I have been meditating for some time now, about 9 +/- months. I am able to calm my mind and not get many thoughts going on, usually.

But the one thing I can not do is visualize anything. I'm not sure if this is because of the many years, decades, of drug and alcohol abuse, or if my mind just doesn't have the ability. I used to be very artistic and could 'see' the picture in my mind while drawing it. But this was a long time ago. I also very very rarely remember dreams, I know we all have them, but to me I just wake up and not remember anything.

Is there a way to help in the ability to visualize while meditating?

Thanks for all your help on this

Everyday problems teach us to have a realistic attitude.They teach us that life is what life is; flawed.Yet with tremendous potential for joy and fulfillment.~Lama Surya Das~

If your path teaches you to act and exert yourself correctly and leads to spiritual realizations such as love, compassion and wisdom then obviously it's worthwhile.~Lama Thubten Yeshe~

One whose mind is freed does not argue with anyone, he does not dispute with anyone. He makes use of the conventional terms of the world without clinging to them~The Buddha~

Use a visual aid like a statue, thangka or deity card until the image is ingrained in your mind. And then just keep practicing, it gets easier. If you are trying to visualize seed syllables find and image of that and use it.

One should do nothing other than benefit sentient beings either directly or indirectly - Shantideva

Not so sure that past drug use has anything to do with it, I speak from experience as I abused heroin and all sorts of hallucinogens for years. You need to understand that the mental consiousness is not like the other sensory consiousness, so don't expect to get a clear and stable image right off. If you are doing deity yoga, there is much more to the process than just creating a visualization. You are using the imaginative abilities of the mind to create an overall "feeling" of being the deity. This of course needs to be supported by the transmission of empowerment. Alexander Berzin gives some great advice on visualization on his website www.berzinarchives.com. If you are using visualization for shamatha, it can be usefull to start by using an object for support, such as a picture of a Tibetan or Sanskrit syllable. It is just something that takes time so don't get frustrated. I had a really hard time learning to visualize Tibetan syllables facing outward, I was so used to seeing them in a certain way. It is still difficult for me after years, so don't get too hard on yourself and certaintly do not doubt you ability, just keep trying!

Have you read anything by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche? He is a master scholar and meditator of the Karma Kagyu tradition. I believe his teachings on meditation and the mind would be useful to any meditator, even if they do not practice in the Tibetan tradition. His website is www.rinpoche.com and there are a ton of profound teachings. Check it out if you haven't already. Hope this helps

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

I read about a nifty idea in which one begins small- with fingernail or an earlobe - and then visualizes that in detail, adding small parts of the image as each part becomes clear in the mind. It does seem effective.

For you, the foremost obstacle to visualizing properly is your worry that you've got it all wrong. Think about it--do you need to look in the mirror to remember what your face looks like? If you think about your apartment, for example, you can do it without having to remember every single thing in it, right? I found it tremendously helpful when it was pointed out to me that the visualization is holographic in nature, that every part of it is implicit in every other part. The important part is to relax and inhabit the deity fully, inseparably and with divine pride, then it won't be necessary to laboriously go from jewel to jewel to jewel and torture yourself that you're not getting it.

Chris

"All the sublime teachings, so profound--to throw away one and then grab yet another will not bear even a single fruit. Persevere, therefore, in simply one."--Dudjom Rinpoche, "Nectar for the Hearts of Fortunate Disciples. Song No. 8"


Harold R. Vague

Harold Raymond Vague (March 1, 1920 – February 19, 2007) was an American Air Force major general who was the Judge Advocate General of the United States Air Force from 1973 to 1977.

Biography
Vague was born in 1920, in Ellsworth, Kansas, where he attended local schools. He graduated from the University of Colorado in 1942 with a bachelor of arts degree in history. In March 1942, during his first year of law school, he entered active military service as an enlisted man and after completing basic training entered aviation cadet training. He received his navigator wings and commission as second lieutenant in June 1943.

During World War II, he served as a B-17 aircraft crewmember in England and flew 25 combat missions in the European Theater of Operations. He later served in staff and flying positions in England and France. He returned to the United States in June 1946 after 34 months of overseas service.

He then served in various positions until July 1947, when he returned to law school at the University of Colorado. After graduation in 1949 with a bachelor of laws degree, he attended the U.S. Air Force Navigator/Bombardier School at Mather Air Force Base, California In March 1950 he went to Biggs Air Force Base, Texas, as navigator/bombardier in B-50 aircraft with the 341st Bombardment Squadron and later served as assistant legal officer for the 97th Bombardment Wing. During 1951 he attended the Air Command and Staff School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.

Vague was assigned to Eighth Air Force, Strategic Air Command, at Fort Worth, Texas, in March 1951 where he served as assistant chief and later chief, Military Justice Division, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate.

In April 1955 he was assigned to the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado, as a legal staff officer. In 1956 he became a member of the faculty of the academy and was appointed associate professor of law. He remained at the academy until July 1959 serving as both associate professor of law and assistant staff judge advocate. While at the academy, he attended the University of Denver in 1958 for graduate study in political science.

In July 1959 Vague was assigned as staff judge advocate for 3d Air Division, SAC, at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. In August 1961 he was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Air Force as chief of the Legislative Division in the Office of the Judge Advocate General. He became the staff judge advocate for Fifteenth Air Force, Strategic Air Command, at March Air Force Base, California, in June 1965. He was assigned in April 1969 as staff judge advocate for Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.

Vague returned to Headquarters, United States Air Force in August 1971 to assume duties as assistant judge advocate general. The president appointed him the judge advocate general, effective October 1, 1973, a post which carries with it a permanent grade of major general. He was promoted to the grade of major general effective October 1, 1973, with date of rank February 1, 1971. During his time as JAG, he oversaw the creation of the Area Defense Counsel and integration of technology and upgrade in training for legal research.

Vague is a member of the bar of the State of Colorado and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, Court of Military Appeals, and the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado. He is a member of the Federal Bar Association, American Bar Association and the Judge Advocates Association.

His military decorations and awards include the Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters and the Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster. He holds the aeronautical rating of navigator.

Following his retirement on October 1, 1977, Vague opened a private practice in Denver, Colorado, practicing for 15 years in civil and criminal law. He moved to Riverside, California and lived in Air Force Village West in 1993 until his death in 2007.

References

Category:1920 births
Category:2007 deaths
Category:United States Air Force officers
Category:Judge Advocates General of the United States Air Force
Category:People from Ellsworth, Kansas
Category:Recipients of the Legion of Merit


