# DESCRIPTION
# Use the inclusion/exclusion principle to determine
# the number of elements in a set
# WeBWorK problem written by Michael E. O'Sullivan
# and Thomas Schmidt
# ENDDESCRIPTION

## DBsubject(Combinatorics)
## DBchapter(Counting)
## DBsection(Inclusion/exclusion)
## Institution(SDSU)
## Author(Thomas Schmidt','Michael E. O'Sullivan)
## MLT(word3)
## MLTleader(1)
## Level(3)
## Static(1)
## MO(1)

############################
# Initialization

DOCUMENT();

loadMacros(
  "PGstandard.pl",
  "MathObjects.pl",
  "PGcourse.pl"
);

TEXT(beginproblem());

############################
# Setup

$showPartialCorrectAnswers = 0;

$A = "Italian";
$B = "Mexican";
$C = "American";

$nA = 120;
$nB = 210;
$nC = 220;
$nAintB = 60;
$nAintC = 75;
$nBintC = 100;
$nAuniBuniC = 330;

$answer = Compute(-$nA - $nB - $nC + $nAintB + $nAintC + $nBintC + $nAuniBuniC);

############################
# Main Text

Context()->texStrings;
BEGIN_TEXT
A random sample of $nAuniBuniC people showed that $nA people like $A food, $nB people like $B food, and $nC people like $C food.  If $nAintB like both $A and $B, $nAintC like both $A and $C, and $nBintC like both $B and $C, how many people like all three?
\{ans_rule(30)\}
$BR
$BR
END_TEXT
Context()->normalStrings;

############################
# Answer Evaluation

ANS($answer->cmp());

############################
# Solution

Context()->texStrings;
SOLUTION(EV3(<<'END_SOLUTION'));
$PAR Solution: $PAR
The general formula for the inclusion/exclusion principle is $BR
\(N(A\cup B\cup C) = N(A) + N(B) + N(C) - N(A\cap B) - N(A\cap C) - N(B\cap C) + N(A\cap B\cap C)\) $PAR
Since we have $PAR
\(N($A) = $nA,\) $BR
\(N($B) = $nB,\) $BR
\(N($C) = $nC,\) $BR
\(N($A\cap $B) = $nAintB,\) $BR
\(N($A\cap $C) = $nAintC,\) $BR
\(N($B\cap $C) = $nBintC,\) $BR
\(N($A\cup $B\cup $C) = $nAuniBuniC\), $PAR
and it is clear that $PAR
\(N(A\cap B\cap C) = N(A\cup B\cup C) - N(A) - N(B) - N(C) + N(A\cap B) + N(A\cap C) + N(B\cap C)\), $PAR
then the answer is $BR
\($nAuniBuniC - $nA - $nB - $nC + $nAintB + $nAintC + $nBintC = $answer\) $BR
END_SOLUTION
Context()->normalStrings;

ENDDOCUMENT();


Beck

Peter Haber stars as Martin Beck and Mikael Persbrandt as Gunvald Larsson in this Swedish crime drama based on characters created by Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö. All of the books have been adapted for this series, some released theatrically.


Q:

Increase IPython history length

I have tried increasing IPython history length following this post :
Control ipython history length by changing c.TerminalInteractiveShell.history_length in ~/.ipython/profile_default/ipython_config.py.
The config file seems to be executed at startup (if I put print('test-startup') in the file, it's printed when I start IPython)
But it does not seems to have any influence, is there anyway to check the history size from inside the ipython (kinda like how you can do echo $HISTSIZE; echo $HISTFILESIZE in bash ?)

A:

Using
In[3]: %config TerminalInteractiveShell.history_length
Out[3]: 10000

A:

In attempting to answer the question myself, I stumbled upon this question as well this question and found snippets that really didn't provide the OP with the complete, TL;DR information.
So for my own records and to make the answers on SO here more complete, I provided a quick implementation and check to "Increase iPython History Length."
Generate the iPython config file
$ ipython profile create <profile name>

I just wanted this for my default config, so I ran:
$ ipython profile create

Modify the ipython_config.py File
Running the above command creates an ipython_config.py file, which (on *.nix is stored at ~/.ipython/profile_default/ipython_config.py
These are the two lines that I uncommented and changed the values for:

Check to Ensure the Implementation Worked
Fire up iPython and run the commands found in the accepted answer above to ensure our new history_length = 100,000.
benjamingross (develop*)$ ipython
Python 3.6.5 |Anaconda, Inc.| (default, Mar 29 2018, 13:14:23)
Type 'copyright', 'credits' or 'license' for more information
IPython 6.3.1 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help.

In [1]: %config TerminalInteractiveShell.history_length
Out[1]: 100000


December 12, 2012

Nutter Butter Cookie Balls Recipe

Cookies! Oh yeah..I said cookies! Every year my sister and I put together a Christmas Cookie Exchange party. It is so much fun and we get to sample all kinds of yummy cookies. I like to try something new and exciting every year. Some of my treats have been awesome..while others have been less than awesome. But it's all in good fun so I don't mind the flops. This year I was cruising the web and saw this little beauty and just had to give it a try. Crumbled up cookies in a cookie!? What could be tastier?

Put the regular Nutter Butter Cookies in a zip top bag and using your meat club crush those babies up. I did this shortly after putting my children to bed and my crushing woke up my 2 year old. Perhaps next time I'll crush more gently.

Mix together the soft Cream Cheese and crushed Nutter Butters.

It will come together in a kind of dry and slightly crumbly mixture.

Roll into little balls. I got just over 2 dozen of them. Refrigerate at least one hour. I let them sit overnight.

Grab a handful or two of the Nutter Butter Bites and cut them in half.

In a microwave safe dish (I find a measuring cup works best) place the Almond Bark and Peanut Butter in the microwave. At 50% power microwave in 30 second increments, stirring after each, until everything is melted and combined.

Prepare your station. Rolled balls on one sheet. Melted PB goodness in the middle. Clean sheet covered with parchment on the other side. Cut up Mini Nutters close by.

Drop one ball at a time in the melted PB mixture. Using a fork lightly tap on the dish to remove excess chocolatey goo.

Place the coated ball on the clean cookie sheet.

Top wit a mini Nutter. Repeat until they are all coated and topped. Allow plenty of time for coating to harden. You can also place them in the fridge to hurry this process along.

In a microwave safe dish mix, add the Peanut Butter and Almond bard. Microwave in 30 second increments at 50% power until everything is melted and combined. Make sure to stir after every 30 seconds. Drop the Balls, one at a time, into the Melted PB mixture. Using a fork, tap lightly on the dish to remove excess coating. Place on a parchment lined baking sheet and top with one of the mini Nutter Butter halves. Once all the balls are coated allow the coating to set.


1. Technical Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a laser annealing method and a laser annealing apparatus that reform a semiconductor film by irradiating the semiconductor film with pulse laser beam shaped into a rectangular beam.
2. Description of the Related Art
Laser annealing is a process of forming a polycrystalline silicon film by melting and solidifying an amorphous silicon film (hereinafter referred to as “a-Si film”) deposited on a substrate made of low-melting point glass (typically alkali-free glass) by irradiating to the a-Si film with a laser beam (For example, see Patent Document 1). Because of their electric properties superior to those of a-Si films, crystallized silicon films are being used for transistors to drive liquid crystal displays, which require high definition display, of portable telephones, digital cameras and so on.
The laser annealing is performed by scanning a semiconductor film (for example, an a-Si film), relatively in a minor (shorter) axial direction of the beam, on a substrate with a rectangular beam having its elongated section. The rectangular beam is shaped from a pulse laser beam from a laser source, using an optical system. In general, the scanning of the rectangular beam is done by moving the substrate. This scanning is carried out in such a manner that laser irradiated regions are partially overlapped with each other.
The following Patent Documents 2 and 3 disclose an entire configuration of an optical system of a laser annealing apparatus using an excimer laser as a laser source (hereinafter referred to as “excimer laser annealing apparatus”). The shown optical system includes a cylindrical lens array that splits a laser beam into a plurality of beams in major (longer) and minor (shorter) axial directions, and a condense lens that condenses the beams split by the cylindrical lens array. In the minor axial direction, reduction-projection is performed by a projection lens after once making an energy profile of the beams uniform.
In the above-described excimer laser annealing apparatus, the dimension of the beam is a degree of 365 mm in major axis and 0.4 mm in minor axis. An excimer laser has large width of minor axis and hence large depth of focus because of its poor quality of laser beam. On this account, positional variation of a laser irradiated surface, which is caused by a mechanical error of a substrate transferring apparatus and a machining error of a substrate surface, has little effect on annealing performance. Here, the positional variation refers to positional variation in a vertical direction of a semiconductor film.
On the other hand, the excimer laser annealing has a problem in that carrier mobility as an annealing property is greatly changed depending on laser irradiation energy. As one of measures against this problem, a great attention is paid to a laser annealing apparatus (hereinafter referred to as “solid green laser annealing apparatus”) using pulsed green laser beam, which is obtained from a second harmonic wave of an Nd:YAG laser, as a light source (for example, see Patent Documents 4 and 5). The use of this pulsed green laser allows a process margin for certain irradiation energy which is wider than that of an excimer laser.
However, since the solid green laser has power (below 0.1 J/pulse) significantly lower than that (maximum 1 J/pulse) of an commercialized excimer laser, there is a need to narrow a beam size in minor axis up to 100 μm or below. As a result, the depth of focus in minor axis is decreased and thus positional variation of a semiconductor film may have some effect on annealing performance.
The following Patent Documents 4 to 6 disclose an auto-focus mechanism applied to laser machining such as perforation and the like. This auto-focus mechanism monitors variation of a machining surface and keeps a light focusing point constant on the machining surface by moving an objective lens, which focuses laser beam on the machining surface, in an optical axis direction.    Patent Document 1: Japanese Patent No. 3204307    Patent Document 2: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2000-338447    Patent Document 3: Japanese Patent No. 3191702    Patent Document 4: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 11-58053    Patent Document 5: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 11-23952    Patent Document 6: Japanese Patent No. 2835924    Non-patent Document 1: K. Nishida et. al., “Performance of Polycrystallization with High Power Solid Green Laser”, AM-FPD 2006.    Non-patent Document 2: OKAMOTO Tatsuki et. al., “Development of Green Laser Annealing Optical System for Low-Temperature Polysilicon”, RTM-05-28.
Non-Patent Document 2 shows an entire configuration of an optical system of a solid green laser annealing apparatus. For a major axial direction, this optical system splits laser beam into a plurality of laser beams in a rectangular waveguide made of quartz glass and superposes the plurality of laser beams on a semiconductor film on a glass substrate by means of an image lens. For a minor axial direction, the optical system turns the laser beam into parallel light of φ80 mm by means of an expander lens and focuses the parallel light on the glass substrate by means of a focusing lens as an objective lens.
In the solid green laser annealing apparatus shown in Non-Patent Document 2, when a machining surface is changed in a direction perpendicular to the machining surface, since the substrate is deviated from a focus position for the minor axial direction, energy density of the laser beam on a silicon film of the machining surface is changed. In a case of the optical system shown in Non-Patent Document 2, it is possible to avoid variation of the energy density by correcting a position of the condensing lens as the objective lens, like the auto-focus mechanism shown in Patent Documents 4 to 6.
However, a condensing lens used for a laser machining apparatus for perforation is relatively small while an objective lens (condensing lens or projection lens) used for a laser annealing apparatus is typically large, for example, has a dimension of 100 mm or above in minor axial direction×about 150 mm in major axial direction. On this account, a holder to hold such a lens group is large and very heavy. Accordingly, it is very difficult to move and vibrate the objective lens of the laser annealing apparatus with a precision of several microns in an optical axis direction in real time. In addition, although it may be considered to move and vibrate a substrate in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, since a substrate size for laser annealing is typically large (for example, more than 700 mm×900 mm), it is also difficult to vibrate a stage to support the substrate with a high precision. In addition, as to the major axial direction, since a depth of focus for the major axial direction is even larger than that for the minor axial direction, variation of a focus position has little effect on the annealing performance.


