didn't do it and so now and you know there was a strategic reason for them to do it i mean whatever the reason they were

expert you relied on before he filed you know sixty five or sixty eight corp i can't remember what and then he also attached or you attached sixty five new pieces of wire are

that's a lot that's a lot of new evidence in a reply pretty almost no declaration by a whole new expert not using the expert you've used before and then sixty five or sixty new pieces of prior art for the board to look at

part of all i p r until you introduce in the reply so a couple things there were a couple different issues that kyra went to the first was kind of further discussion of goldstein this was the sentry high contact and that was something they certainly could have

as we put that in the petition and yes we put in a new expert's kind of elaborate on that but it was the same theory that was in the petition and they i think made a strategic decision not to have their experts address it because they were worried about calling the name one of their own

explicitly something like on time but the other stuff these were expert these were issues that they're experts actually injected into perceiving about the state of the prior art for example and what the keep abilities of cellular devices were at the time and for that

things that they could have anticipated because they injected the issue into the proceeding and if they were going to do that their experts had a responsibility to address all the prior art that was out there instead there was all deception is out there but that wasn't part of

what you're telling me we get this straight you're telling me that their expert had an obligation to go through all prior art in existence and address all of it even though you had relied on

expert testimony about that right correct and you were responding to the right the question is whether they should get a reply to that since they had the opportunity to address the enablement question when they raised for the first time in their response

someone would normally get in the form of a reply were they given all the same protection someone else reply would get i think so because they don't have your hypothetical example suppose this is obvious that you have the burden on obvious

ess if you are the person challenging the patent you put out your premise face a case in obviousness now suppose the patentee comes along and introduces responsive evidence in your reply are you allowed

actually now the product wasn't commercially successful and you know you said the sales were two hundred million actually there were fifty nine i think there is i think there's an ability to to call them on some of the representations they make and reply and i think you know they have an obligation to be

point was impertinent person who has the burden of going forward initially them on this enablement issue so they really stand like in the same shoes you did or not you would on obviousness erotically right so if

obviousness you present all of your arguments that they were present up position if you then reply i get a chance to respond with new evidence responsive to their opposition and why shouldn't they get a chance to reply to respond with new evidence

i think ultimately you want one standard for you but a different standard for them when they have the burden on the issue i mean throughout your brief you made it clear to me they have the burden on this issue no i mean we have the burden of proof along enablement the burden of production the

burden of proof and so i think as in the obviousness context the party with the burden of proof is the party the typically gets the last word i think the board would have discretion to say looking at the particular facts that

yes or no will give you expert testimony but here i don't think the board of use that discretion because ultimately all we did in reply was just put in evidence that was responsive to that and in the corrected some of the misstatements by their experts that had their experts done a more

cited and other paper on at that actually told a different story about it and they didn't object to the province of that paper you know they now say oh it's published we don't know what it was from they never objected to the authenticity below and actually if they were interested in

foundation that so in last there are further questions on the procedure i could speak briefly to the merits and there we just think it's really substantial evidence question on both issues i mean that there's two

to see exactly where the glint in the eyes is and then figure out based on the shape of that glint where i am looking reisa from looking at her the current looks different over there it's just a computation requires calibration requires a fixed environment what are

moment was that if i'm looking at you judge like you can see my pupils and you can see the glint in my eye is inside the people's just a direct line and you eliminate the need for all of that she will measure computation we disclose

people the pupil the glint in the camera all lines on the access indicating that the user is looking at the camera and hence my contact is detected that's something very different goals he does not disclose that so we didn't rise and fall

notice issue we heard a lot of argument about there were clue

with more than clues are required as whether or not they're looking at i context it's a no no no you're stating your opposing counsel is argument he said clueless and he said also direct information but that is absolutely incorrect and i

rely on styles for those three this court in the american case it came out i think about eight or nine months ago i said that's not enough you've got to raise this specifically with these claims if they said this is an eye tracking sensor

because they say it's like tracking sensor well i mean if you look at one ninety four in the middle of the bases close all skin disposals a hardware sensor in and on the device was sensing attention of the was or specifically toward the device that

[ p o i n t s o u t t h e c o u r t s r e v e r s e t h e r u l i n g o f t h e p a