alculate the greatest common factor of n and 8.
2
Suppose 529 = 10*i + 99. What is the highest common divisor of i and 731?
43
Let p be 508/16 - (44/16 - 3). Suppose 0 = -p*r + 29*r + 297. Calculate the greatest common divisor of r and 11.
11
Let g = -193 + 714. Suppose 5*n + 5*w - 2637 = 3*w, -2*w = n - g. Let y = -277 + n. Calculate the greatest common factor of 28 and y.
28
Suppose 0*s + 14 = 2*s. Suppose -t - 3*j - 20 = -2*t, 3*t - 5*j = 40. Let n be t + -2 + 7 + -3. Calculate the greatest common divisor of s and n.
7
Let y = -4 + 31. Let q = -14 - -16. Suppose -y = -g - q. What is the highest common factor of 5 and g?
5
Let k = -207 - -243. What is the greatest common divisor of k and 8?
4
Suppose 5*i - 11 = 89. Suppose 0 = -q, -q - 3*q = -3*x + 156. Suppose h + 2 = x. What is the greatest common divisor of i and h?
10
Suppose 0*s = 13*s - 702. Calculate the highest common divisor of s and 12.
6
Let q(o) = o**2 + 14. Let p be q(0). Suppose 0 = g + p - 20. Let t be -1 + 0 + 4 + 21. What is the greatest common factor of g and t?
6
Let o be (-4)/(-6)*(-33 - -3)/(-2). Let t(l) = -l**3 + 9*l**2 + 11*l - 5. Let u be t(o). What is the highest common factor of 55 and u?
5
Let v(g) be the second derivative of g**5/20 + 7*g**4/6 + 7*g**3/3 + 12*g**2 + 25*g. Let l be v(-13). What is the highest common divisor of l and 11?
11
Let w = 1420 + -1084. Calculate the highest common divisor of 4 and w.
4
Let p(f) = -2*f**2 - 5*f - 5. Let x be p(-2). Let h(z) = 2*z**2 - 6*z - 3. Let q be h(x). What is the greatest common divisor of q and 11?
11
Let a(q) = -q**2 + 40*q - 192. Let n be a(34). What is the greatest common factor of n and 1128?
12
Let u(y) = -9*y**3 - y**2 - 4*y. Let t be u(-2). Let x = t - 49. Suppose -17 = -4*s + x. What is the highest common divisor of 121 and s?
11
Let r(h) = h**3 - 5*h**2 + 12*h - 33. Let o be r(5). Calculate the greatest common factor of 9 and o.
9
Let l be 250/5 + 10*(-1)/2. Suppose -4*n + 2*n = 0. Let z be n - -16 - (4 + -3). What is the highest common factor of z and l?
15
Let i(n) = -2*n**3 - n**2 + 2*n + 2. Let m = 12 - 9. Let c be i(m). Let k be 4/22 + (-980)/c. Calculate the highest common divisor of 126 and k.
18
Suppose 2*g = 42 + 128. Let u = -68 + g. What is the highest common divisor of u and 85?
17
Suppose 3*o + 1 = -4*d, -5*d - 3*o - 3 = -2*d. What is the greatest common divisor of d and 9?
1
Let u(v) = -3*v - 54. Let a be u(-18). Suppose -o + 3*b + 23 = a, 0*o - 2*o = 5*b + 9. Calculate the highest common divisor of o and 2.
2
Let x be 3123/21 + 16/56. Suppose 4*k + 151 = 3*v - k, -4*k - x = -3*v. Calculate the greatest common divisor of v and 47.
47
Suppose 162 = 4*m - x, m = x + 4*x + 31. Suppose -2978 = -48*k - 1010. What is the greatest common divisor of m and k?
41
Suppose 0 = 3*k + 4*c - 7, 2*c = -2*k - 4 + 12. Let a be 6 - k/(3 - 0). Suppose a*l = -l + 8. Calculate the highest common divisor of l and 2.
2
Suppose 61 = -4*p + 5*z, 2*p + p + 2*z + 63 = 0. Let m = -11 + 4. Let u = m - p. Calculate the greatest common factor of 48 and u.
12
Suppose -5*q + 24 = 4. Suppose o - 2*o = -r + 2, -o = q*r - 18. Suppose -o*n - 2*n + 192 = 0. Calculate the greatest common divisor of n and 12.
12
Let a be (2/(-1))/(-2)*45. What is the highest common divisor of 18 and a?
9
Let n be (-7)/((-35)/25) + 4707/9. Calculate the highest common factor of 231 and n.
33
Let m(b) = -24*b**2 - b + 1. Let v be m(-3). Let z be (-2)/6 - v/6. Let n = z + -8. Calculate the greatest common divisor of 18 and n.
9
Suppose -8*x = -3*x - 60. Let t(f) = f - 12. Let w be t(x). Suppose w*j = -5*j + 70. Calculate the highest common factor of j and 2.
2
Let l(h) = -67*h + 18. Let d be l(-4). Calculate the highest common factor of d and 26.
26
Let n(v) = -8*v + 4. Let s be n(-3). Let b = -208 + 222. What is the greatest common factor of s and b?
14
Let n be (170/(-6))/(5*5/(-75)). Suppose -5*l + 8 = -17. Calculate the greatest common factor of l and n.
5
Let j(i) = -2*i**3 + 10*i**2 + 32*i + 205. Let k be j(-7). Calculate the highest common divisor of 89 and k.
89
Let x(v) = v**2 + 16*v - 14. Let t be x(-17). Calculate the highest common divisor of t and 357.
3
Suppose j + 1004 = 3*j. Let g = j - 315. What is the greatest common factor of 17 and g?
17
Let a = -1590 - -1614. Let b(u) = u**3 + 7*u**2 + 4*u - 4. Let g be 1/(2/(-24)*2). Let o be b(g). What is the highest common divisor of o and a?
8
Suppose 2*d - 162 = -4*a - 34, d = 0. Let b be (-4)/(-3) - (-4)/6. Let z be (-6)/b - (-12 + 1). Calculate the highest common divisor of z and a.
8
Suppose 0 = 2*d - 4462 + 4066. What is the greatest common factor of d and 66?
66
Let u = 3 + -6. Suppose 4*v = -3*t + 7, 0 = -8*t + 9*t - 4*v + 3. Let b be u/(3 - 3 - t). What is the highest common divisor of b and 9?
3
Let v(a) = a + 155*a - 2*a. Let p(n) = 31*n. Let y(c) = -14*p(c) + 3*v(c). Let b be y(1). What is the greatest common divisor of 7 and b?
7
Suppose 3*x = 7*x - 580. Suppose 4*i - 4*g - 108 = 0, -x = -3*i - 2*i - 5*g. What is the highest common factor of i and 4?
4
Let u be (-3)/(12/8 - 3). Suppose 3*p - 8 = u*p. Let r(h) = h**3 - 8*h**2 + 7*h + 7. Let n be r(p). Calculate the greatest common factor of 9 and n.
9
Let i = -662 - -688. Calculate the greatest common factor of 2626 and i.
26
Let u be (1 + -1)/(0 - -2). Suppose u = -0*g - g + 2. Let m = -1564 - -1568. Calculate the highest common factor of m and g.
2
Suppose -89 = -5*p - 2*o, o = -16*p + 21*p - 98. Calculate the highest common factor of p and 817.
19
Suppose 127 = v - 5*m, 601 = 5*v - 4*m + 29. Let f(q) = -q**2 - 10*q + 103. Let s be f(-15). What is the highest common factor of s and v?
28
Suppose 0*d = 4*d - 48. Let o be (-4)/d*-1*-9. Let y be 1*(29 - (-2 - o)). Calculate the greatest common divisor of 7 and y.
7
Suppose 4*x = 5*h - 322, 0 = 2*h - 0*x - x - 130. Calculate the highest common divisor of 88 and h.
22
Let r(p) = p - 14. Let o be r(6). Let d be o/36 - (-492)/27. What is the greatest common divisor of 45 and d?
9
Suppose -j + 22 = j. Suppose -2*i + 39 = j. Let v = 31 + -17. Calculate the greatest common factor of v and i.
14
Suppose 3*w - 42 = w. Let t(a) = 2*a**2 + 5*a - 38. Let j be t(4). What is the highest common factor of w and j?
7
Suppose -16*s + 165 = -379. Calculate the greatest common factor of s and 2.
2
Let u = -273 - -183. Let h = -86 - u. Calculate the greatest common divisor of h and 28.
4
Suppose -4*a = w - 0*a + 6, -w + 21 = -5*a. Suppose -d - w*d = -693. Calculate the greatest common factor of 11 and d.
11
Suppose -37*u - 134 = -2*m - 35*u, m + 4*u = 67. Calculate the highest common divisor of m and 737.
67
Let o = -31 - -40. Suppose w - o = -6. What is the greatest common factor of w and 24?
3
Let a be 3/9 - (-323)/57. Calculate the highest common factor of a and 606.
6
Let l = 36 + -26. Suppose -50 = 3*q - 8*q - 3*s, 2*s + l = 0. Calculate the greatest common divisor of q and 117.
13
Let d = -600 + 1208. Calculate the highest common divisor of d and 38.
38
Let g(q) = -q**2 + 14*q + 12. Let v be g(12). Let x = -6 - -13. Suppose 5 = r + c - x, -v = -2*r - 5*c. Calculate the greatest common divisor of r and 32.
8
Let b(u) = u**2 + 2*u - 11. Let o be b(3). Let l(a) = 0*a - a + 8*a + 3 - a. Let z be l(o). What is the greatest common factor of 297 and z?
27
Suppose -k + 30 = -27. Calculate the greatest common divisor of k and 38.
19
Let n = 109 - -134. Calculate the greatest common factor of 567 and n.
81
Suppose 5*s - s = -2*v + 292, 0 = 5*s - 10. Suppose x - v = -4*t - t, 2*x - t - 328 = 0. Suppose -3 + 21 = b. Calculate the greatest common divisor of b and x.
18
Let t be (33/(495/240))/(2/16). What is the highest common factor of t and 8?
8
Let f(g) = -75*g - 200. Let w be f(-5). What is the highest common divisor of w and 14?
7
Let p(a) = a**2 + 49. Let z be p(-11). Calculate the highest common factor of 20 and z.
10
Let p be 0*(-7 - -3 - -3). Suppose p = -0*i - 3*i + 4*y + 80, 3*i + 3*y - 66 = 0. Calculate the greatest common factor of i and 96.
24
Let i be (-946220)/(-2040) - (0 - (-2)/(-12)). What is the highest common divisor of i and 87?
29
Let f(n) = -52*n + 17. Let i be f(-2). Calculate the greatest common divisor of 11 and i.
11
Let x = -57 + 43. Let y be (-160)/(-28) - ((-16)/x)/(-4). Calcu


Yeah, spaghetti is all fun and games until you're the spaghetti. Ableimages/Lifesize/ Thinkstock

Here's where it starts to get bad. Tidal forces -- so named because similar gravitational forces between the moon and the Earth cause ocean tides -- increase dramatically as the distance between you and the black hole shrinks. This means the gravity acting on your feet is much stronger than the gravity acting on your head. As a result, your feet begin to accelerate much faster than your head. Your body stretches out, not uncomfortably at first, but over time, the stretching will become more severe. Astronomers call this spaghettification because the intense gravitational field pulls you into a long, thin piece of spaghetti.

