435 P.2d 135 (1967)
MORTGAGE CLEARING CORPORATION, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
BAUGHMAN LUMBER COMPANY, a corporation, M.J. Lee Construction Company, E.G. (Tex) Tannehill, and Mill Creek Lumber and Supply Company, Defendants in Error.
No. 41397.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
November 14, 1967.
Jones & Michael, by Glen E. Michael, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Harris, Graham & Harris, Bassett & Laughlin, Bartlesville, Gable, Gotwalls, Hays, Rubin & Fox, Tulsa, for defendants in error.
*136 BERRY, Justice:
This is an appeal from the trial court's judgment decreeing priority of mechanics' and materialmen's liens against the claim of plaintiff in error, Mortgage Clearing Corporation, and ordering foreclosure and sale of property in satisfaction of senior liens.
Baughman Lumber Company was plaintiff in the original lien action brought against Jamestown Corporation, a builder, and its successor, London House-Bartlesville, Inc. The petition alleged the furnishing of building materials under contract with Jamestown for use in construction, and that there was due and owning $3,692.44, for which amount lien had been perfected; Jamestown's interest had been acquired by London House, whose rights were junior and inferior to plaintiff's lien. Plaintiff asked judgment decreeing the amount and superiority of this lien, foreclosure and application of the proceeds, and other equitable relief. Three additional parties (E.G. "Tex" Tannehill, M.J. Lee Construction Company and Mill Creek Lumber and Supply Company) were allowed to intervene, by reason of separate claims based upon similar perfected liens, which varied only as to dates, items and amounts. No conflict existed between these parties, and further reference to plaintiff may be understood to include all claimants above mentioned.
Plaintiff in error, Mortgage Clearing Corporation, herein designated Intervenor, also was granted leave to intervene and filed petition alleging plaintiff had assigned all rights and claims against the property prior to filing the foreclosure action; that plaintiff had included in its claim an amount ($738.70) for invoices dated prior to assignment (May 21, 1961), and all of which rights under such claim had been assigned to Intervenor by voucher and subsequent endorsement of the check paid for such assignment; the action sought recovery of this amount together with the total amount included in the assignment, and it was necessary for Intervenor to appear and defend its lien, which was valid and superior to the lienholders' claims. This petition made identical allegations in respect to other parties named, and also asked money damages for lienholders' breach of agreements not to file claims against the property. The controversy involved goes solely to the issue of priority between the lien claimants and Intervenor.
Intervenor's asserted ownership of these liens by assignment from the various lien claimants, is based upon the claim that it paid a portion of the claim of each lienholder and secured from each an assignment of that supplier's lien. It appears that during, or after, the time materials or labor was furnished for building construction, the Intervenor made certain payments which admittedly were less than the amount due under each lien. It was not contended such payments represented a compromise of a doubtful or disputed claim, and the trial court found specifically that these claims were liquidated and undisputed.
The basis of the claim presented to the trial court, and on appeal, evolves from language contained in written instruments furnished by Intervenor purportedly containing the contract between the parties. The "Request For Disbursement Voucher" was the builder's certification that plaintiff was entitled to the amount stated for materials or labor incorporated into the construction. This request, directed to Intervenor, also contained the following language, which the claimant was required to execute upon forms furnished:
"Request For Disbursement Voucher
[Conditions and Terms]
CLAIM
"For the purpose of inducing Mortgage Clearing Corporation to disburse funds in connection with the above referred property to him (it) the payee does hereby guarantee that he (it) has properly performed all of the work and delivered all of the material on the above described premises for which the payment is to be made and does certify that he (it) has *137 paid for all labor and any material for which such payment is to be made. The payee agrees to accept the above stated sum in full and complete satisfaction for work and labor done and performed and/or any and all materials furnished on the premises described and agrees to assign its lien rights for such labor or material to Mortgage Clearing Corporation; the assignment to be incorporated in payee's endorsement of the check in payment of the herein claim.
"Payee does hereby appoint the Bearer hereof as his (its) agent with full and binding authority to execute all instruments necessary for and incidental to the payment of this voucher."
              [properly signed and dated]
On the face of the check by which payment was made to the supplier there was this statement:
"NOTICE
"This check is in payment of all sums due payee to the date of the check on the property herein described. By endorsing hereof, payee assigns all his/its rights in such property to Mortgage Clearing Corporation, releases all rights and claims to the property, covenants never to file a claim against the property, represents that there are no unpaid sums due third parties and guarantees Mortgage Clearing Corporation that the work, services, material or other item for which this check is payment is satisfactory in all respects and in the event of defect agrees to forthwith correct the same to the satisfaction of Mortgage Clearing Corporation and to indemnify it against all loss by reason of claims or defective workmanship or services on the property. SEE FURTHER PROVISIONS AND ASSIGNMENT OF LIEN-RIGHTS ON THE REVERSE HEREOF."
The back of the instrument bore the following matter:
"READ BEFORE ENDORSING
"Payee in consideration of the payment hereof, with full knowledge of his/its rights under the law, does hereby assign to Mortgage Clearing Corporation all his/its rights, liens or claims, of whatsoever nature, to or against the property described on the reverse side hereof, through the date hereof.
"Upon endorsement hereof payee disclaims all right or claim to or against such property and covenants that so long as Mortgage Clearing Corporation has a claim against or interest in such property that he/it will not cause a lien to be filed against the property, a court action to be instituted in connection therewith or any form of claim to be made or asserted against the same; damages, including a reasonable attorney's fee, may be recovered on the breach hereof.