“Tell me about your credit history,” said no one ever on their first date.

In an ideal world, you would know your spouse’s credit and financial situation well before you tied the knot. However, you may find yourself marrying someone who has a low credit score (619-500) or a bad credit score (500 or lower) and it isn’t until you’re applying for a mortgage that you find this out.

Before you throw away your dreams of homeownership, check out these opportunities that may help you qualify for a mortgage even if your spouse has less-than-stellar credit.

Check and Improve Your Credit

You’ll need your credit report to understand why your score is the way it is. Sites like QLCredit provide your complete credit report and score and offer credit tools to help you further your credit knowledge. Once you and your spouse have obtained your credit reports and scores, you can take steps to positively impact them.

A simple way to improve your score is to start making your payments on time. Payment history is one of the largest factors used in calculating your credit score. A late payment can stay on your credit report for up to seven years.

QLCredit offers a score simulator that allows you to see how your credit score could change based on your debt-to-income ratio (DTI), the amount of monthly debt you have relative to your monthly gross income. Keeping your DTI relatively low is important, so try paying off most or all of your debt before applying for a mortgage, and avoid making large purchases on credit.

Dispute Credit Errors

Check your credit report for errors, fraud or unauthorized accounts. According to a 2012 study by the Federal Trade Commission, 5% of consumers had errors on their credit reports that could result in less favorable terms for loans. An error on your credit report could mean you pay more to borrow money, or it could be the difference between qualifying and not qualifying for the loan. Learn how to dispute errors on your credit report, and monitor your report regularly.

Save a Larger Down Payment

Higher down payments show lenders that you are fiscally responsible and creditworthy, so a larger down payment may make it easier for you to qualify. And if you put 20% down, you can avoid paying private mortgage insurance, which can mean big savings in the long run.

Lenders will typically offer better interest rates to those with larger down payments and higher credit scores. When your loan-to-value ratio is lowered with a larger down payment, the lender’s risk decreases, and you can often reap the benefits with lower interest payments.

Speak with Your Mortgage Expert or Lender

Explain the whole story of your credit issues to your mortgage expert or lender. Perhaps you have a high income and your credit was damaged because of past mistakes, or perhaps you were a victim of identity theft.

Lenders can take these factors into consideration and work with you to provide alternative solutions. Make sure you have income and financial documentation with you when you explain your credit issues, as these things may help you build a stronger case.

Apply Individually

If your spouse’s credit score prevents you from qualifying for a mortgage or drives your interest rate higher, you may want to apply for the mortgage solo. Keep in mind that if you apply without your spouse, you may qualify for a smaller loan amount as only your income and assets will be factored in.

Remember that lenders consider your income and DTI, not just credit when determining mortgage eligibility and the interest rates you’ll pay. If your spouse has a relatively high income and low debt levels, it may be smart for you to apply together. A good lender should help you work these scenarios to determine what is best for you.

Ask a Parent for Help

Asking a parent for help could allow you qualify for a mortgage at the best interest rate. Depending on the type of loan you’re applying for, a parent or another non-occupant can co-sign on your mortgage.

Parents or other family members can also gift a down payment, closing costs or prepaid interest, although large deposits into your account will need to be documented and explained to your lender.

Check Before You Walk Down the Aisle

If you’re planning to start a life with your significant other, begin looking into their financial situation before you get married. Knowing the whole picture in advance can save both parties a lot of frustration and heartbreak in the long run.

So what should you do now? First, pour two glasses of wine. Then, review your complete credit reports and scores at QLCredit.com. From there, you can review your options and determine what steps to take to get that house of your dreams and live happily ever after.

Subscribe to Zing! blog

Want to impress your friends and family with the knowledge we'll drop on ya?
If so, subscribe now for tips on home, money, and life delivered straight to your inbox.

This Post Has 12 Comments

We can definitely help you go over options, Conrad! You can either get started online through Rocket Mortgage or by speaking with one of our Home Loan Experts at (888) 980-6716. I did want to provide an additional resource in terms of the modifications themselves because I know these things can be expensive. I’m in a wheelchair myself. I put together a series on home modifications for disability a while back. Not only does it go into the different types of things you might be able to do, but it also goes over potential financing resources briefly. You may also be able to get resources from charities and government grants to help with the work in some cases. Hope this helps!

You would need a minimum credit score of 580 if you want to qualify for an FHA loan. However, I’m going to recommend you speak with one of our Home Loan Experts. You’re close enough that we may be able to help you with that plan to get your credit where it needs to be. You can reach us at (888) 980-6716. Thanks!

We don’t rent houses, but if you’re looking for mortgage financing, we can potentially help you with that. If you want to see how much you can afford, you can get an online preapproval through Rocket Mortgage or by giving us a call at (888) 980-6716 to speak with one of our Home Loan Experts. Hope this helps!

We can take a look at rolling that HELOC into your primary mortgage with a cash-out refinance. If you want to go over your options online you can do so through Rocket Mortgage or go ahead and give one of our Home Loan Experts a call at (888) 980-6716.


// (c) 2002 Monolith Productions, Inc.  All Rights Reserved

#include "stdafx.h"
#include "AIHumanStateAttackMove.h"
#include "AIHuman.h"
#include "AITarget.h"
#include "AICentralKnowledgeMgr.h"
#include "TrackedNodeContext.h"

DEFINE_AI_FACTORY_CLASS_SPECIFIC(State, CAIHumanStateAttackMove, kState_HumanAttackMove);

// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //

CAIHumanStateAttackMove::CAIHumanStateAttackMove()
{
	m_pStrategyFollowPath = AI_FACTORY_NEW(CAIHumanStrategyFollowPath);
	m_pStrategyShoot = AI_FACTORY_NEW(CAIHumanStrategyShootBurst);

	m_eAttackMove = kAP_None;
	m_bTurnedAround = LTFALSE;
}

CAIHumanStateAttackMove::~CAIHumanStateAttackMove()
{
	AI_FACTORY_DELETE(m_pStrategyFollowPath);
	AI_FACTORY_DELETE(m_pStrategyShoot);

	// Decrement attack counter.

	if( GetAI() )
	{
		g_pAICentralKnowledgeMgr->RemoveKnowledge( kCK_Attacking, GetAI() );
		AIASSERT( !g_pAICentralKnowledgeMgr->CountMatches( kCK_Attacking, GetAI() ), GetAI()->m_hObject, "~CAIHumanStateAttackMove: Too many attackers registered!" );
	}
}

// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //

void CAIHumanStateAttackMove::Load(ILTMessage_Read *pMsg)
{
	super::Load(pMsg);

	m_pStrategyShoot->Load(pMsg);
	m_pStrategyFollowPath->Load(pMsg);

	LOAD_DWORD_CAST( m_eAttackMove, EnumAnimProp );
	LOAD_VECTOR( m_vAttackMoveDest );
	LOAD_BOOL( m_bTurnedAround );
}

// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //

void CAIHumanStateAttackMove::Save(ILTMessage_Write *pMsg)
{
	super::Save(pMsg);

	m_pStrategyShoot->Save(pMsg);
	m_pStrategyFollowPath->Save(pMsg);

	SAVE_DWORD( m_eAttackMove );
	SAVE_VECTOR( m_vAttackMoveDest );
	SAVE_BOOL( m_bTurnedAround );
}

// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //

LTBOOL CAIHumanStateAttackMove::Init(CAIHuman* pAIHuman)
{
	if ( !super::Init(pAIHuman) )
	{
		return LTFALSE;
	}

	if ( !m_pStrategyShoot->Init(pAIHuman) )
	{
		return LTFALSE;
	}

	if ( !m_pStrategyFollowPath->Init(pAIHuman, m_pStrategyShoot) )
	{
		return LTFALSE;
	}

	m_pStrategyFollowPath->SetMedium(CAIHumanStrategyFollowPath::eMediumGround);

	// Keep track of how many AI are attacking the same target.

	if( m_pAIHuman->HasTarget() )
	{
		if( g_pAICentralKnowledgeMgr->CountMatches( kCK_Attacking, m_pAIHuman, g_pLTServer->HandleToObject(m_pAIHuman->GetTarget()->GetObject()) ) )
		{
			AIASSERT( 0, m_pAIHuman->m_hObject, "CAIHumanStateAttackMove::Init: Already registered attacking count!" );
		}
		else {
			g_pAICentralKnowledgeMgr->RegisterKnowledge( kCK_Attacking, m_pAIHuman, g_pLTServer->HandleToObject(m_pAIHuman->GetTarget()->GetObject()), LTTRUE);
		}
	}

	m_pAIHuman->SetAwareness( kAware_Alert );

	return LTTRUE;
}

// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //

void CAIHumanStateAttackMove::Update()
{
	super::Update();

	// Make sure we have a target

	if ( !GetAI()->HasTarget() )
	{
		m_eStateStatus = kSStat_FailedComplete;
		return;
	}

	HOBJECT hTarget = GetAI()->GetTarget()->GetObject();
	HOBJECT hAI = GetAI()->m_hObject;

	// Head and Torso tracking.

	if( m_bFirstUpdate )
	{
		GetAI()->SetNodeTrackingTarget( kTrack_AimAt, hTarget, "Head" );
	}

	// Handle update appropriately for the type of move.

	switch( m_eAttackMove )
	{
		// Step.

		case kAP_ShuffleRight:
		case kAP_ShuffleLeft:
			if( m_bFirstUpdate )
			{
				// Snap AI to face the direction of his torso.