When you start feeling pain depends on the size of the black hole. If you're falling into a supermassive black hole, you'll begin to notice the tidal forces within about 600,000 kilometers (372,822 miles) of the center -- after you've already crossed the event horizon [source: Bunn]. If you're falling into a stellar black hole, you'll start feeling uncomfortable within 6,000 kilometers (3,728 miles) of the center, long before you cross the horizon [source: Bunn].

Either way, spaghettification leads to a painful conclusion. When the tidal forces exceed the elastic limits of your body, you'll snap apart at the weakest point, probably just above the hips. You'll see your lower half floating next to you, and you'll see it begin to stretch anew as tidal forces latch onto it. The same thing happens to your torso, of course, until each half snaps a second time. In a matter of seconds, you're a goner, reduced to a string of disconnected atoms that march into the black hole's singularity like ants disappearing into a colony.

It's not a great way to die, but there's one consolation: In space, no one can hear you scream.

Related Articles

Sources


When Brighton senior William Joseph learned of Friday's court order ruling Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, it came as a welcomed surprise.

"The decision makes sense," Joseph said. "If you look at what's happened in other states over the past several months, it's where the country is headed."

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman found Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, approved by voters in 2004, unconstitutional. It violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, he stated.

"In attempting to define this case as a challenge to 'the will of the people,' state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people," Friedman wrote in his ruling. "No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples."

Following the order, Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an emergency request for a stay in court.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay on Saturday effective through Wednesday, meaning same-sex marriages are put on hold at least until then.

"In 2004, the citizens of Michigan recognized that diversity in parenting is best for kids and families because moms and dads are not interchangeable," Schuette said in a statement. "Michigan voters enshrined that decision in our state constitution, and their will should stand and be respected."

However, about 100 same-sex couples married in Michigan between Friedman's order and the circuit court's stay ruling. It is unclear if the state will recognize those marriages.

The issue of same-sex marriage is likely to stay at the forefront of state politics over the coming days and weeks as the case moves through court and the 2014 elections.

Joseph, a political science student, said he thinks the issue is likely to remain a "hot topic" this year. He said the legislation might give Democrats an advantage over Republicans in November.

"The fact that the attorney general appealed it wasn't a surprise," Joseph said. "He's a Republican, we've got a Republican governor, a Republican Legislature. The Republican Party, obviously, hasn't made equality one of its goals."

It would not be the first time same-sex marriage played a large role in an election year.

In 2004, 58 percent of Michigan voters approved the amendment to the state's constitution currently in question, which defines marriage as between "one man and one woman."

Since then, however, voters' attitudes on same-sex marriage appear to have shifted significantly.

"Michigan's statute and our state's Constitution are very clear on this matter," Snyder spokesperson Sara Wurfel said in a statement. "This was not about LGBT or adoption issues, but about obligation to defend the law and Constitution as people wrote or amended it, and the voter-initiated language in the Constitution clearly prohibits him from giving the benefits of marriage to a same-sex couple."

"While I know there are differing views on this issue, I firmly believe every Michigander deserves equal protection under the law, and today's ruling reaffirms this fundamental American value," he said.

Seventeen states, along with the District of Columbia, recognize same-sex marriage. Michigan joins Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Kentucky as states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriage overturned in court and put on stay.


Nanotubes are a unique material with rich electrical and chemical properties and extreme mechanical strength, which makes them suitable for wide range of applications, including sensing molecules in gaseous and liquid analytes. Nanotube-based sensors hold great promise for such applications as environmental and industrial monitoring, transportation, medical devices, medical/clinical diagnostics, biotechnology for drug discovery, agricultural and consumer markets, national security, including both homeland defense and military operations. For general information regarding carbon nanotubes, their integration in sensing devices and their principles of work, reference may be made to the following U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,346,189; 6,232,706; 6,401,526; 6,528,020 and also Franklin, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 4571 (2001) and Zhang et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 3155 (2001), all of which are incorporated herein for reference for all purposes.
Fluid sensors of which the inventors are aware, and which use carbon nanotubes and nanowires as sensing elements, take advantage of high surface-to-volume ratio of nanoelements (nanotubes and/or nanowires), which makes their electrical properties sensitive to surface-adsorbed molecules. The detection scheme in these sensors is based on chemical interactions between the surface atoms of the nanoelements, or materials attached to the surface atoms of the nanoelements, and the adsorbed molecules in gases and liquids. There are a number of drawbacks associated with the above-described sensors. One technique for making a hydrogen sensor includes coating a nanotube with individual nanoparticles of palladium (Pd). In this sensor, detection is based on charge transfer from a Pd nanoparticle, which adsorbs H2 to the nanotube and results in lowering the nanotube conductance. The approach, however, has several shortcomings. For example, Pd nanoparticles have been found to be unstable due to their oxidation after exposure to H2 This results in shorter life for the sensors.
Moreover, coating nanotubes or nanowires with a thin layer of Pd nanoparticles is inherently difficult to control and scale up, as it often leads to electrical short circuits in the device. This is particularly the case if the sensor design calls for an array of individual sensors for detection of different molecules placed in close proximity to each other.
Another disadvantage of existing nanotube/nanowire-based sensors relates to an inability to effectively, or at all, prevent non-specific interaction between the nanoelement and other molecules present in the surrounding environment. For example, a non-functionalized nanotube may be sensitive to NO2. A device for detection of H2 with nanotubes coated with particles of Pd reacts to both H2 and NO2 if molecules of both gases are simultaneously present, since parts of the nanotube are functionalized with Pd, and parts are not.


Q:

Remove Columns from a CSV File

I have a CSV file from which I need to remove one column from it.The problem is I have exported the CSV file without headers.So how can I remove the column from the CSV file.For example if I have the example.csv I want to remove the last column from it which is a boolean data and have the file as input.csv.
input.csv
1,"data",100.00,TRUE
2,"code",91.8,TRUE
3,"analytics",100.00,TRUE

output.csv
1,"data",100.00
2,"code",91.8
3,"analytics",100.00

A:

To remove the fourth column,
$ cut -d, -f4 --complement example.csv > input.csv

Adjust the -f option to match the column number.
If the CSV file is more complicated, you could use some perl and the Text::CSV package,

$ perl -MText::CSV -E '$csv = Text::CSV->new({binary=>1});
  while ($row = $csv->getline(STDIN))
  {
    print "$row->[0],$row->[1],$row->[2]\n"
  }' < example.csv > input.csv

A:

sed:
sed 's/,[^,]\+$//' file.csv

,[^,]\+ matches , followed by any number of characters except ,, and the match is replaced with empty string

awk:
awk -F, '{for(i=1; i<NF; i++) printf("%s%s", $i, FS); print ""}' file.csv

-F, sets field delimiter as ,
for(i=1; i<NF; i++) printf("%s", $i); print "" iterates over the fields except the last one, and print the output in desired format

Example:
% cat file.txt
1,"data",100.00,TRUE
2,"code",91.8,TRUE
3,"analytics",100.00,TRUE

% sed 's/,[^,]\+$//' file.txt
1,"data",100.00
2,"code",91.8
3,"analytics",100.00

% awk -F, '{for(i=1; i<NF; i++) printf("%s%s", $i, FS); print ""}' file.txt
1,"data",100.00,
2,"code",91.8,
3,"analytics",100.00,

A:

Use the csv module in Python:
python -c 'import sys,csv
w = csv.writer(sys.stdout)
for row in csv.reader(sys.stdin):
    w.writerow(row[0:-1])' < input.csv > output.csv

If you want the output to contain say columns 2, 3, and 1, in that order, use
python -c 'import sys,csv
w = csv.writer(sys.stdout)
for row in csv.reader(sys.stdin):
    w.writerow([row[1], row[2], row[0]])' < input.csv > output.csv

Python array indexes start at 0, so the column numbers are counted starting at zero too, above; that's why they are 1, 2, 0 for columns 2, 3, 1, respectively.


Aircraft propeller blades are subject to damage from foreign objects such as sand, rain, hail, and birds etc. Propeller blades that are mounted towards the rear of an aircraft are particularly susceptible to foreign object damage. Runway debris, such as sand, runway markers, stones, ice, water, slush and segments of tire tread etc., may be kicked up into a plane of rotation of the blades. Collision between the foreign objects and the propeller blades may require the removal of the damaged blades from the propeller for repair.
Typically, propeller blades are mounted to a hub of a propeller by means of a pitch retention member. The member is rotatable within the hub to allow the pitch of the propeller blade mounted therein to be set as required. A spinner may enclose the hub and the member.
To replace a damaged blade, the spinner and/or the blade retention member and/or the hub may have to be disassembled. Because of the complexity of the disassembly (and subsequent reassembly), blade changes are time consuming, expensive and subject to error. The problem is multiplied by propellers which have a plurality of blades. Some counter-rotating prop-fan propellers may have as many as 18 blades.
In counter-rotation prop-fans, each blade is rather heavily loaded absorbing as much as 1000 horsepower of engine torque and developing as much as 1,500 pounds of engine thrust. Heavily loaded propeller blades are subject to high vibratory loads and stresses. Moreover because prop-fan blades are swept, they are subject to instability at high speed.