"Payee represents that the work, services, material or other item for which this check is payment is proper in all respects and there are no unpaid sums due third parties in connection therewith."
The case was submitted to the trial court upon the pleadings and exhibits, after pretrial conference. It was agreed the lien claimants had furnished labor and materials as alleged, and that Intervenor had made the payments which provided the basis of the claimed assignment of lienholder's rights. Summation of the handling of plaintiff's (Baughman) claim sufficiently reflects the transactions involved. On the date plaintiff signed the "Request" the sum of $251.96 was due for materials and plaintiff had no other unpaid bills. During the eight days ensuing before Intervenor executed its check for this amount plaintiff furnished additional materials amounting to $783.70. Thus Intervenor's contention is that, under the instruments creating the contract, it acquired lien rights by virtue of the assignment not only of the initial amount claimed but for the additional ($783.70) amount representing material thereafter furnished. The issue relative to the legal effect of these payments, made by reason of the executed instruments, was whether such transactions operated as complete *138 assignments of all the lienholders' rights and interests.
The trial court found the issues generally for plaintiff and against Intervenor and defendant London House-Bartlesville, Inc. as to superiority of the liens, and decreed foreclosure in satisfaction of the liens after crediting Intervenor with the amounts actually received by the lienholders. The court specifically found the provisions of the quoted instruments neither constituted nor effected an assignment of the liens or the lien rights asserted, all of which were co-equal but superior to any claim by defendant or Intervenor. Under an amended Journal Entry of Judgment defendant (London House) paid an amount into court satisfying all the lien judgments. It was provided also that Intervenor deposit into court an amount covering interest upon the amount of judgment pending disposition of appeal.
The single contention presented by a general argument, raises the sole question of whether execution of the claims for payment and acceptance and endorsement of Intervenor's checks constituted assignment, both present and future, of the mechanics' and materialmen's lien rights. The argument is that these instruments were contracts within contemplation of 15 O.S. 1961 § 1 et seq., no ambiguity existed as to the effective date, duration or consideration for which the agreements were made; that the contracts were negotiable instruments within the meaning of the Commercial Code, 12A O.S. 1961, Art. 3. Intervenor concludes that because plaintiff voluntarily executed the contracts and accepted the consideration, without denial of existence or an attempt to rescind, the contracts cannot be invalid. Such conclusion fails to accord recognition to elementary principles governing the construction of contracts.
By considering only the first sentence of the "Request", without regard to other language in the instruments, it would be possible to support Intervenor's argument. However it is an elementary rule that contracts must be construed in their entirety, and not from detached and isolated portions. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 297, and Oklahoma citations at pp. 111, 115. The first sentence specified plaintiff warranted only work and material for which payment was to be made, and certified to having paid for the labor and material, for which Intervenor was to pay under plaintiff's assignment of its lien rights. No language in the "Request" can be construed as meaning plaintiff's assignment included any future lien rights up to and including an undetermined, future date. The other instruments contain references to work, services and materials "for which this check is payment." By this language plaintiff certified there were no unpaid sums due to third parties, and warranted the items to be satisfactory or to indemnify Intervenor in the event of loss by reason of defect in workmanship or services. This language cannot be interpreted as meaning that plaintiff certified there were no other unpaid sums due.
Other language in the "Request" refers to the assignment incorporated in "the payee's endorsement of the check in payment of the herein claim." This language is susceptible only of the meaning that the lien rights contemplated by the parties were to be the same rights assigned by endorsement of a check to be drawn thereafter, and not for assignment of all lien rights, whether paid for by Intervenor or not. That the language fairly must be so construed is best illustrated by reference to the lien of Lee Construction Company. The "Request" executed by Lee involved items amounting to $134.43, and was paid by Intervenor's check of the same date. At that time Lee had invoiced claims totaling $3,822.95 outstanding. To uphold Intervenor's interpretation of the meaning and intent of the instruments would mean that endorsement of the check drawn in payment of "the herein claim", as to which lien rights were assigned, provided consideration for Intervenor's acquisition of additional lien rights, valued at the greater amount, for which the plaintiff had made *139 no claim, and had not requested payment from Intervenor.
Contracts must receive a reasonable construction according to intention of the parties at the time of execution, and if such intention can be ascertained from the language. A reasonable construction is preferred to one which is unreasonable, and where the language is contradictory, obscure, or ambiguous and susceptible of two constructions, it will be interpreted in a fair and rational sense, rather than in a manner which would make the contract unusual, inequitable, or such that reasonable men would be unlikely to enter into. 17 Am.Jur.2d § 252; National Products Co. v. Magnolia Pet. Co., 175 Okl. 596, 53 P.2d 669; Federal Land Bank, etc. v. Nicholson, 207 Okl. 512, 251 P.2d 490; Schuessler v. Northeast Development Co., Okl., 264 P.2d 737; Diehl v. Welsh, Okl., 393 P.2d 834; 15 O.S. 1961 § 154.
The trial court correctly determined the instruments executed by plaintiff  lienholders  did not constitute assignment of the lien claims sued upon, and the liens asserted were properly ordered foreclosed.
Judgment affirmed.
All Justices concur.