				GetAI()->FaceDir( GetAI()->GetTorsoForward() );
				GetAI()->FaceTargetRotImmediately();
				GetAnimationContext()->ClearLock();
			}
			else if( !GetAnimationContext()->IsLocked() )
			{
				m_eStateStatus = kSStat_StateComplete;
			}

			// Head and Torso tracking.

			GetAI()->EnableNodeTracking( kTrack_AimAt, hTarget );
			break;

		// BackUp.

		case kAP_BackUp:
		case kAP_FlankLeft:
		case kAP_FlankRight:
			if( m_pStrategyFollowPath->IsUnset() )
			{
				if( m_eAttackMove == kAP_BackUp )
				{
					m_pStrategyFollowPath->SetMovement( kAP_BackUp );
				}
				else {
					m_pStrategyFollowPath->SetMovement( kAP_Run );
				}

				m_bTurnedAround = LTFALSE;

				if( !m_pStrategyFollowPath->Set( m_vAttackMoveDest, LTFALSE ) )
				{
					m_eStateStatus = kSStat_FailedComplete;
				}
			}

			if( m_pStrategyFollowPath->IsDone() )
			{
				m_eStateStatus = kSStat_StateComplete;
			}
			else if( m_pStrategyFollowPath->IsSet() )
			{
				SelectMoveAnim();
				m_pStrategyFollowPath->Update();
			}

			if( m_pStrategyShoot->ShouldReload() )
			{
				m_pStrategyShoot->Reload(LTTRUE);
			}

			if( m_pStrategyShoot->IsReloading() ||
				m_pStrategyShoot->IsFiring() ||
				GetAI()->GetTarget()->IsVisibleCompletely() )
			{
				m_pStrategyShoot->Update();
			}

			// Head and Torso tracking.

			GetAI()->EnableNodeTracking( kTrack_AimAt, LTNULL );
			break;

		default:
			AIASSERT( 0, GetAI()->m_hObject, "CAIHumanStateAttackMove::Update: Unexpected attack move." );
			m_eStateStatus = kSStat_FailedComplete;
			break;
	}
}

// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //

void CAIHumanStateAttackMove::SelectMoveAnim()
{
	// Only turn around once.
	// This prevents the AI from flipping out when the players runs around him.

	if( m_bTurnedAround )
	{
		return;
	}

	LTVector vDestDir = m_vAttackMoveDest - GetAI()->GetPosition();
	vDestDir.y = 0.f;
	vDestDir.Normalize();
	LTVector vTargetDir = GetAI()->GetTarget()->GetVisiblePosition() - GetAI()->GetPosition();
	vTargetDir.y = 0.f;
	vTargetDir.Normalize();

	// Should the AI turn around and face forward?

	if( m_pStrategyFollowPath->GetMovement() == kAP_BackUp )
	{
		LTFLOAT fDot = vDestDir.Dot( vTargetDir );
		if( fDot > c_fFOV160 )
		{
			GetAI()->FaceTargetRotImmediately();
			m_pStrategyFollowPath->SetMovement( kAP_Run );
			m_bTurnedAround = LTTRUE;
		}
	}

	// Should the AI turn around and face backward?

	else {
		vDestDir = -vDestDir;
		LTFLOAT fDot = vDestDir.Dot( vTargetDir );
		if( fDot > c_fFOV160 )
		{
			GetAI()->FaceTargetRotImmediately();
			m_pStrategyFollowPath->SetMovement( kAP_BackUp );
			m_bTurnedAround = LTTRUE;
		}
	}
}

// ----------------------------------------------------------------------- //

void CAIHumanStateAttackMove::UpdateAnimation()
{
	super::UpdateAnimation();

	GetAnimationContext()->SetProp(kAPG_Posture, kAP_Stand);
	GetAnimationContext()->SetProp(kAPG_WeaponPosition, kAP_Up);

	switch( m_eAttackMove )
	{
		// Step.

		case kAP_ShuffleRight:
		case kAP_ShuffleLeft:
			GetAnimationContext()->SetProp( kAPG_Evasive, m_eAttackMove );
			GetAnimationContext()->Lock();
			break;

		// BackUp.

		case kAP_BackUp:
		case kAP_FlankLeft:
		case kAP_FlankRight:
			m_pStrategyShoot->UpdateAnimation();
			m_pStrategyFollowPath->UpdateAnimation();
			break;

		default: AIASSERT( 0, GetAI()->m_hObject, "CAIHumanStateAttackMove::UpdateAnimation: Unexpected attack move." );
	}
}