Facebook Buys The Popular Face Swapping App Which Is Dominating Right Now

It is possible you have seen a number of silly looking face swapping selfies on social media recently. Get ready to see more of them! Facebook is buying the company behind one of the most popular apps in the App store right now, Masquerade.

As well as doing regular old silly face swaps with your friends you can also overlay playful filters over your selfies such Leonardo DiCaprio at the Oscars. With the news that Masquerade is being bought by the biggest social network on the planet, it is safe to say that you will see face swapping features arriving in Facebook at some point in the near future.

Facebook also intends to keep Masquerade as a standalone app which will be free for users to download. The face swapping fun fits inline with other recent changes the company has brought in over recent times such as stickers, finger doodles and photo filters.

Masquerade has had a stellar start on the App store. It is rated at 5 stars and has been at the top of the charts for a consistent amount of time now. It is also available to download on Android phones too.

The apps founders will work out of the Facebook London office and Facebook has declined to say how much it paid for the Masquerade app. However, love him or hate him you have to commend the business mind of Mark Zuckerberg.

He is clever enough to know that Facebook is still the core of social media however young teens at the moment may not be necessarily logging into the service, the audience of Facebook will start to mature and Zuckerberg knows that he needs to have the next big thing.

That is why we have seen Facebook scoop up other companies such as WhatsApp and Instagram. We also know that they tried getting their hands on Snapchat but just couldn’t quite pull it off. They move fast on these companies and start ups because they know that they need to have the next potential big thing before someone else has it.


Litecoin Mining Beta - CEX.io

***Advertising****

***Please do not advertise any service without first speaking with a mod/admin. We would like to verify the legitimcy of the site or service before you advertise to our members. Since you just registered today, posted advertisement today with links, it will be counted as spam. Edit by CYberburnout***


213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000)
In re MEGO FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATIONChristopher Dunleavy; A. Peyser, Plaintiffs-Appellees,vMichael NADLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Robert Nederlander; Jerome J. Cohen; Herbert B. Hirsch; Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.; Deloitte & Touche, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-15361
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted February 17, 2000Filed May 22, 2000As Amended June 19, 2000.

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Mark E. King, David B. Kahn & Associates, Northfield, Illinois, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Patricia I. Avery, Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, New York, New York, for plaintiffs-appellees Dunleavy and Peyser.
Andrew C. Houston, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, New York, for defendants-appellees Nederlander, Ross, Hirsch, and Cohen.
Donn P. Pickett, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellee Deloitte & Touche.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Before: Joseph T. Sneed, Mary M. Schroeder, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.
SNEED, Circuit Judge:

1
Appellant Michael Nadler challenges the district court's approval of a $1.725 million (plus accrued interest) settlement agreement (the "Settlement") and plan of allocating the Settlement (the "Plan of Distribution") in a securities class action litigation. This litigation was brought on behalf of investors who purchased Mego common stock from January 14, 1994 through and including November 9, 1995 (the "Class Period") against Mego Financial Corp. ("Mego"), Deloitte & Touche, LLP ("Deloitte"), and a number of individuals1 (collectively, Mego, Deloitte & individual defendants are referred to as "Defendants").

2
Nadler argues that the district court abused its discretion by: (1) approving the Settlement; (2) approving the Plan of Distribution; (3) certifying the class for Settlement; (4) awarding a substantial fee award to counsel for plaintiffs ("Class Counsel"); and (5) awarding an additional incentive award to the representatives of the class.

3
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1291 and we affirm.

4
* Defendant Mego is a financial services company that specializes in financing timeshare land sales and Title I home improvement loans insured by HUD. The individual defendants were officers and/or directors of Mego. Deloitte was Mego's independent auditor prior to and during the Class Period.

5
On November 10, 1995, before the opening of the market, Mego, with Deloitte's concurrence, issued a press release stating, inter alia, that it would be making certain adjustments to previously issued financial statements and that further review would likely result in additional material adjustments. Mego's stock immediately fell from $9.25 and closed that day at $6.125 (a 34% decline). The price of the stock slightly rebounded the next day and shortly thereafter traded in the $78 range. In March 1996, Mego disclosed the full details of the restatement of its financial condition. The final disclosure did not cause a negative reaction in the price of Mego stock and in fact the share price actually increased soon thereafter.

6
Almost immediately after the initial press release, Dunleavy and Peyser (collectively, "Class Representatives" or "Plaintiffs") filed separate actions based on the overstatement of Mego's earnings and the trading by one of the individual defendants. These complaints asserted claims against the Defendants for violations of SS 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5, and certain supplemental state law claims. In June 1996, the district court consolidated the Plaintiffs' actions, appointed lead counsel for the litigation, and directed that discovery be conducted through them.

7
In July 1996, Nadler filed a motion to intervene in the litigation as a putative class representative. In December 1996, Nadler filed a class action complaint asserting substantially the same claims as the Plaintiffs' previously consolidated actions. In March 1997, the district court denied without prejudice Nadler's motion to intervene pending the outcome of settlement negotiations between the lead counsel and Defendants. In May 1997, the Plaintiffs and Defendants in the consolidated actions entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") setting forth an agreement-inprinciple to settle the litigation.

8
The MOU provided for a fund in the amount of $1.725 million plus accrued interest to be distributed as follows: (1) the cost of administering and distributing the fund to the class, (2) up to 33 1/3 % to pay Plaintiff's counsel's contingency fees, (3) a $5,000 incentive award to each Plaintiff, (4) reasonable costs incurred in preparation of tax returns, and (5) the remainder to the class pursuant to the Plan of Distribution. On June 10, 1998, the district court certified the class for settlement and preliminarily approved the Settlement and Plan of Distribution.

9
Subsequently, over 5,400 notices were mailed to potential members of the class advising them of the litigation and the terms of the proposed Settlement and Plan of Distribution. The notice also advised class members that they could remain a member of the class, opt-out of the class, or object to the proposed settlement at a settlement hearing before the court.

10
Nadler chose not to opt-out but filed objections to the proposed Settlement and Plan of Distribution in August 1998. Only one member of the proposed class chose to opt-out while a handful chose to join Nadler in objecting to the proposed Settlement and Plan of Distribution. The objectors were heard during a fairness hearing in September 1998. In October 1998, the district court, notwithstanding the objections, approved the Settlement and Plan of Distribution as proposed. Nadler then brought this timely appeal.

11
It is basic to an understanding of this proceeding to observe that Plaintiffs filed their actions in November 1995, before the effective date of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). There were no other actions filed before the effective date of the PSLRA. Nadler filed his action in December, 1996, after the effective date of the PSLRA.

II

12
We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) finding that the Settlement amount of $1.725 million was fair, adequate and reasonable given the difficulties in proving the case; (2) approving the Plan of Distribution's methodology for allocating the Settlement given that it was similar to the methodology Congress has endorsed; and (3) certifying the class for Settlement. We discuss each in turn.

A. THE SETTLEMENT
1. Standard of Review

13
Review of the district court's decision to approve a class action settlement is extremely limited. See Linney v. Cellular Alaska Partnership, 151 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 1998); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court's "decision to approve or reject a settlement is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge because he is exposed to the litigants, and their strategies, positions, and proof." Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, we will affirm if the district court judge applies the proper legal standard and his findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. See In re Pacific Enter. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1995).

2. Discussion

14
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that:

15
A class action shall not be dismissed or compro mised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in a manner as the court directs.

16
Rule 23(e) has been interpreted to require the district court to determine whether a proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (citations omitted). Settlements that take place prior to formal class certification require a higher standard of fairness. See id.

17
"Assessing a settlement proposal requires a district court to balance a number of factors: the strength of the plaintiffs' case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining a class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; . . . and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement." Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (citations omitted). The district court must show that it has explored these factors comprehensively to survive appellate review. See Hanlon , 150 F.3d at 1026; Linney, 141 F.3d at 1242. In addition, the settlement may not be the product of collusion among the negotiating parties. Class Plaintiffs, 955 F.2d at 1290.

18
In this case, the district court held a hearing in which it preliminarily approved the Settlement and Plan of Distribution. Thereafter, following class-wide notice, the district court held a fairness hearing in which Nadler raised all of the issues that he now raises on appeal. The district court properly addressed the relevant issues during the fairness hearing and in the court's final order approving the Settlement and Plan of Distribution.

19
a. The Strength of the Plaintiffs' Case and the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration of Further Litigation

20
The district court properly found that the Plaintiffs' case was weak and the risk, expense, and complexity of trial weighed against them. Specifically, it found:

21
The heart of plaintiff's case is that defendants profited by artificially inflating the price of Mego stock. However, none of the insider defendants sold any of their shares of Mego stock, or profited from the alleged inflation during the relevant period. While one of the outside defendants is alleged to have sold 1.7 percent of his Mego holdings, that single transac tion alone is insufficient to support an inference of massive fraud.

22
E.R. 651.

23
b. The Amount Offered in Settlement

24
The district court considered the amount offered in settlement a reasonable amount in light of the uncertainties of trial and difficulties in proving scienter. There were various estimates of the maximum amount of damages recoverable in a successful litigation. Nadler's counsel estimated a total loss to the class upwards of $12 million and the Plaintiffs' independent expert estimated a total loss to the class of $4.1 million. The district court concluded that Nadler's estimate was unreliable because his counsel stood to significantly benefit from the court's rejection of the proposed settlement. Furthermore, the district court found that Nadler's counsel failed to take into account market fluctuations, possible variations in the dimensions of the class, the volatility of stock and the substantial rebound in Mego stock after its initial decline. Finally, the district court found that Plaintiffs' independent expert exercised somewhat greater independence and employed a more sound methodology that Nadler was unable substantially to impeach.

25
"It is well-settled law that a cash settlement amounting to only a fraction of the potential recovery does not per se render the settlement inadequate or unfair." Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 628 (9th Cir. 1982). Even assuming that Nadler's methodology was more sound, the Settlement amount of almost $2 million was roughly onesixth of the potential recovery, which, given the difficulties in proving the case, is fair and adequate.

26
c. The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings

27
It is true that extensive formal discovery had not been completed. However, "[i]n the context of class action settlements, `formal discovery is not a necessary ticket to the bargaining table' where the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement." Linney, 151 F.3d at 1239 (citing In re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 669 F.2d 228, 241 (5th Cir. 1982)). The district court noted that Class Counsel conducted significant investigation, discovery and research, and presented the court with documentation supporting those services. The district court further noted that Class Counsel had worked with damages and accounting experts throughout the litigation. The district court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs had sufficient information to make an informed decision about the Settlement is not clearly erroneous.

28
d. The Experience and Views of Counsel

29
The district court did not discuss whether counsel for Plaintiffs were experienced and competent; however, the record confirms that they were and no one asserts otherwise.

30
e. The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement

31
The reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement further supports the conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable. Only one of the 5,400 potential class members to whom notice of the proposed Settlement and Plan of Distribution was sent chose to opt-out of the class and Nadler represented only a handful of objectors at the fairness hearing.

32
f. Collusion Between the Parties

33
Finally, the district court found that there was no collusion between the Class Counsel and Defendants. While Nadler asserts that there was serious circumstantial evidence of collusion indicated by the parties' vigorous opposition to his entry into the litigation, the district court found that the Plaintiffs had valid reasons for opposing his involvement. Specifically, Nadler did not file his action until after the effective date of the PSLRA and he arguably would have placed the class on a different statutory footing. Further, the district court noted that both the Plaintiffs and Defendants filed declarations stating that their dealings had been conducted on an adversarial, arms-length basis, and Nadler's suspicions were unfounded. The district court's conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

34
g. Conclusion

35
The district court applied the proper legal standard in assessing the relevant factors and its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we find that the district court did not err in approving the Settlement.

B. THE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION
1. Standard of Review

36
The district court's approval of an allocation plan for a settlement in a class action is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Equity Funding Corp. of America Sec. Litig., 603 F.2d 1353, 1362 (9th Cir. 1979).

2. Discussion

37
The Plan of Distribution allocates the net Settlement according to the rescissory measure of damages. The rescissory measure of damages in theory contemplates a return of the injured party to the position he occupied before he was induced by wrongful conduct to enter the transaction. See Green v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 541 F.2d 1335, 1342 (9th Cir. 1976) (Sneed, J., concurring). "Assuming a sale and purchase of stock, true rescission would involve a return, on the one hand, of the purchase price and, on the other hand, of the stock purchased." Id. In an open market setting the injured party "returns the stock" by selling it on the open market. The defendant "returns the purchase price" by compensating the injured party for any difference between the price that the injured party paid for the security and its trading price following the disclosure of the fraud. Sometimes the purchase price can be fully recovered on the open market and there is no need for the defendant to compensate for the difference.

38
To illustrate the application of the rescissory measure of damages in an open market setting assume that X  purchased 100 shares of ABC stock at $5 per share during a period following a fraudulent misstatement. Further assume that following the disclosure of the fraud the price of ABC  stock was $10 per share. X would need only $500 ($5/share x 100 shares) in return for his shares to recover his cost of the 100 shares. Since X could recover $1000 ($10/share x 100 shares) following the disclosure of the fraud simply by selling his shares on the open market no damages are recoverable from ABC.

39
However, were the trading price of ABC stock following the disclosure of the fraud $1 per share then X  could only recover $100 ($1/share x 100 shares) by selling his shares on the open market. It follows that to be returned to the status he occupied before the fraudulent transaction X must recover damages in the amount of $400 from ABC -the difference between the purchase price X paid for the ABC stock and the trading price of that security following the disclosure of the fraud.

40
The Plan of Distribution in this case treats the Settlement as a fund to compensate the class members for the difference between the purchase price they paid for the Mego stock and its trading price following the disclosure of the alleged fraud ($6.125 per share). Thus, the Plan of Distribution attempts to return class members to the status they occupied before the fraudulent transaction.

41
Nadler argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to approve of the Plan of Distribution's methodology because it leaves a large portion of the class without a recovery from Mego.2 We do not agree that the district court abused its discretion in approving the Plan of Distribution even though a portion of the class does not recover damages from Mego. We base our decision on a comparison of the Plan of Distribution's methodology with the method of calculating damages set forth in the recently enacted PSLRA.3

42
The PSLRA provides, with exceptions not relevant here, that:

43
[I]n any private action . . . in which the plaintiff seeks to establish damages by reference to the mar ket price of a security, the award of damages to the plaintiff shall not exceed the difference between the purchase . . . price paid . . . by the plaintiff for the subject security and the mean trading price of that security during the 90-day period beginning on the date on which information correcting the misstate   ment or omission that is the basis for the action is disseminated to the market.

44
15 U.S.C. S 78u-4(e) (1994). Section 78u-4(e) essentially caps a plaintiff's damages to those recoverable under the rescissory measure. Thus, if the mean trading price of a security during the 90-day period following the correction is greater than the price at which the plaintiff purchased his stock then that plaintiff would recover nothing under the PSLRA's limitation on damages.

45
The only real difference between the Plan of Distribution's methodology and the PSLRA's is that the Plan of Distribution sets the market recoverable amount based on the date the corrective information was disclosed rather than using the mean trading price during the 90-day period following disclosure. This result is actually more advantageous to the plaintiffs.4

46
It is within the discretion of the district court to determine the method of calculating damages. See Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 909 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976). The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving of a methodology similar to the one that Congress has mandated in cases filed after the effective date of the PSLRA.

C. CLASS CERTIFICATION
1. Standard of Review

47
The district court's decision certifying the class is subject to a "very limited" review and will be reversed "only upon a strong showing that the district court's decision was a clear abuse of discretion." See Linney, 151 F.3d at 1238 (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1011; Class Plaintiffs , 955 F.2d at 1276 (citing Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 626). However, we must bear in mind the Supreme Court's admonition that the certification requirements "designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions " demand "undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context." Amchem Prod. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997).

2. Discussion

48
"Rule 23(a) states four threshold requirements applicable to all class actions: (1) numerosity (a `class [so large] that joinder of all members is impracticable'); (2) commonality (`questions of law or fact common to the class'); (3) typicality (named parties' claims or defenses `are typical .. . of the class'); and (4) adequacy of representation (representatives `will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class')." Id., 521 U.S. at 612 (alteration in original)."In addition to satisfying Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites, parties seeking class certification must show that the action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3)." Id. at 614, 117 S.Ct. 2231.

49
The only requirement at issue in this case is the adequacy of representation requirement. The proper resolution of this issue requires that two questions be addressed: (a) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (b) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class? See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020 (citing Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978)).

50
a. Conflicts of Interest

51
Clearly, there would be no conflict of interest between the Class Representatives and the members of the class if the class were limited to those investors who purchased Mego common stock during the period commencing April 17, 1995 through and including November 9, 1995 (the "Late Purchasers"). The potential conflict arises because the class includes both Late Purchasers and Early Purchasers,5 and the Plan of Distribution favors the Late Purchasers. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620-21 (in settlement-only class certification the terms of Settlement and Plan of Distribution are relevant in determining whether class should be certified).