268 So.2d 805 (1972)
The CITY OF MOBILE, etc., et al.
v.
Ruby W. HAVARD, Administratrix, etc.
1 Div. 689.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 28, 1972.
Rehearing Denied November 30, 1972.
*806 Donald F. Pierce, and W. Ramsey McKinney, Jr., Mobile, for appellant, City of Mobile.
James J. Duffy, Jr. and John N. Leach, Jr., Mobile, for appellant Palmer & Baker, Engineers, Inc.
Gallalee, Denniston & Edington, and Horace Moon, Jr., Mobile, for appellees.
SOMERVILLE, Justice.
Appellee Ruby W. Havard as administratrix of the estate of Henry N. Havard, deceased, brought an action in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama against eight defendants seeking damages for the death of her husband Henry N. Havard who died as the result of an automobile accident in the Bankhead Tunnel. The initial complaint was amended and various defendants dismissed so that by the time of trial the complaint consisted of two counts numbered 5 and 6 and the City of Mobile and Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc. were the only remaining defendants.
On October 17, 1968 Henry N. Havard was driving his automobile eastwardly through the Bankhead Tunnel in Mobile, Alabama. He reached a point approximately midway through the tunnel and stopped his car behind a long line of cars when an overloaded soybean truck with *807 defective brakes came down the western incline out of control and crashed into the rear of the Havard automobile. The impact set off a chain reaction ultimately piling up ten vehicles. Gasoline fires broke out including one at the front and one at the rear of the Havard car. A fire alarm was sent to the Mobile Fire Department located just outside the western tunnel entrance and some of the occupants of the involved vehicles with several tunnel guards began fighting the fire with equipment maintained in the tunnel. Testimony indicated that their efforts were ineffectual due to defects or inadequacies of the equipment. The Mobile Fire Department had equipment and men at the scene within minutes and the fires were promptly extinguished. Not until the firemen arrived was it discovered that Havard was trapped, semi-conscious, in his smoke-filled automobile. He had received severe burns and respiratory tract injury and died three days later.
In her complaint the plaintiff alleged that her husband's death was proximately caused by the defective and inadequate equipment maintained in the Bankhead Tunnel. Plaintiff's theory against the City of Mobile was that it had negligently maintained its fire equipment located in the tunnel and that such negligence had proximately caused her husband's death. The driver and the owner of the truck and the owner of the load of soybeans on the truck were originally made parties defendant but were voluntarily stricken by the plaintiff before trial. Plaintiff asserts liability against Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc. (Palmer & Baker) on the ground that it, as the firm employed by the City of Mobile to inspect the Bankhead Tunnel and its equipment on an annual basis, either negligently failed to ascertain such inadequate and defective condition of the fire-fighting equipment or negligently failed in its reports of such inspections to call attention to said condition.
The case was tried for six days and resulted in a judgment on a jury verdict against the joint defendants in the amount of $75,000. Motions for new trial being denied, both defendants now appeal.
Appellee insists that the appellant City of Mobile waived all or many of its assignments of error by failure to comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 9. Appellee also contends that this appellant has waived all of its assignments of error because it failed to include in its brief a summary of the oral testimony relevant to its arguments as required by Rule 9. With this contention we cannot agree. There are two appellants in this cause and it must be noted that appellant City of Mobile joined in this appeal after it was instigated by the other appellant, Palmer & Baker. Appellant Palmer & Baker included a summary of the relevant testimony in its brief. Appellant City of Mobile supplemented that summary as necessary for its arguments in its brief. We hold that this was sufficient to comply with the purpose and intent of Rule 9. Appellee also argues that appellant City of Mobile waived those assignments of error which it did not specifically argue in its brief. We agree with appellee on this argument, and in accord with Rule 9 have not considered any of said appellant's assignments of error which were not argued in its brief.
The appellant City of Mobile, hereinafter referred to as the City, argues in its first proposition of law, which encompasses its assignments of error 2 through 8, that the City is governmentally immune from suits arising out of maintenance or operation of fire-fighting equipment. Demurrers of the City to counts 6 and 7 based on its claimed immunity were overruled and its pleas raising the same issue were demurred or charged out. In support of its contention the City relies primarily on the case of Long v. City of Birmingham, 161 Ala. 427, 49 So. 881. In that case the plaintiff Long had been injured when he fell from an extension ladder while in the performance of his duties as a fireman for the City of Birmingham. Long brought suit against *808 said city under the provisions of the Employer's Liability Act. The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint based on the defendant's claim that in furnishing fire-fighting apparatus and operating its fire department, the city was performing a governmental function and therefore immune from tort liability.
The appellee's answer to the above argument is Title 37, § 502, Code of Ala. 1940 (Recompiled 1958), which places liability on a municipality for any injury which occurs through the neglect, carelessness, or failure to remedy any defect in the streets, public ways, etc., after either actual or constructive notice of such defect.
It is undisputed that the roadway through the Bankhead Tunnel is part of the Mobile street system. Therefore the issue to be resolved is whether or not the fire-fighting equipment maintained in the tunnel is in fact a part of the street or public way so as to attach liability on the City under § 502, supra, for any defect in the equipment.
We do not think it was the intent of the legislature to give § 502 such a broad application. In Dorminey v. City of Montgomery, 232 Ala. 47, 166 So. 689, this court recognized the necessity of distinguishing between defects in a street for which a municipality may be held liable, and those for which it may not. We there refused to call a defective traffic light a defect in the street and recovery against the City of Montgomery was denied. Our holding was based on § 502 being inapplicable because the maintenance of traffic signals is an immune governmental function and not a part of the maintenance of streets, a nonimmune ministerial function. We think the same distinction between ministerial and governmental functions must be made here and that fire-fighting equipment stored in the tunnel is no more a component or an integral part of the street running through said tunnel than is a traffic light. It follows that a defect in such equipment is not a defect in the street for which the City can be held liable under the provisions of § 502. The remaining authorities cited by appellee on this point are not applicable since each dealt with physical defects in streets or sidewalks themselves or obviously component parts thereof.
We conclude that the complaint as last amended failed to state a cause of action against the defendant-appellant City of Mobile and that the trial court erred in failing to sustain said appellant's demurrer which properly raised the issue of governmental immunity.
The merits of the other assignments of error of said appellant City of Mobile need not be considered here since the judgment against it must be reversed in accord with this opinion.
The appellant Palmer & Baker raises two principal questions in its numerous assignments of error: first, whether plaintiff's complaint is sufficient against this appellant's demurrer; and second, whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to submit the case to the jury. Said demurrer challenged the complaint as failing to state a cause of action against the defendant Palmer & Baker in that it did not establish a duty owed by said defendant to plaintiff's intestate, nor did it disclose the breach of any duty which proximately caused the injury complained of in the complaint.
The law is clear that in all cases founded on actionable negligence, three elements are necessary to the sufficiency of the complaint: (1) the existence of some duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains; (2) a failure by the defendant to fulfill that duty; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused from such failure of the defendant. When all of these elements are brought together, we have actionable negligence. The absence of any one of them renders a complaint bad or the evidence insufficient. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. Ferguson, 271 Ala. 120, 122 So.2d 356; Alabama Great Southern R. *809 Co. v. Green, 276 Ala. 120, 159 So.2d 823; Malone Freight Lines, Inc. v. McCardle, 277 Ala. 100, 167 So.2d 274.
In the complaint now before us, the pertinent allegations to show the existence of this defendant's duty are: that defendant Palmer & Baker was under contract with the City of Mobile to conduct annual inspections of the Bankhead Tunnel, including the fire-fighting equipment located therein, and to make its recommendations to the City for any repairs, replacements, additions, etc., which were in its opinion required for the continued operation of the tunnel; that this defendant knew that members of the public would be driving through said tunnel and knew that they could be seriously injured or killed if the defective condition in the fire equipment was not remedied; and that this defendant negligently failed to determine the defective condition of the fire equipment, or, if they did so determine, failed to report same to the City of Mobile.
The defendant Palmer & Baker was under contract with the City of Mobile to conduct annual inspections of the Bankhead Tunnel. There is nothing in the complaint to show that this defendant did not comply with the full intent and letter of said contract. Negligence is averred merely as a conclusion of the pleader and no facts are presented to show a duty this defendant owed to plaintiff's decedent. There is nothing to show that if the fire-fighting equipment had been in perfect condition that Henry Havard's injuries would have been any less severe. We are of the opinion that the facts alleged by plaintiff fail to show that this defendant owed any duty to plaintiff's decedent, the breach of which resulted in his death. Because the complaint fails to state facts out of which the duty of this defendant arises, the grounds of the demurrer taking that point should have been sustained.
As stated above, the second question raised by the demurrer is: the sufficiency of the complaint to show that this defendant's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the injury and death of plaintiff's decedent. The pertinent allegations in the complaint are: that plaintiff's decedent was involved in an accident in the Bankhead Tunnel which resulted in his automobile being set on fire; and that as a direct and proximate result of defective and inadequate fire-fighting equipment and the concurring negligence of the defendant, Palmer & Baker, the fire continued to blaze and was not promptly extinguished and that the death of plaintiff's decedent resulted.
This court has previously held that where each count of the complaint shows on its face that some independent agency has intervened and has been the proximate and immediate cause of the injury, it is the duty of the trial court to sustain a demurrer to the complaint. Kilgore v. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co., 200 Ala. 238, 75 So. 996; Smith v. Alabama Water Service Co., 225 Ala. 510, 143 So. 893; Morgan v. City of Tuscaloosa, 268 Ala. 493, 108 So.2d 342.
The complaint now before us clearly shows on its face that an independent agency, an overloaded soybean truck with defective brakes, intervened to disrupt the causal connection between this defendant's alleged negligence and the death of plaintiff's decedent. The soybean truck was the immediate and proximate cause of the accident and the decedent's death. The alleged negligence of this defendant was no more than a remote cause. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer of defendant Palmer & Baker for the reasons stated.
As mentioned previously, defendant-appellant Palmer & Baker also assigns as error the trial court's refusal to give the affirmative charge for this defendant as requested, the asserted grounds being that the evidence was insufficient to submit the case to the jury in at least two particulars: (1) the evidence fails to show that this defendant's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, and (2) the evidence clearly shows that the proximate *810 cause of the death of plaintiff's decedent was an independent, intervening agency, the soybean truck, for which this defendant can in no way be responsible.
We have held on several occasions that when the facts presented at trial are such that reasonable men must draw the same conclusion, the question of proximate cause is one of law for the courts to determine. City of Birmingham v. Latham, 230 Ala. 601, 162 So. 675; Morgan v. City of Tuscaloosa, supra; King v. Winslett, 287 Ala. 98, 248 So.2d 566.
For an act to constitute actionable negligence, there must be not only some causal connection between the negligent act complained of and the injury suffered, but also the connection must be by a natural and unbroken sequence, without intervening, efficient causes, so that, but for the negligence of the defendant, the injury would not have occurred. The negligence must not only be a cause, it must be the proximate cause of the injury. Western Railway of Alabama v. Mutch, 97 Ala. 194, 11 So. 894, 21 L.R.A. 316; Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Proctor, 272 Ala. 217, 130 So.2d 388.
Where it is determined that some prior negligent act merely created the condition or gave rise to the occasion and after the creation of said condition an intervening, independent agency produces an injury, the party guilty of the first negligent act is not liable because his negligence was but a remote cause of the injury. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Maddox, 236 Ala. 594, 13 So. 849, 118 A.L.R. 1318; Watt v. Combs, 244 Ala. 31, 12 So.2d 189, 145 A.L.R. 667. And, as said by this court in Garrett v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 196 Ala. 52, 71 So. 685, 686:
"`The law, in its practical administration in cases of this kind, regards only proximate or immediate, and not remote, causes, and, in ascertaining which is proximate and which remote, refuses to indulge in metaphysical niceties. Where, in the sequence of events between the original default and the final mischief, an entirely independent and unrelated cause intervenes, and is of itself sufficient to stand as the cause of the mischief, the second cause is ordinarily regarded as the proximate cause and the other as the remote cause.' Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. Calhoun, 213 U.S. 1, 29 Sup.Ct. 321, 53 L.Ed. 671; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469, 24 L.Ed. 256."
However negligent a party may have been in some particular, he is accountable only to those who are injured as a proximate result of such negligence. Where some independent agency intervenes and is the immediate cause of the injury, the party guilty of the prior negligence is not liable. The proximate cause of an injury is the primary moving cause without which it would not have occurred, but which, in the natural and probable sequence of events, produces the injury. Smith v. Alabama Water Service Company, supra; Williams v. Wicker, 235 Ala. 348, 179 So. 250; Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Proctor, supra.
We are of the opinion that upon the application of the above principles of law, the trial court should have granted the request of defendant Palmer & Baker for the affirmative charge. Upon a careful review of the evidence presented at trial we must conclude that the negligence of this defendant was no more than a remote cause of the injury complained of in plaintiff's complaint. The proximate cause was the collision between the decedent's automobile and the soybean truck. Such was an independent, intervening cause for which defendant Palmer & Baker cannot be held legally responsible. The judgment against defendant Palmer & Baker must therefore be reversed. In light of the foregoing this defendant's other assignments of error need not be considered.
*811 For the reasons set forth in the above opinion the judgment which the trial court entered in favor of the plaintiff and against both defendants must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
COLEMAN, HARWOOD, and McCALL, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., concurs specially.
HEFLIN, C. J., MERRILL and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
MADDOX, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I think the majority is correct in holding that the City of Mobile was immune from suit. I disagree with the majority on the question of "proximate cause" and on this issue I agree with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Bloodworth in his dissenting opinion. I agree that Palmer and Baker owed no duty to Havard, the breach of which proximately resulted in his death. I would like to state the reasons why I think there was no duty owed Havard in this case.
Palmer and Baker were engaged by the City as consultants to perform inspection services for the city. As such, the firm was a public works contractor. Under some circumstances, a public works contractor is entitled to enjoy the immunity which the public body enjoys. In the case of Williams v. Stillwell, 88 Ala. 332, 6 So. 914 (1889), this court held that a person injured by a defective public bridge has no right of action against one who has contracted with the county to keep the bridges in repair for a stipulated period, and has failed to do so.
This Court said:
"The gravamen of the present action, as we understand it, is that Stillwell, the defendant, violated his contract with the court of county commissioners, in this: that he failed to keep in proper repair the county bridge, from which defect the plaintiff alleges she suffered the injury she complains of,an alleged violation of the contract on the part of Stillwell to keep the county bridges in repair. It is nowhere shown that Stillwell built the bridge, and, as builder, guaranteed its safety by bond or otherwise. The suit is not brought on any alleged contract of guaranty. It is not a suit ex contractu, but an action on the case, and claims damages as the result of the defendant's failure to comply with his contract with the court of county commissioners. No authority has been cited, and we know of none, which authorizes A. to maintain an action against B. for alleged injury suffered from the latter's failure to comply with a contract made with C.
"This case is entirely without the influence of the statute, and, inasmuch as there is no principle of the common law authorizing such a suit, the demurrer was rightly sustained to the complaint as originally framed and as amended."
Of course, this Stillwell case is not of recent origin, and implicit in its holding is the principle that there must be privity of contract between the tortfeasor and the injured party. At one time a showing of privity was considered necessary to occasion liability for negligence, but many courts have been getting away from that doctrine and many have entirely repudiated and discarded it. Under the modern doctrine liability is based on foreseeability rather than privity. 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 4(11), p. 502. Alabama recognizes that there are exceptions to the broad general rule that where the charge of negligence is based upon a breach of duty arising out of contractual relations, no cause of action arises in favor of one not in privity to such contract. See Weston v. National Manufacturers & Stores Corp., 253 Ala. 503, 45 So.2d 459 (1950). Alabama applies the so-called "manufacturer's liability doctrine" in appropriate cases [Defore v. *812 Bourjois, Inc., 268 Ala. 228, 105 So.2d 846 (1958) ]. We also apply, in appropriate cases, the products liability doctrine. See Birmingham Chero-cola Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 678, 89 So. 64 (1921). And in a proper case, a public works contractor cannot avail himself of the immunity of the public body from liability for injuries resulting from willful tort or negligence in the performance of public work. See Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 222 Ala. 120, 130 So. 807 (1930); Evans v. Patterson, 269 Ala. 250, 112 So.2d 194 (1959). See also: Annotation: Right of Contractor with Federal, State, or Local Public Body to Latter's Immunity from Tort Liability. 9 A.L.R.3d 382.
I am familiar with the rule stated by the American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts 2d, § 324(a), which this Court discussed and followed in Beasley v. MacDonald Engineering Co., 287 Ala. 189, 249 So.2d 844 (1971). I dissented in the Beasley case, primarily because I thought the workmen's compensation carrier which undertook to inspect the premises there could not be sued as a third party tortfeasor, because of the provisions of our workmen's compensation laws.
Here, every member who participated in this decision holds that the City of Mobile could not be held liable. The City might be able to hold Palmer and Baker liable for breach of its contract, but I do not believe that Palmer and Baker, under the facts here alleged, owed any duty to the plaintiff, as a member of the public, which was breached.
BLOODWORTH, Justice (dissenting):
While I concur in part of the majority opinion authored by Mr. Justice Somerville, I most respectfully dissent from that portion dealing with the judgment against Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc.
As to defendant Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc., I would hold the complaint does state a cause of action against this defendant. If the pleading is in some respect defective, such as is suggested in the majority opinion, it appears to me the harmless error rule would govern (Rule 45, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 279 Ala. XXI, XLI).
This court has long held, viz:
"* * * Even if the court erred in overruling the demurrer, however, we must review the ruling in light of the rule that overruling a demurrer to a count is not always reversible error. The rule is that if there is some defect of averment in the complaint and the court has erred in holding such pleading good, nevertheless, if there is evidence of the matter so omitted and both parties try the issue as though such allegation were made, and the court instructs the jury that such matters must be proven, and both parties have full opportunity to offer and do offer all the evidence they wish on that issue, we will not reverse the judgment for the error in such ruling on the pleading. Turner v. Blanton, 277 Ala. 536, 540, 173 So.2d 80, and authorities there cited. The error in overruling the demurrer must be held as cured by the clear instructions requiring proof of the omitted allegation. Southern Ry. Co. v. Dickson, 211 Ala. 481, 485, 100 So. 665. There are circumstances, however, when the rule will not apply, as, for example, when the complaint does not state a cause of action without the matter which was omitted. Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co. v. Childress, 277 Ala. 285, 291, 169 So.2d 305; City of Mobile v. McClure, 221 Ala. 51, 53, 127 So. 832." Western Railway of Alabama v. Brown, 280 Ala. 543, 555, 196 So.2d 392, 402.
In the Western Railway case, the appellant insisted that neither count stated a cause of action, viz:
"* * * Defendant says that, instead of averring negligence in general terms, plaintiff attempts to state the acts or *813 omissions of defendant which constitute the breach of duty charged, and that the complaint is demurrable under the rule that, where a complaint avers negligence in general terms and then avers the particular act or acts constituting the alleged negligence without more, unless such act or acts in themselves amount to negligence, the complaint is demurrable. (Citing cases)
* * * * * *
"Defendant says that, in Count One, plaintiff does not allege the breach of any duty owed by defendant to plaintiff in that plaintiff alleged merely that she suffered injury as the proximate result of the `negligence of the defendant in negligently failing to provide the Plaintiff with a stool or box on which to alight from its said train when such was necessary by reason of the unreasonably high distance from said train to the ground,' without alleging facts which show a duty on defendant to furnish a stool or box. * * *"
The court, in that case, rejected the contention that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. However, it was pointed out, viz:
"We do not hold that the complaint is not defective on some or all of the grounds urged by defendant. * * *"
The court then proceeded to hold, as I have hereinbefore indicated I would hold, that even if there was error in overruling the demurrer, it was not reversible error.
Neither would I reverse for failure of the complaint to sufficiently allege proximate cause nor for failure of the trial court to give the affirmative charge on proximate cause, as to defendant Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc.
As the majority opinion suggests, our rule is that when the facts presented are such that reasonable men must draw the same conclusion, the question of proximate cause is one of law for the court to determine. Giles v. Gardner, 287 Ala. 166, 169, 249 So.2d 824 (1971). I cannot agree that reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from the facts as to proximate cause here. It is apparent the trial judge reached the same conclusion as I espouse. The dissenting justices are each of the opinion the issue was for the jury. Thus, it is self-evident that a number of judges do not agree that the issue of proximate cause is a matter of law. Generally, it is held to be a jury question. Giles v. Gardner, supra.
I do not disagree with the principles of law enunciated in the majority opinion as to proximate cause, but I do disagree with their application to the facts in the case at bar.
I also consider the following principles from our decisions to be applicable on the issue of proximate cause, and I would follow them in deciding this issue in this case, viz:
"`The particular principle of proximate cause here pertinent to defendant's liability is: That a person guilty of negligence should be held responsible for all the consequences which a prudent and experienced man, fully acquainted with all the circumstances which in fact existed, whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence or not, would at the time of the negligent act, have thought reasonably possible to follow, if they had occurred to his mind.
* * * * * *
"`It is not necessary that the defendant should anticipate the injury in the precise form as resulted. Nor need the particular consequences have been within the contemplation of the parties. * * *
"`In line with our decisions on this subject is the statement: "As regards proximate cause * * * the courts look more for the possibility of a hazard of *814 some form to some person than for the expectation of the particular chance that happened. * * *"'
* * * * * *
"`When a person by his negligence produces a dangerous condition of things, which does not become active for mischief until another person has operated upon it by the commission of another negligent act, which might not unreasonably be anticipated to occur, the original act of negligence is then regarded as the proximate cause of the injury which finally results. (Citing cases) * * *" Alabama Power Company v. Guy, 281 Ala. 583, 206 So.2d 594 (1968).
"In Chambers v. Cox, 222 Ala. 1, 3, 130 So. 416, 418, we said:
"`* * * "As a general rule, it may be said that negligence, to render a person liable, need not be the sole cause of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes, other than plaintiff's fault, is the proximate cause of the injury." * * *'
"So also in this case, negligence may have existed on the part of others which concurred with the alleged negligence of the appellee to proximately cause the appellant's injury. To recover, the negligence, causing the appellant's injury in this case, need not be the sole proximate cause of her injury, but only its proximate cause, if she was free from negligence contributing thereto. The charge misstates the law and giving it requires a reversal of the case." Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 288 Ala. 43, 256 So.2d 877.
In conclusion, I would most respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority of the court and would hold that the case ought to be affirmed as to defendant Palmer & Baker Engineers, Inc.
HEFLIN, C. J., and MERRILL, J., concur.