52
To repeat, the Plan of Distribution utilizes a rescissory measure of damages under which the Early Purchasers recover nothing from Mego. See discussion supra Part II.B.2. However, were the out-of-pocket measure of damages used the Early Purchasers would be entitled to recover damages from Mego in an amount equal to "the difference between the price and value of the stock on the date of purchase even though they ultimately [could sell] the stock for more than they paid for it."6 Green , 541 F.2d at 1346 (Sneed, J., concurring).

53
The conflict between class members regarding the most favorable measure of damages can create a potential conflict of interest between members of the class. However, in this case any conflict is illusory. The Early Purchasers could never get out-of-pocket damages because they, including Nadler, did not file suit prior to the effective date of the PSLRA. Therefore, while they would have been free to bring a class action suit against Mego it would have been subject to the PSLRA, which would have limited their damages to the rescissory measure of damages. Therefore, the only way the Early Purchasers could have possibly recovered out-of-pocket damages was to piggy back their claims on the pre-PSLRA claims of the Class Representatives Dunleavy and Peyser. This should not serve as a basis for the creation of a conflict of interest between the class members.

54
It could be argued that the inclusion of the Early Purchasers in the class was improper. However, both Late Purchasers and Early Purchasers were allegedly damaged by the fraud and the necessity for disposing of all potential claims justifies the inclusion of the Early Purchasers. Further, although the parties did not raise the issue it is doubtful that the creation of subclasses would have readily satisfied the Early Purchasers without creating further problems for the fair adjudication of the claims against Mego.7

55
Finally, our position is strengthened by two practical considerations. First, Early Purchasers were free to opt-out of the class and only one potential class member chose to opt-out. Second, were we to decertify the current class it is possible that no one will recover anything from Mego. The present Settlement at least allows damages for some members of the class where damages might otherwise be unobtainable for any member of the class.

56
b. Vigorousness of Class Counsel

57
Nadler also argues that Class Counsel did not vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the class. He asserts that they confined themselves to settlement negotiations and never intended to pursue litigation. In assessing the vigor with which the Class Counsel prosecuted the action in the context of a settlement only class we must assess the rationale for not pursuing further litigation. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021.

58
There were many reasons not to pursue further litigation. Complex litigation is inherently uncertain and Plaintiffs would have had much difficulty proving scienter. In addition, the issues in this case involved complex and highly technical areas of real estate accounting. Even the Deloitte partners could not agree on the appropriate accounting treatment for these complex transactions.

59
The district court considered these difficulties in determining that Class Counsel had valid reasons for not further pursuing the litigation. Its finding was not clearly erroneous.

III

60
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Class Counsel and in awarding an incentive award to the Class Representatives. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029; In re SmithKline Beckman Corp. Sec. Litig., 751 F.Supp. 525, 535 (E.D. Pa. 1990).

61
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Notes:

1
 The individual defendants are: (1) Robert Nederlander, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Mego during the Class Period; (2) Jerome Cohen, President of Mego during the Class Period; (3) Herbert Hirsch, CFO of Mego during the Class Period; and (4) Wilbur Ross, Outside Director of Mego during the Class Period and Senior Partner in Rothschild & Co., an investment banking firm.

2
 Mego stock never sold for more than $6.125 per share from January 14, 1994 through April 14, 1995. Thus, those who purchased Mego stock during this period (the "Early Purchasers") do not recover damages from Mego because they could recover their purchase price on the open market.

3
 The PSLRA does not govern this class action but it is instructive. One of its stated purposes was to give statutory guidance to provide certainty in calculating damages in securities fraud cases. See S. REP. 104-98, at 19 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679, 698. Given the district court's discretion to fashion a remedy, see Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 909 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976), we see no reason to ignore the PSLRA's guidance in this case.

4
 One of the reasons Congress required the 90-day period was because it believed that "[c]alculating damages based on the date the corrective information is disclosed may substantially overestimate plaintiff's actual damages." S. REP. 104-98, at 20 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679, 699 (emphasis added). The same is true in this case. The median market value of Mego stock during the 90-day period following disclosure was substantially higher than the value of Mego stock the date the corrective information was disclosed. E.R. 429-431. Thus, the post-disclosure "value" of the Mego stock is lower than it would be under the PSLRA.

5
 To repeat, the Early Purchasers are those investors who purchased Mego common stock during the period commencing January 14, 1994 through and including April 14, 1995.

6
 For example, assume an Early Purchaser paid $5 per share for his Mego stock and the value of that stock in the absence of fraud would have been $1 per share on the date of purchase. Under the out-of-pocket measure of damages he would be entitled to recover the difference between the price ($5/share) and value ($1/share) of the stock on the date of purchase. Thus, he would be entitled to recover $4 per share from Mego even though he could ultimately sell the stock for more than he paid for it. This particular purchaser would therefore recover $4 per share more under the out-ofpocket measure of damages than under the rescissory measure of damages.

7
 For example, the district court might have certified a Late Purchaser subclass (opting for the rescissory measure) and an Early Purchaser subclass (opting for the out-of-pocket measure). However, Nadler, who was both an Early Purchaser and a Late Purchaser (a "Mixed Purchaser"), would presumably be a member of both subclasses. A Mixed Purchaser like Nadler could thus have rescinded the unprofitable late purchases while keeping the profitable early purchases. The result would have been inconsistent and perhaps not fair to the defendant Mego.


823 F.2d 1552
127 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3296, 3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas.  352
Lastimosa (Catalino)v.Hughes Aircraft Company, Curtis(Jack)
NO. 86-5899
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
JUL 22, 1987

1
Appeal From:  C.D.Cal.

2
AFFIRMED.


Issue 2

Urbantainment Issue#2
kunjani namhlanje?
this is your editor, DJ MOTSWAKO...THE MIND BEHIND THE MISSION..
black at your ass wit another phat dose of what's going down on the DL...
URBAN.. TAINMENT..
if you don't want to receive this update - tell me! otherwise - read!
another week just flew by, which means what..?
i'm another week closer to PAYDAY.. yesssssss!!!
==================================================================
VON LYRIC IN YOUR AREA..
darker shadz of phunk has a new addition to la familia.
a sista by the name ej von lyric - according to hamma this is a step
in the right direction. this sista's shit is tight.. like levi's 501 on
an african woman.
==================================================================
INTERNATIONAHL
The Hollywood Posse is in full effect in Will Smith's spectacular
"Wild, Wild West" video.
A host of celebrities appear in the video, including Stevie Wonder,
Dru Hill, Babyface, Larenz Tate, Jada Pinkett, Selma Hayek and original
"Wild Wild West" rapper Kool Moe Dee. "Wild, Wild, West" the movie will
be hitting theaters(not in S.A) June 30th.
Snoop Dogg is trying hard to recapture the glory of his early days.
He's already got album number 5 in the works. It's gonna be titled
'Snoopafly'. He's gonna get Dr. Dre to do like 85% to 90% of it.
"Take it back home," the rapper revealed. Other producers on the project
are Lauryn Hill, Jay Z and R. Kelly.
========================================================
RADIO
now how many of you(those in cape town) checked IN THE MIX on saturday
nite on bush radio??
if you haven't.. dan is djy vaak my gazie.. djy's vas annie slaap
NOW.. FOR DA LAST TIME.. chekkout the radio show from 22:00 to
24:00... DJY SALLIE SPYT WIESIE!!
========================================================
GROOVE CITY
MANDOZA - (Mdu from Chiskop) has just released a solo album titled
"925 Zola South" with a lead track - "uZoithola Kanjane"...
absolutely explosive....
========================================================
SIGNED AND SEALED
EBOMVU - a new label in Cape Town has had immediate success.
Three demo presentations to SONY...three deals!
- "iNADIFLO" a 3-member (Singing) Kwai-R&B group from Cape Town...
- Bongani Njoli - A Dance Project called "FEEL THE FIRE"...
All DJ's are gonna be spinning this one soon. Should be out by end June.
- KWAITO/JAZZ...a Kwaito-based Jazz/House project that will incorporate
live instruments.This is due for release mid to end July.
=========================================================
SOME HUMOUR FOR THOSE FACIAL MUSCLES(THAT SAGGED ALL WEEK)
A priest goes into a barbershop, gets a haircut, thanks the barber,
and asks how much he owes him. The barber says, "Father, you're a holy
man, a man of the cloth, I couldn't charge you, it's on the house."
The priest says, "Thank you very much" and leaves.
The next day, magically appearing on the doorstep of the barbershop are
12 gold coins.
A few days later, a Buddhist monk goes in for a shave
and a shine, and when the time comes to pay the barber says, "No money,
please, you're a spiritual leader, a man of the people, it's on the
house."
The next day, magically appearing on the doorstep are 12 rubies.
The following week a rabbi comes in, gets a haircut, goes to pay and
the barber says, "No, Rabbi, you are a learned man, a wise man, I can't
take any money from you, go in peace."
And the next day, magically appearing on the doorstep of the barbershop
are 12 rabbis.
SOME MORE....
Little Johnny and his dad went shopping at the grocery store. Walking
down an aisle, Johnny asked his dad if he could have a box of Mint
Imperials.
His dad said, "Well, Johnny, can you touch your asshole with
your dick?" Johnny said, "No!!"
Johnny's dad said, "Well, there's your answer."
Later, Johnny asked if he could have Stimorol. His dad, again, said,
"Can you touch your asshole with your dick?" Johnny said,"No!!"
His dad said, "Well, there's your answer."
At the end of the shopping trip, Johnny's dad felt bad about how he had
talked to Johnny, so he bought him an Ithuba ticket.
Johnny scratched the ticket and found that he won R1 000!!!
His dad said,"Hey, Johnny, you gonna share the money with your old man?"
Johnny asked,"Dad, can you touch your asshole with your dick?"
Johnny's dad said.,"As a matter of fact, I can!"
Johnny said,"GOOD, GO FUCK YOURSELF!!"
=========================================================
MAD MEN
Ferdinand Isaacs - the funny-looking guy at TopCD at the V&A - and
some of his padnas apparently call themselves THE MADMEN.
They are now event promoters and their first event was a hiphop
gig at Chilli & Lime on wednesday nite. This event was dubbed "the hardest
that hiphop could get"
I popped in and believe it or not.. it was hard... real hard...
=========================================================
FLIP THE SCRIPT
DJ B-Side has now officially been co-opted onto the DJ squad that be
doing damage at Bistro 2:00 til 3:00 every saturday afternoon.
lookout for him at Purple Turtle with DJ Sinus and Big Dre in June
and July.
=========================================================
PICKLED AND SPICY
MR PICKLE'S "LOOK-A-LIKE"
SAT 26 JUNE 1999
GRACELAND
NEWMARKET ST. WOODSTOCK
with MOODPHASE 5IVE, deejays LAZY R, READY -D, and UNBEAT
on 4 dex - BONANZA CLONE AND FLETCHER[KRUSHED AND SORTED]
ONLY R20 before 11pm AND R25 thereafter
=========================================================
WILD WIDE WEB
OK.. for those that have PC's, browsers and dial-up connections..
and for those like dre and reza who live at IC, you might wanna
check out some nice electronic homebrew...
there's rage(www.rage.co.za), hiphop headrush(http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~hed/)
and ikwaito(www.ikwaito.co.za).
you might wanna drop me a line on whether you likes or not..
==========================================================
BOOGIE DOWN KNIGHTS
Much Darker Promotions at it again - with what is called a "black prom".
boogie down knights is going down TONITE at THE JAM.
This event is what can officially be defined as "THE BOMB".
Those of you who were at the last one will know... nothing but damn good
hiphop in your eardrum - oops... and your iris!
R15 for y'all - R20 for everybody else.
==========================================================
MASIMBELA
I'm sure not many of you read Tribute Magazine. This month's edition
features TKZEE on the cover. (Mmmm... nice... i hear some of you say.)
After reading the cover story, you'll be so disappinted. The shit is
nothing different from what you've read in y-mag, on the rage site and
the word on the street. man... i mean.. i know more about TKZEE
than what i've just read in Tribute magazine.
they don't even mention that these kids are in the studio right now
recording
an R&B compilation album that will feature Zwai's younger brother.
see.. 'told you i know more..
my guess - sales are dwindling and they needed something to push sales
skyward. sefako nyaka and manda banda..Y'ALL NEED TO CHECK YOURSELVES.
nice pictures from collen sibanda though.. adds life to the tired story.
maybe you should bring back bafana khumalo's column... and soon..
===========================================================
GET READY TO DO BATTLE
Black Noise has been awarded the rights, by the organisers of the World
Breakdance Championships, to host the 1999 South African National
Championships.
So later this year we're gonna get down with some real b-boying.
So to everybody at Y-magazine that thought "breakdancing"(which is actually
b-boying) went outta style - you should spend more time in cape Town.. and i
don't mean the mount nelson.
===============================================================
WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GET YOUR MIND INTO IS A POEM BY A WELL-KNOWN
SCHOLAR OF SOCIAL DYNAMICS AND "ON THE D.L." PSYCHOLOGY. SOME OF YOU MAY NOT
GRASP THE CRUX- OR EVEN PAY MUCH ATTENTION; MANY WILL DISMISS IT AS "KAK".
I, ON THE OTHER HAND, AM SURE THAT SOME OF YOU WILL GET A GRIP ON THE
SUBJECT
MATTER, HENCE MY INCLUDING THE ENTIRE POEM - NOT JUST AN EXCERPT.
BLAME IT ON MLAU
Just blame all the shit on Mlau,
They were the ones who let the Dutch into South Africa, who in turn threw
the sub-continent into bondage and terror.
Blame it on him who murdered the feared Portuguese slaver Alhemeida here in
Cape Town and allowed that Jan "Die Skelm" Van Riebeeck to set up house and
home in the old South Africa.
Blame Ashumatsu or Herry die Hottentot for selling out to the Dutch. Also
blame this Mlau for being the first and most infamous political prisoner on
Robben Island.
Lets blame Mary "Die Hottentot" De La Qwelarie for opening her legs and
allowing Van Riebeeck to inseminate her and bear his bastard children. So
too blame "Saartjie Baartman" for exposing her delicious set of delectable
dripping labia to Europeans.
We'll blame Mlau for having verbal intercourse with the Nguni and leaving
behind a legacy of clicks and clucks in "THEIR" clickless and today, click
like Miriam Makeba, language.
Oh, enjoy blaming Mlau for being hunted like animals and an entire nation of
clans and sub-clans being decimated and reduced in body, mind and spirit.
Pomped and fucked up into oblivion and non-history by the Dutch, Portuguese,
French and English. Because Mlau deserved it you see.
I want to blame Mlau for intermarrying into the royal Madiba clan of the
Thembu's and producing tall yellow, slit-eyed people looking not unlike
Mandela and another Holomisa and a Yengeni. Blame Mlau for the ancient Xhosa
wedding song, which describes the bride-to-be "Oh, does she not look as
beautiful as a coloured girl". Blame them for being the first South Africans
who engaged in the war of resistance against the onslaught of colonialism.
Blame the Mlau for being wiped out that the brutal process.
Blame them for being cast into slavery more than two hundred years before
even Mqoma, Hintsha, Shaka, Bambatta, Moshehoe and Shaka were born. Blame
the Klopse coons for little understanding of who and what they are, for they
surely know not what they do, they just do from an ancient memory of being
free. But just blame this Mlau.
Blame the Mlau for having been educated in university and supposedly
receiving preferential treatment at the hands of the latter day colonialist
nationalists. Yet there was no university for Mlau to attend until some
bright spark gave him a bush university and a bush education only 30 odd
years ago. Where you were lectured in English but you got Afrikaans
textbooks. Tutored in Afrikaans and were given English textbooks. Yet, yet
the University of Fort Hare situated over 1000 kilometers from Mlau country
is over 100 years old. The mathematics here blames Mlau again.
Blame the Mlau for being the world's biggest drunkards, child molesters,
wife beaters, rapists, petty criminals and mandrax addicts. For being
gangsters like the Americans, Hard Livings, Junky Funky's, Scorpions,
Naughty Boys, Pepsi Kids, Clever Kids, Half Moon Kids, Junior Mafia, Seven
Steps and Globe gang instead of being Thembu, Mqwati, Hlubi, Dlamini,
Rhadebe, Maduna and Mbhele. Let's just blame that fucking Mlau again.
Blame that Mlau for not being involved in the struggle, at all. Mlau never
left the country in droves to join Umkhoto we sizwe and Apla to fight in
Angloa, Mozambique and South Africa. There was no Trojan horse affair;
Ashley Kriel and no UWC where droves of Mlau were butchered, maimed and
tortured. The UDM and MDM were not created in safe preferentially treated
Mlau neighborhoods like Mitchell's Plain. A Mlau did not design and create
the current ANC logo. Neither did they demonstrate outside Polls Moor Prison
every Sunday demanding the release of Nelson Mandela. And got on their moer
for it. Every Sunday.
Blame Mlau for starting the national fashion of Squatter Camps in places
like Modderdam, Vrygrond, Cafda and Moerdorp in the 60's after they were
donnered out of District Six and Claremont and Retreat and Harfield Village
and Fishoek and Simonstown and Parow and Camps Bay and Sea Point. Blame them
for living in fucked up hovels called schemes like Hanover Park, Valhalla
Park and Parkwood. With street names like Karate Straat, Judo Straat, Akido
Straat and Juijitsu Straat. Fuck the Mlau.
Mlau must be blamed for bringing the art form of Jazz to the rest of the
country. For Abdullah Ibrahim, for Basil Manenberg Coetzee, for Robbie
Jansen for harold Jephta for Chris Schilder and his brood and the Afrika
brood. For Paul Hanmer, Errol Dyers, Mac Mckenzie and Hilton Schilder. For
Oswietie; the Four Sounds, the Golden City Dixies, the African Follies and
the Genuines. Die is mos Mlau. This Mlau must be blamed for Shaun Bartlett
and Bennie McArthy, and Andre Arendse and Errol Arendz. Also blame Basil
DeOliviera, Frankie Brachie, Paul Adams and now Herschel Gibbs. The Mlau
lost the game against Australia not the boere. Breyton Paulse, Cassiem
Jabaar and Chester Williams must be blamed together as Mlau.
This Mlau can be blamed for his funny surnames like January, February,
March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October and November too.
Let's blame 4% of the total fucked up Mlau electorate who voted Mlau into
the Tri-Cameral Parliament in the 70's. And that Mlau's too, who fucked up
and picketed the homes of those Mlau's like Morkel and De La Cruz and got
moered for that again.
It was the Mlau who got blamed for the National party's victory in the
Western Cape, not the vast majority of whites who voted for it. Those Mlau's
who voted for the ANC were fucked up with the rest of the fucked up Mlau's.
Lets not blame the majority of Zulu's who voted for the IFP and who murdered
other Zulu's in '94.
Blame the Mlau for the almighty cock-up we have in '99 in the Western Cape
for almost voting for the ANC. Or have voted in large numbers for the ANC
even though there is no possibility of a better life for Mlau living in
Steenberg and Lavender Hill. No better life in Manenberg and Tafelsig. No
better life in Bishop Lavis and Kreefgat.
Don't blame Africans, for the Mlau are not original Africans see, for voting
DP and NNP. Just blame Mlau. The Mlau is not an African even though his
ancestors are scientifically proven to be the oldest species of humanoids to
be ever discovered. In Africa. He, this Mlau is the last people to be
granted official group rights by the ANC in 1999, five years after the
Venda, Ndebele and Shangaan. Let's blame all the shit on that nice scapegoat
called Mlau.
- BRIAN EBDEN
ED - mail me your opinions on the above - IF YOU DARE!
================================================================
IZAKWENZEKA
IMBIZO ENTERTAINMENT STRIKES AGAIN... with...
END OF EXAM SPLASH - KWAITO/R&B/HOUSE on tap
@ NEW CROSS YOUTH CENTRE - 26 JUNE 1999
with DJ MZURA AND DJ MOTSWAKO
TLO BE RE LE DAAR!
================================================================
WAT GAT AN?
- with hamme stating on his poster that "hiphop always had a home",
obviously in response to the geto3000 poster which read that"hiphop
has a new home"???
- with dantai fucking off to jo'burg and other places, but not doing any
shows in the muthacity???
- some sick muthafucka went and shot a 3-year old kid thru the head
in mitchell'splain, just because of whose child she is. i don't see
anybody driving up to wilderness and shooting at p.w. botha's kids???
================================================================
IN THE PIPELINE
TONITE - BOOGIE DOWN KNIGHTS - hiphop gig @ THE JAM
END OF EXAM SPLASH - with DJ MZURA AND DJ MOTSWAKO - NEW CROSSROADS YOUTH
CENTRE - 26 JUNE 1999
THE MISS TOWNSHIP BEAUTY PAGEANT - COMING TO A TOWNSHIP NEAR YOU.
THE NEXT "MADMEN" EVENT - WATCH THIS SPACE 4 DA DEETZ..
INADIFLO - KWAITO GROUP FROM GUGS - CAPE TOWN - ALBUM DUE OUT SOON
FEEL THE FIRE - BONGANI NJOLI'S DANCE PROJECT
MARY J. BLIGE AND KEITH SWEAT COMING TO SOUTH AFRICA (YOU HEARD IT FROM ME
FIRST)
=================================================================
ANY INFORMATION REPRINTED FROM THIS REPORT MUST BE CREDITED TO
URBANTAINMENT.. OR... KUYANYIWA MANJE!
=================================================================
like i said b4, if you don't wanna continue receiving this, tell me... and
please be diplomatic".
if you know anybody that would like to receive this update - and appreciate
it, HOOK ME UP!.
SEND ALL CONTRIBUTIONS, QUESTIONS, SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO ME AT
urbantainment@hotmail.com - SKAAM IS GARAAM!
TALK TO Y'ALL NEXT WEEK
gone
DJ MOTSWAKO
the editor
URBANTAINMENT
DELAGETTO COMMUNICATIONS
PO BOX 345
CAPE TOWN
8000