List of sequenced plant genomes

This list of sequenced plant genomes contains plant species known to have publicly available complete genome sequences that have been assembled, annotated and published. Unassembled genomes are not included, nor are organelle only sequences. For all kingdoms, see the list of sequenced genomes.

Algae
Unicellular photosynthetic eukaryotes. For a more complete list, see List of sequenced algae genomes.

Bryophytes

Higher plants (vascular plants)

Ferns

Gymnosperms

Angiosperms

Amborellales

Eudicots

Proteales

Ranunculales

Trochodendrales

Caryophyllales

Rosids

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="border:1px solid #aaa;"
|-
! Organism strain !! Family !! Relevance !! Genome size !! Number of genes predicted
!No of chromosomes!! Organization !! Year of completion !! Assembly status
|-
|Sclerocarya birrea
(Marula)
|Anacardiaceae
|Used for food
|
|18,397
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Betula pendula (silver birch) || Betulaceae || Boreal forest tree, model for forest biotechnology || 435 Mbp|| 28,399
|14
| University of Helsinki || 2017 || 454/Illumina/PacBio. Assembly size 435 Mbp. Contig N50: 48,209 bp, scaffold N50: 239,796 bp. 89% of the assembly mapped to 14 pseudomolecules. Additionally 150 birch individuals sequenced.
|-
| Betula nana (dwarf birch) || Betulaceae || Arctic shrub || 450 Mbp ||
| ||QMUL/SBCS || 2013 ||
|-
| Aethionema arabicum || Brassicaceae || Comparative analysis of crucifer genomes || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
| Arabidopsis lyrata ssp. lyrata strain MN47 ||Brassicaceae || Model plant ||206.7 Mbp
|32,670
|8||  || 2011 ||8.3X sequence coverage, analyzed on ABI 3730XL capillary sequencers
|-
| Arabidopsis thaliana Ecotype:Columbia || Brassicaceae || Model plant || 135 Mbp ||27,655
|5
|AGI
| 2000 ||
|-
|Barbarea vulgaris
G-type
|Brassicaceae
|Model plant for specialised metabolites and plant defenses
|167.7 Mbp
|25,350
|8
|
|2017
|66.5 X coverage with Illumina GA II technology
|-
| Brassica rapa ssp. pekinensis (Chinese cabbage) accession Chiifu-401-42 ||Brassicaceae || Assorted crops and model organism ||485 Mbp
|41,174 (has undergone genome triplication)
|10
|The Brassica rapa Genome Sequencing Project Consortium
| 2011 ||72X coverage of paired short read sequences generated by Illumina GA II technology
|-
|Brassica napus (Oilseed rape or rapeseed) European winter oilseed cultivar ‘Darmor-bzh'
|Brassicaceae
|Crops
|1130 Mbp
|101,040
|19
|Institutional Collaboration
|2014
|454 GS-FLX+ Titanium (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) and Sanger sequencing. Correction and gap filling used 79 Gb of Illumina (San Diego, CA) HiSeq sequence.
|-
| Capsella rubella || Brassicaceae || Close relative of Arabidopsis thaliana || 130 Mbp || 26,521
| || JGI || 2013? 2013||
|-
|Cardamine hirsuta (hairy bittercress) strain ‘Oxford’
|Brassicaceae
|A model system for studies in evolution of plant development
|198 Mbp
|29,458
|8
|Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Köln, Germany
|2016
|Shotgun sequencing strategy, combining paired end reads (197× assembled sequence coverage) and mate pair reads (66× assembled) from Illumina HiSeq (a total of 52 Gbp raw reads).
|-
| Eutrema salsugineum || Brassicaceae || A relative of arabidopsis with high salt tolerance || 240 Mbp || 26,351
| || JGI || 2013 ||
|-
| Eutrema parvulum || Brassicaceae || Comparative analysis of crucifer genomes || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
| Leavenworthia alabamica || Brassicaceae || Comparative analysis of crucifer genomes || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
| Sisymbrium irio || Brassicaceae || Comparative analysis of crucifer genomes || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
| Thellungiella parvula || Brassicaceae || A relative of arabidopsis with high salt tolerance || ||
| ||  || 2011 ||
|-
| Cannabis sativa (hemp) || Cannabaceae || Hemp and marijuana production || ca 820 Mbp|| 30,074 based on transcriptome assembly and clustering
| ||  || 2011 ||Illumina/454

scaffold N50 16.2 Kbp
|-
| Carica papaya (papaya)|| Caricaceae || Fruit crop || 372 Mbp|| 28,629
| ||  || 2008 ||contig N50 11kbp

scaffold N50

1Mbp

total coverage ~3x (Sanger)