Provinces Tell Ottawa They Won’t Pay for Harper’s Crime Bill

Quebec has been joined by Ontario and British Columbia in voicing their skepticism over Stephen Harper’s crime bill, telling Ottawa they will not pay for downloaded costs.

Quebec’s Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier has told the House of Commons Justice Committee that Quebec will not pay for the additional costs associated with the Conservative’s crime omnibus bill. And in the process, he may have inadvertently started what one political commentator is calling this country’s latest “fight over federalism.”

Fournier told the Justice Committee that the extra costs associated with the bill will ultimately be downloaded onto the provinces. And as finance ministers across the country are telling their citizens to tighten their belts, additional burdens from Ottawa are not especially welcome.

Mr. Fourneir is arguing that Quebec simply does not have the means at their disposal to cover costs associated with legislation they have not asked for, nor do they support.

“This bill does not offer the financial support for these changes,” he said in the Toronto Star.

“Quebec refuses to absorb these costs,” Fournier noted, adding “there will additional costs for justice, for the prosecution, for also incarceration. . . . we cannot afford it.”

According to CBC, Mr. Fournier also took a different stand against the legislation. In his estimation, it is not simply that Quebec cannot afford the additional costs associated with the bill, but that on a fundamental level, Quebec firmly disagrees with the tough-on-crime approach that Stephen Harper has taken with regards to the Canadian criminal justice system.

“Fournier said Quebec takes a different approach to dealing with young offenders that is more focused on rehabilitation than incarceration,” the CBC reports, “and that it is working.

“He said the legislation is meant to put more people in jail and that will result in higher recidivism rates unless more is done to get at the root causes of criminality and to successfully reintegrate offenders into society so they can go on to lead productive lives.”

Not long after Mr. Fournier made his fiery testimony to the Justice Committee, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and British Columbia Premier Christy Clark also spoke out on the matter, although Mr. McGuinty was much more aggressive.

“It’s easy for the federal government to pass new laws dealing with crime,” McGuinty told the Ottawa Citizen, “but if there are new costs associated with those laws that have to be borne by the taxpayers of Ontario, I expect the feds will pick up that tab.”

Mr. McGuinty asked,

“What is the expectation on the part of Ontario taxpayers? That expectation is this: I say to the feds — I demand of the feds — if, for example, you want us to build new prisons in Ontario and staff those prisons with highly trained personnel, that’s an additional cost to us and it is incumbent upon you, as the creator of those costs, to come up with the money.”

B.C. Premier Christy Clark was more cautious in her response, noting in the Vancouver Sun that “we have to be conscious about all those pressures on our budget and, as you know, we’ve had some pretty significant pressures and we certainly do this year, and next year we will as well.” Ms. Clark did note that B.C.’s Solicitor General had some concerns with who would be picking up the tab of the crime bill’s additional costs, but would not state whether her province would refuse to participate as Quebec has done.

It is estimated the the crime bill will come with an additional price tag of anywhere between $2B and $10B over five years, according to Scott Stinson at the National Post, depending on who you ask.

How might this set off the next big fight over federalism in Canada? Because of the jurisdictions involved, justice legislation is traditionally determined by the federal government in Ottawa, while it largely falls to the provinces to enforce the legislation. While Quebec could not simply opt out of the Criminal Code of Canada, Stinson notes, its judges and law enforcement could refuse to follow the rules set down by the feds in Ottawa. After all, enforcement of the legislation is a provincial responsibility.

But it might not be that simple. While it would be simple enough for a province to avoid handing out tickets for minimal offences covered by the bill, the legislation includes “mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes and sexual offences,” Stinson notes – much more serious crimes that would benefit from a (somewhat) universal approach to sentencing on behalf of the provinces.

Stinson:

The only way to avoid imposing them would be to not convict anyone of those crimes. Or, taking the fight a step further, the provincial ministry could order its Crowns to not seek those sentences, and have judges refuse to hand them out. We would be in uncharted waters at this point, I think. A federally dictated law that the province, possibly provinces, decline to enforce.

Omnibus legislation tends not to be the best way to deal with sensitive or emotional issues, and how to deal with Canada’s criminal offenders certainly has that distinction. It’s a rather blunt instrument for getting legislation passed. What’s more, the crime bill in question is actually a smorgasbord of smaller pieces of criminal legislation that failed to pass in previous Parliaments and have been mashed together in a semi-workable form, which makes a tough situation truly hellish for handling the subtleties of crime legislation.

Either way, we will have to wait and see if the tough rhetoric from Canada’s largest provinces is merely that – or if, as Stinson believes, this may be the beginning of the new fight over federalism.