92.1% unigenes mapped

235Mbp anchored (of this 161Mbp also oriented)
|-
|Casuarina equisetifolia
(Australian Pine)
|Casuarinaceae
|bonsai subject
|300 Mbp
|29,827
|
|
|2018
|
|-
|Kalanchoë fedtschenkoi Raym.-Hamet & H. PerrierKalanchoe ||Crassulaceae ||Molecular genetic model for obligate CAM species in the eudicots
|256 Mbp
|30,964
|34
|  || 2017||~70× paired-end reads and ~37× mate-pair reads generated using an Illumina MiSeq platform.
|-
|Rhodiola crenulata (Tibetan medicinal herb)
|Crassulaceae
|Uses for medicine and food
|344.5 Mb
|35,517
|
|
|2017
|
|-
| Citrullus lanatus (watermelon) || Cucurbitaceae || Vegetable crop || ca 425 Mbp|| 23,440
| || BGI || 2012 ||Illumina

coverage 108.6x

contig N50 26.38 kbp

Scaffold N50 2.38 Mbp

genome covered 83.2%

~97% ESTs mapped
|-
| Cucumis melo (Muskmelon) DHL92 || Cucurbitaceae || Vegetable crop || 450 Mbp|| 27,427
| ||  || 2012 ||454

13.5x coverage

contig N50: 18.1kbp

scaffold N50: 4.677 Mbp

WGS
|-
| Cucumis sativus (cucumber) 'Chinese long' inbred line 9930 || Cucurbitaceae || Vegetable crop || 350 Mbp (Kmer depth) 367 Mbp (flow cytometry)|| 26,682
| ||  || 2009 ||contig N50 19.8kbp

scaffold N50 1,140kbp

total coverage ~72.2 (Sanger + Ilumina)

96.8% unigenes mapped

72.8% of the genome anchored
|-
|Siraitia grosvenorii
(Monk fruit)
|Cucurbitaceae
|Chinese medicine/sweetener
|456.5 Mbp
|30,565
|
|Anhui Agricultural University
|2018
|
|-
| Hevea brasiliensis (rubber tree) || Euphorbiaceae || the most economically important member of the genus Hevea || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
| Jatropha curcas Palawan || Euphorbiaceae || bio-diesel crop || ||
| ||  || 2011 ||
|-
| Manihot esculenta (Cassava) || Euphorbiaceae || Humanitarian importance || ~760 Mb || 30,666
| || JGI || 2012 ||
|-
| Ricinus communis (Castor bean) || Euphorbiaceae || Oilseed crop || 320 Mbp || 31,237
| || JCVI || 2010 || Sanger coverage~4.6x contig N50 21.1 kbp scaffold N50 496.5kbp
|-
|Ammopiptanthus nanus
|Fabaceae
|Only genus of evergreen broadleaf shrub
|889 Mb
|37,188
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Cajanus cajan (Pigeon pea) var. Asha || Fabaceae || Model legume || ||
| ||  || 2012 ||
|-
| Arachis duranensis (A genome diploid wild peanut) accession V14167 || Fabaceae || Wild ancestor of peanut, an oilseed and grain legume crop || ||
| ||  || 2016 ||Illumina 154x coverage, contig N50 22 kbp, scaffold N50 948 kbp
|-
|Arachis ipaensis (B genome diploid wild peanut) accession K30076
|Fabaceae
|Wild ancestor of peanut, an oilseed and grain legume crop
|
|
|
|
|2016
|Illumina 163x coverage, contig N50 23 kbp, scaffold N50 5,343 kbp
|-
| Cicer arietinum (chickpea) || Fabaceae || filling || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
| Cicer arietinum L. (chickpea) || Fabaceae || || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
|Faidherbia albida
(Apple-Ring Acacia)
|Fabaceae
|Importante in the Sahel for raising bees
|
|28,979
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Glycine max (soybean) var. Williams 82 || Fabaceae || Protein and oil crop || 1115 Mbp|| 46,430
| ||  || 2010 ||Contig N50:189.4kbp

Scaffold N50:47.8Mbp

Sanger coverage ~8x

WGS

955.1 Mbp assembled
|-
|Lablab purpureus
(Hyacinth Bean)
|Fabaceae
|Crop for human consumption
|
|20,946
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Lotus japonicus (Bird's-foot Trefoil) || Fabaceae || Model legume || ||
| ||  || 2008 ||
|-
| Medicago truncatula (Barrel Medic) || Fabaceae || Model legume || ||
| ||  || 2011 ||
|-
| Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) || Fabaceae || Model bean || 520 Mbp || 31,638
| || JGI || 2013? ||
|-
|Vigna subterranea
(Bambara Groundnut)
|Fabaceae
|similar to peanuts
|
|31,707
|
|
|2018
|
|-
|Castanea mollissima (Chinese chestnut)
|Fagaceae
|cultivated nut
|785.53 Mb
|36,479
|
|Beijing University of Agriculture
|2019
|Illumina: ∼42.7×
PacBio: ∼87×

contig N50: 944,000bp
|-
|Carya illinoinensis
Pecan
|Junglandaceae
|snacks in various recipes
|651.31 Mb
|
|
|
|2019
|
|-
| Linum usitatissimum (flax) || Linaceae || Crop || ~350 Mbp || 43,384
| ||BGI et al. || 2012 ||
|-
|Bombax ceiba

(red silk cotton tree)
|Malvaceae
|capsules with white fibre like cotton
|895 Mb
|
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Durio zibethinus (Durian) || Malvaceae || Tropical fruit tree || ~738 Mbp ||
| ||  || 2017 ||
|-
| Gossypium raimondii || Malvaceae || One of the putative progenitor species of tetraploid cotton || ||
| ||  || 2013? ||
|-
| Theobroma cacao (cocoa tree) || Malvaceae || Flavouring crop || ||
| ||  || 2010 ||
|-
| Theobroma cacao (cocoa tree) cv. Matina 1-6 || Malvaceae || Most widely cultivated cacao type || ||
| ||  || 2013 ||
|-
|Theobroma cacao (200 accessions)
|Malvaceae
|domestication history of cacao
|
|
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Azadirachta indica (neem) || Meliaceae || Source of number of Terpenoids, including biopesticide azadirachtin, Used in Traditional Medicine || 364 Mbp || ~20000
| ||GANIT Labs || 2012 and 2011 || Illumina GAIIx, scaffold N50 of 452028bp, Transcriptome data from Shoot, Root, Leaf, Flower and Seed
|-
|Moringa oleifera
(Horseradish Tree)
|Moringaceae
|traditional herbal medicine
|
|18,451
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Eucalyptus grandis (Rose gum) || Myrtaceae || Fibre and timber crop || ||
| ||  || 2011 ||
|-
|C. cathayensis
(Chinese hickory)
|Rosaceae
|fruit crop
|706.43 Mb
|
|
|
|2019
|
|-
| Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry) || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || 240 Mbp|| 34,809
| ||  || 2011 ||scaffold N50: 1.3 Mbp

454/Illumina/solid

39x coverage

WGS

|-
| Malus domestica (apple) "Golden Delicious" || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || ~742.3 Mbp|| 57,386
| ||  || 2010 ||contig N50 13.4 (kbp??)

scaffold N50 1,542.7 (kbp??)

total coverage ~16.9x (Sanger + 454)

71.2% anchored
|-
| Prunus amygdalus (almond) || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2013? ||
|-
| Prunus avium (sweet cherry) cv. Stella || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2013? ||
|-
| Prunus mume (Chinese plum or Japanese apricot) || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2012 ||
|-
| Prunus persica (peach) || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || 265 Mbp|| 27,852
| ||  || 2013 ||Sanger coverage:8.47x

WGS

ca 99% ESTs mapped

215.9 Mbp in pseudomolecules
|-
| Pyrus bretschneideri (ya pear or Chinese white pear) cv. Dangshansuli || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2012 ||
|-
| Pyrus communis (European pear) cv. Doyenne du Comice || Rosaceae || Fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2013? ||
|-
|Rubus occidentalis(Black raspberry)
|Rosaceae
|Fruit crop
|43 Mbp
|
|
|
|2018
|
|-
| Citrus clementina (Clementine) || Rutaceae || Fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2013? ||
|-
| Citrus sinensis (Sweet orange) || Rutaceae || Fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2013?, 2013||
|-
| Populus trichocarpa (poplar) || Salicaceae || Carbon sequestration, model tree, timber || 510 Mbp (cytogenetic) 485 Mbp (coverage)|| 73,013 [Phytozome]
| ||  || 2006 ||Scaffold N50: 19.5 Mbp

Contig N50:552.8 Kbp [phytozome]

WGS

>=95 % cDNA found
|-
|Populus pruinosa(desert tree)
|Salicaceae
|farming and rancing
|479.3 Mbp
|35,131
|
|
|2017
|
|-
|Acer yangbiense|Sapindaceae
|Fruit crop
|110 Gb
|28,320
|
|
|2019
|
|-
|Dimocarpus longan (Longan)
|Sapindaceae
|Fruit crop
|471.88 Mb
|
|
|
|2017
|
|-
|Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge (Yellowhorn)
|Sapindaceae
|Fruit Crop
|504.2 Mb
|24,672
|
|
|2019
|
|-
| Vitis vinifera (grape) genotype PN40024 || Vitaceae || fruit crop || ||
| ||  || 2007 ||
|}

 Asterids

 Monocots

 Grasses

 Other non-grasses

 Press releases announcing sequencing
Not meeting criteria of the first paragraph of this article in being nearly full sequences with high quality, published, assembled and publicly available. This list includes species where sequences are announced in press releases or websites, but not in a data-rich publication in a refereed peer-review journal with DOI.Corchorus olitorius (Jute mallow), fibre plant 2017Corchorus capsularis 2017
 Fraxinus excelsior'', European ash (2013 draft)

See also
 List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes
 List of sequenced animal genomes
 List of sequenced archaeal genomes
 List of sequenced bacterial genomes
 List of sequenced fungi genomes
 List of sequenced plastomes
 List of sequenced protist genomes

External links
 http://plabipd.de/timeline_view.ep
 http://genomevolution.org/wiki/index.php/Sequenced_plant_genomes
 https://phytozome.jgi.doe.gov/pz/portal.html
 https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/plaza/

References

Category:Biology-related lists
Plant


Antibiotic Exposure and Reduced Short Chain Fatty Acid Production after Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant.
Human studies have shown loss of diversity of the gut microbiome following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in association with significant gut injury caused by the preparative regimen. Prolonged antibiotic use worsens loss of microbiome diversity and increases risk of complications such as graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Our data support the hypothesis that loss of intestinal commensals that produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) may increase dysbiosis. Here, we report an extensive longitudinal examination of changes in the luminal SCFAs in children undergoing allogeneic HSCT, and the relationship of those changes to the microbiota and antibiotic exposure. We found significant and progressive alterations in butyrate, and in additional SCFAs in stool in the first 14 days after transplant, a finding not observed in published mouse studies. SCFA levels were lower in children receiving antibiotics with activity against anaerobic organisms. Moreover, day 14 post-HSCT butyrate and propionate levels are lower in children who went on to develop GVHD, although our disease population was small. These data provide insight into the mechanism of prior observations that loss of diversity and increased antibiotic use are associated with GVHD following HSCT. Our findings offer potential modifiable targets to reduce risk of GVHD and improve survival after HSCT.


Maja S.K. Ratkje interviewed by Lasse Marhaug

Maja S.K. Ratkje
Interviewed by Lasse Marhaug, April 2012 . Published in Personal Best #2, August 2012

In the last year there’s been debates and controversy about Statoil, the major Norwegian oil company, giving grants of one million kroner to Norwegian musicians. You’ve been one of the most vocal critics about Statoil’s new art agenda. What made you react?

I find it disgusting how Statoil is attempting to sneak their propaganda in on what should have been the society’s correction: the arts. Statoil is a commercial oil company and their goal is to earn money from oil. It is in their interest to mute the critics against unethical projects, like the tar sand extraction – dirty as hell – and embarrassing for Norway.

So Statoil is actively using Norwegian artists to legitimize and distract attention from their dirty business? When did they start doing this?

You can call it distraction or attempting to legitimize their behavior, but I think it’s rather about silencing potential critique. There are so many people directly or indirectly touched by Statoil’s hilariously large art prizes and sponsor support that almost no one dares to speak up anymore. This investment and massive offensive towards the arts is probably paying off much more than any other domestic reputation campaign.

How do they operate?

This started just a few years ago. Statoil wants to buy credibility in all art fields. They have a support page on Facebook, and you can find some of Norway’s finest musicians – classical as well as pop, rock and jazz – under Statoil’s program called Heroes of Tomorrow. Each artist has their own web page under Statoil and you can read about their careers and see their Facebook-posts. I am worried about these artist’s reputation abroad as these pages are in English as well. Sadly, I also think that having people like Leif Ove Andsnes – the most famous Norwegian classical musician – is demoralizing a lot of people connected to the music life in Norway. Like, how can you criticize a god like Leif Ove Andsnes? The same goes of course with pop-stars like Ingrid Olava, Ida Maria or Kvelertak. These people are role-models for a whole generation of youths. But don’t misunderstand, I want to attack Statoil’s dirty business, not the artists.

Isn’t there a clause in the contract for the artists who gets funded that they’re not able to criticize Statoil in the future?

I haven’t seen the actual contracts that the receivers have to sign, so I can’t verify that. According to Bylarm, the biggest pop/rock industry event in Norway with Statoil as main sponsor, all participating artists and bands are asked to sign a contract confirming their participation in the competition for the Statoil prize, and their willingness to collaborate on Statoil’s terms in case they should win. One of the conditions the artists have to accept is to perform at Statoil’s own events. At least several of Bylarm’s former Statoil winners have played in Statoil-related events in Caucasian dictatorships over the last years. Bylarm claims that no artist is muzzled in this relationship, but it is easy to imagine how impossible this is in reality. Artists with self-respect can’t sell their souls and at the same time go on fighting for the environment without being axed down for double standards.

A million kroner is a lot of money, and nobody can afford paying that kind of money back. They’re almost signing away their freedom of speech. If that’s not a sell out I don’t know what is. Why does artists agree to this? Norway is a country with so many other financial opportunities. Are they not aware of what Statoil is doing to the environment?

They might be aware, but when almost no one reacts, they don’t care. It is clear that they are selling their credibility to one of the world’s most aggressive oil companies, and are being used in Statoil’s marketing campaigns without limitations. Statoil supports fine arts as well.

Nobody speaks up?

The discussion climate in Norway now makes it very hard for artists questioning Statoil’s business. The consensus is that everyone knows, but almost no one speaks up because their conscience tells them that they far too stuck in the acceptance of how things are. One of the first arguments you meet when addressing the problem with Statoil and grants is that everything in Norway is already financed by the oil, so why should one care if Statoil decides to give out prizes?

Yes, I’ve heard several people use this argument. “You can’t criticize the oil money, you’re living on them.”

This is a false argument. Reading reports from Statistics Norway, only one out of seven Norwegian kroner comes from oil income. According to the leader of Innovation Norway practically all of the oil income is saved onto funds for future generations. Norwegians have too little confidence! It is common to think that we are a rich nation simply because of the oil, when it seems we would be very well off even without it. Another angle of addressing the argument is of course the huge difference between sponsor money and receiving art support from the state with no mutual relationship, based on the principle of a country with apparent politics for a rich cultural life. But again, the sums coming from traditional funding are so small compared to Statoil’s one million kroner, so I understand the artist’s need to look for excuses like this.

Yes, what Statoil is offering is a lot more. One million kroner is a substantial amount of money. For an upcoming artist’s career it could mean a lot. Do you think we’ve entered an age where the corporations are so big and integrated in our daily lives that people feel powerless and simply give up raising their voice against what is wrong?

We have reached an era with a general acceptance of “how things are” and how that is the “best for the community.” This is what we hear from our politicians every day, and this is what the most aggressive, and – believe it or not – people-owned oil industry is leaning towards. Humans have an urge to live in balance with truth and reality, and we are able to construct and adjust the premises for that in order to live and feel as good citizens. Our consensus is that we trust in our democracy, and the fact that we live in the “most successful country in the world.” We cannot live our daily lives with a bad conscience, and our leaders take that burden off our shoulders. The consensus is that we are a peace-loving, aid-giving and harmless nation with all good intentions. My impression is that the discussion on Statoil and controversial oil industry is bigger, however barely visible, among ordinary people than among artists. In the shared consensus, it seems to take a lot of effort to speak up against our shared reality, because that would be questioning the fundaments of our society – that profit is the basic, untouchable force for growth. How far are we willing to go? Norway is better equipped than all other oil counties to stop investing in tar sand and fishing territories. How can we expect other countries to take action if we, along with some dictatorships, are among the worst in the class?

When I grew up in the 80s thrash metal, punk, hardcore and rap music often had strong political awareness. Now I feel that element of politics in music has largely disappeared. Today’s artists more easily accept the evils of the world, and instead concern themselves with more personal matters.

Again, the problem is the structures that tie us together in this nation. The acceptance is so comprehensive, and the attempts to protest so limited within the system, and having seen the movements in the 70s and 80s and how they dissolved, they were even cherished and eventually swallowed by the “system”, the effort required seems just too overwhelming.

Should artists make more direct political statements? It almost seems like that completely died in the ironic tidal wave of the 90ies. Do you think the pendulum is on the way back?

I agree that the ironic era of the 90s made later straightforward political attempts sound out of fashion. But it’s way past that ironic period now, we can see that in the pretentious popular culture where the self-adulation of the ego has replaced the view on the world. So in a way, the pendulum is on its way back, but without a potent will to care for reality.

Will we see an uprising of more directly political expressions?

I think the arts eventually – even in Norway – will wake up and take a bigger place in the political landscape than it has today, but it is not necessarily through the art itself this takes place. Artists, like other people, can be interested in and active in a lot of stuff not being directly connected with their work. It would actually be a good sign if artists participate more in society apart from being representatives of their art. You also have of course artists who manage to use their art go give a real message as well, but they are few, and it is very difficult making political art which is interesting beyond being political. You can also say that popular artists have a potential audience for strong messages because they have many followers, but here we see that the trend is: more popular and well fed – less revolt. Similar to how politicians are afraid of giving unpopular messages caring for the number of voters.

It’s also a problem that any movement of anti-establishment that pops up is so easily swallowed up by the mass-media commercial industry? Like the Che Guevara-icon or hardcore punk, those aesthetics have completely lost their meaning and are now used to sell products. The only way to avoid this is to make clear statements.

Making clear statements is always more honest than trying to please everybody. Clear statements can never go out of fashion, because people are always in search for truth, and will listen to versions of it in order to “judge for themselves.” The best way to make clear statements is to face debates, be frank about your views, not harass anyone, and stick to your ideals. There’s too much talk about the weather in this country. Or TV shows. TV shows is the new weather.

I’m always surprised how passive people are in this country. Norway is a social democracy with huge potential for self-expression, yet so few pursue those possibilities. Norwegians are non-confrontational by nature. Everybody is afraid to offend someone. We’re dull.

Yes, this is an observation shared by many foreigners who come to Norway. Norwegians still have a subservient attitude, especially towards foreigners with positions. This is due to Norway being a poor country under Danish and Swedish authorities till 1905, and not being a country with nobles. Our pride was in sports and expeditions, now this also explains why arts are still not considered for “the people” in our country. The underdog mentality has definitely changed after Norway got rich, but the new pride lies in fast boats, flat screens and exotic travels, not in the vision that thought and deeper understanding can affect society and the way we respond to the rest of the world. If you as a Norwegian question if Norwegians “deserve” the wealth, it’s taken as an insult to The Consensus and it’s an unwelcomed attack on the ongoing celebration of Norway as the most successful of all nations.

This is a downside to cultural funding: artists are afraid to speak up in fear of becoming unpopular and losing their livelihood and comforts. Everybody is scratching each other’s backs. If there were no money involved perhaps they’d take more chances.

It’s interesting to observe that artists – I am here thinking about musicians – are not afraid to speak up and discuss subsidy schemes and culture politics. They are not afraid to join events supporting victims for catastrophes and not afraid to have slightly left-wing oriented opinions on most political issues, but seldom apart from the general agenda, and seldom without being asked – except for in culture political questions, whenever there’s a change in who gets more. Even musicians with a clearly commercial agenda want to be considered ‘artists’ and fight for grants. The self-elevated view the whole music life has on itself makes it difficult to discuss and see your position as a part of the whole community, and eventually the world. There is definitely something in what you aim at here, but I am not sure whether the explanation is as easy as simply placing the answer on funding alone. But one thing is for sure: financial support releases envy, and the silence of general debate is often due to a lot of suppressed envy. You also get many examples of artists being accused of envy rather than being listened to for their arguments. A very typical example here is the debate on Statoil’s Bylarm prize, where artists who question the prize are immediately accused of jealousy. That someone disagrees with the Norwegian consensus is a much harder stroke to deal with and is better avoided.

I’ve seen videos on YouTube of gigantic horns blasting out your music across a fjord. They were the size of a truck and looked liked the loudest horns in the world. What can you tell about this project? For me that seems like a potent combination of politics and art.

Thanks! Desibel, the world’s largest mobile horn speaker system, came around as a result of many ideas from many people such as Harald Fetveit, Wenche Wefring, Torkil Sandsund, Geir Hjetland, Bjørn Kolbrek, and my part of it was to make the music based on the resonant freequencies of the horn. The small village of Vevring, West Norway, is threatened by the company Nordic Mining who wants to tear to dust their beautiful village mountain Engebøfjellet, and pour the waste into the fjord, killing everything. The mining will cause 200.000.000 cubic meters of contaminated waste to be dumped every year into a valuable national salmon fjord. Only four percent of the mountain will be used in various commercial interests. The mining will go on for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 30 years. We proclaimed that “ Desibel is a protest against ruthless exploitation of natural resources and against short time profit thinking.” The cry was heard into the fjord, kilometers away, where the decisions were being made.

What were the reactions?

The villagers loved it. We had to reschedule it to play more often than planned. It was extremely loud – 130 decibel at 10 meters – pointing out towards the fjord, echoing in the surrounding mountains.

How did you approach it on a compositional level? Did you work with certain resonant frequencies?

I was very positive to the idea of having it shaped like a horn speaker, and I started imagining what it would sound like if played by a giant brass player. I used bass trombone as the main sound source, and I have further worked with a spectrum analysis of the horns in order to build chords on the resonant frequencies, making it sound as full as possible. The chords are therefore sounding a bit folky, but I have also used a lot of distortion and added some sounds of seagulls, as an absurd, over-sized response to the mining company’s promise that the mining work will only be as loud as the seagulls.

How long did the piece play for?

The piece itself is 10 minutes long, during the art festival in Vevring, where national press was gathered and hundreds of artists were invited, it played every hour, three days, except in the night! And every half hour, it played a short ‘fanfare’ based on the same sounds. Later it has been heard and seen in the streets of Bergen – but then with lesser volume – and also some other places.

Did you get any reactions from Nordic Mining, or where they silent to your 130 decibels of protest?

The goal making this installation was to draw attention, and that we did, we were on state television news and in most big papers, we got plenty of room to speak about the case, we were even threatened with a police report for sound poisoning by a confused environmentalist in Bergen. Nordic Mining has – not surprisingly – not commented our horn at all. And the case is a sad story, not being resolved, but there is definitely hope, and it is still high up in media. Now as we speak actually where Norwegian Broadcasting is discussing the destiny of Engebøfjellet in relation to the new minister of Environment who comes from a place nearby. No idea if Desibel has gained attention to Engebøfjellet, but I know at least a few people who hadn’t heard about it before.

Do you think artists have a responsibility to speak up?

Yes. Artists must live with reality, the real reality, and not The Consensus. Otherwise you cannot be a true artist. You don’t need to be extremist in order to speak up, no need to live in a cave without electricity in order to arrest environment exploiting business. Artist mustn’t be so be afraid of being banal or inconsistent. After all, that’s why we have the arts, to give the society some new ideas.


Q:

Modify Javascript Variable with URL Exploit

Is it possible to set a javascript variable through the URL?
Here's an example of the code I'm trying to modify:
<script type="text/javascript">

var x = 0;

</script>

Is there a way to modify that variable through a browser, for instance, www.somewebsite.com + (something that changes 'x' variable)?
Related on Stack Exchange:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39023761/modify-javascript-variable-with-url

A:

No, this is not possible without an XSS vulnerability. If such a thing were generally possible, XSS would run rampant and you could execute any arbitrary code on any page, which would be bad.
Now if the code had a reflected XSS attack vector, or an DOM-based XSS attack vector, the the URL could be used to deliver a JavaScript payload. Of course, this would only be possible if the server-side or JavaScript code had such a security vulnerability (if your code makes that possible, then you should fix it).


As my llmd suggested, I started taking Serrapeptase (1 tablet 3x day on an empty stomach) and the loud, annoying swishing sound in my ears has gotten better. I still hear it but not as loud and not as often. I've only been taking it for a week and have missed quite a few doses so I'm hoping with regular continued use eventually this will go away.

My gosh, how annoying. I feel for you. I don't think I could put up with that. I used to hear my heart beating in my ear. My blood pressure was not high at the time. The doctor told me that the vein was close to a nerve....or something like that. All I do remember is that it drove me crazy! I couldn't imagine hearing swooshing noises all the time. I hope it clears up soon for you. 2003 symptoms started;panic attacks,anxiety,heightened senses. 2007 Diagnosed with Lyme. Didn't start treatment. 2008 symptoms came back with a vengence.2009 Diagnosed with Lyme plus co-infections....Babesia and Bartonella. Illnesses:-Chronic Lyme Disease,Hashimotos Thyroiditis, Ulcers, HypoglycemiaMedications:-Biaxin 250mg to start,Mepron,Ultram,Thyro Complex 60mg,Probiotics and supplements

Thanks. It started to become so annoying and distracting. At night, I was sleeping with the sound machine turned up very high to drown it out and during the day the tv had to be kept on at all times so I wouldn't hear it. If the sound machine was not loud enough, it would wake me up at night and trust me it takes a lot to wake me up. lol Thankfully, the supplement seems to be doing the trick.

Hearing my heart beat in my ear would drive me crazy too. I'm glad you no longer have that. There are certain things we just shouldn't have to hear. lol

But what is the cause? is it hypercoagulation. Its bad for me that symptom for 6 years now I have had a cat scan MRI they show nothing.The line is faded not showing where Lyme came in. I became a new Mommy n my Lyme decided to show itself. Swollen elephant like knee and finger and limiting back pain. Bell's palsey, weight loss as if I had no muscle on my bones anymore. And much more text book lyme symptoms. To a Lyme doc, after alot of there is nothing wrong with you and a recommend to counceling,he said V this is Lyme. What kept me pressing on I had Lyme while I was pregnant. I know I was not infected while pregnant. I am watching her with an eagle eye. God Bless everyone. Love Veronica. Were the ones who know about Lyme not the doctors. Isnt that just mad? Backwards. Alice in wonderland.

I get that swooshing sound as well, along with very painful high pitched sounds. I have read a little on serrapeptase, is it something you can get at most health food stores? We don't have a health food store withing 25 miles of where I live, but have to make the 30 - 35 mile trip to a larger town for my doc anyway. - Traveler

So i guess you really are a traveler!!The line is faded not showing where Lyme came in. I became a new Mommy n my Lyme decided to show itself. Swollen elephant like knee and finger and limiting back pain. Bell's palsey, weight loss as if I had no muscle on my bones anymore. And much more text book lyme symptoms. To a Lyme doc, after alot of there is nothing wrong with you and a recommend to counceling,he said V this is Lyme. What kept me pressing on I had Lyme while I was pregnant. I know I was not infected while pregnant. I am watching her with an eagle eye. God Bless everyone. Love Veronica. Were the ones who know about Lyme not the doctors. Isnt that just mad? Backwards. Alice in wonderland.

Hi Veromia, Yeah, hubby & I used to travel a lot - he was a Union Electrician that traveled around the country to work on the really big industrial/commercial projects. We really enjoyed it as we have a beautiful 5th wheel trailer that was our "2nd home".

All of that is over now though, as I had to come home 1 yr ago last Dec.. I love my home, so the only sacrifice was not having hubby here. Now, he has been disabled though, so we are now both at home. Not such a bad thing!!

I have noticed that my ears always act up while I'm under flourecent lighting, heating pads, and even electric blankets! - Traveler


More from WebMD

May 21, 2007 -- A new report shows that patients with hepatitis C infection
can not only be successfully treated by the best available drug therapies, but
they also can be cured.

Up to seven years after treatment, 99% of close to 1,000 successfully
treated patients showed no evidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Hepatitis C is caused by the hepatitis C virus, which is transmitted from
contact with infected blood. HCV infection is the leading cause of cirrhosis,
liver cancer, and livertransplants in the United States. Roughly 4 million
Americans are infected, but only about a quarter of them know they have the
virus, hepatitis treatment expert John Vierling, MD, tells WebMD.

“We have to start identifying infected people earlier so they can be treated
earlier,” he says. “It is true that about half of patients can be cured with
the treatments available now.”

‘Virus Won’t Come Back’

Those treatments include a long-acting version of the drug interferon, known
as pegylated interferon, and the antiviral drug ribavirin.

The long-term follow-up study included 997 patients who achieved sustained
virologic responses with pegylated interferon with or without ribavirin,
meaning they had no evidence of the virus in their blood six months after
treatment.

All but eight of the patients were still free of the virus an average of
four years after treatment. Some patients were followed for as long as seven
years.

Two of the eight patients showed evidence of a second HCV infection, and it
was not clear if the remaining five relapsed or were reinfected.

Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center chief of hepatology Mitchell
Shiffman, MD, presented the follow-up data Monday in Washington at Digestive
Disease Week, an annual meeting of liver and gastric disease specialists from
around the world.

“When we achieve sustained virologic responses, less than 1% of patients
will get the virus back,” he tells WebMD. “We know the virus will not come back
in a year or two or three. These patients are cured.”

Not All Respond

But between 45% and 50% of patients treated in the United States do not
respond to treatment or have incomplete responses, according to Shiffman.

He adds that roughly 70% of infected Americans have genotype 1, a genetic
type of the disease that tends to be less responsive to treatment than other
genotypes.

Bruce Bacon, MD, of St. Louis University, tells WebMD that specialists know
much more now than they did a few years ago about individualizing interferon
treatment.

Patients who respond very quickly may not need to be treated for as long,
while those who respond slowly may need a longer course of treatment -- as long
as 1.5 years for very slow responders.

Bacon, who directs the division of hepatology at Saint Louis University
School of Medicine, says many patients -- and even their primary care
physicians -- still do not understand that HCV infection can be cured.

“The overwhelming perception is that this is a disease that can be
controlled, but not cured,” he says. “That is why infected people are often
hesitant to even consider treatment.”

Better Treatments to Come

The message, the experts agree, is that a cure is possible, even for people
who already have liver damage and for those with conditions like HIV
co-infection.

They also agree that highly anticipated new treatments could improve cure
rates in the years to come.

Phase II trials of highly specific drugs that target HCV are now under way,
and Bacon says they could be approved within two to three years.

Vierling says he has high hopes that a multidrug approach to HCV treatment,
similar to the approach that has turned HIV from a uniformly deadly to largely
manageable disease, can improve treatment outcomes for a larger number of
patients.

“New drugs may allow us to use existing treatments at lower doses or for
shorter periods,” he says. “The future looks bright.”