Amit Shah at a press conference in New Delhi on Friday. (Express Photo by Anil Sharma) Amit Shah at a press conference in New Delhi on Friday. (Express Photo by Anil Sharma)

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is scared of the BJP, which is why she has refused permission to the party to hold rallies in the state, said BJP chief Amit Shah on Friday. Shah was scheduled to visit Coochbehar, which he cancelled after the Calcutta High Court denied permission to the BJP to hold its rally following the state government expressing apprehensions of violence. The BJP leadership was in a huddle since morning to discuss the future course of action.

Shah underlined that the rallies have only been postponed, for now, not cancelled, and that they will hold rallies in the state soon. The party has scheduled a total of three rallies in the state.

Addressing a press conference in New Delhi, Shah alleged that BJP’s popularity in Bengal is being seen by the CM as a potential threat to her rule. He added she won’t be able to control public by preventing BJP’s entry in her state.

Shah further alleged that it is under Mamata’s rule that West Bengal started leading other states in political murder. Violence against women and children has also reached its peak. Education has also taken a backseat in the state with no admission being possible without donations, he said.

Shah alleged that mafia operations have notched up at many places in West Bengal and the state chief minister, too, is providing support to such activities. Referring to the last Panchayat elections in West Bengal, he said, the state hadn’t seen an election as violent as that where the ruling party allegedly spread terror among the voters.

Earlier, the state government had refused to provide a venue to the BJP for a public meeting. A BJP worker then offered his 7-bigha agricultural land in Jhinaidnaga for the party to host the gathering. A stage was set up on the farmland and elaborate seating arrangements were also made.

On Thursday night, the Calcutta High Court had denied permission for the rally, saying there was not enough time for the state to make adequate security arrangements for a political rally of that scale. The high court also directed the party not to hold any such rally till January 9, 2019. Lawyers from the BJP had then approached the division bench of the high court.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Elections News, download Indian Express App.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd


2008–09 Asia League Ice Hockey season

The 2008–09 Asia League Ice Hockey season was the sixth season of Asia League Ice Hockey. Seven teams participated in the league, and the Nippon Paper Cranes won the championship.

Regular season

Playoffs

Pre-Playoffs
 (4) Nippon Paper Cranes – (5) High1 2–0 (5–2, 8–4)

External links
 Asia League Ice Hockey

Asia League Ice Hockey
Category:Asia League Ice Hockey seasons
Asia


This Program Project is for the analysis of the effect of chemical mediators on the pulmonary mechanics of the unanesthetized guinea pig and subsequently, as appropriate, of the human. The chemical mediators will be produced and studied in the unanesthetized guinea pig and in the human. The mediators to be considered foremost are the primary products of the acute allergic reaction, namely, histamine, slow reacting substance of anaphylaxis (SRS-A) and eosinophil chemotactic factor of anaphylaxis (ECF-A). Attention will also be given to secondary mediators whose presence is dependent upon the nature of the cellular infiltrate or the activation of human plasma protein systems such as the complement, bradykinin-gathering, and fibrinolytic sequences. The availability of certain chemical mediators for study of the pathobiologic effects on pulmonary mechanics requires only the scaling up of established production and purification procedures, while the others need further definition before offering the purity essential for meaningful in vivo study. The mediators, already available, will be examined comparatively in the guinea pig and human models to define their similarities and differences critical for appraisal of additional mediators. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE: Goetzl, E. J. and Austen, K. F.: Purification and Synthesis of eosinophilotactic tetrapeptides of human lung tissue: Identification as eosinophil chemotactic factor of anapylaxis (ECF-A). P.N.A.S. 72:4123, 1975.


Q:

Android - How to determinate ViewFlipper children size when not displayed?

I'm actually making an application using a ViewFlipper to display 3 differents custom views. These views are, for each one, in a ScrollView (putting the ViewFlipper in a single ScrollView isn't making my onFling gestures really efficient). And i'm actually trying to synchronize the three Scrollbars position. At this point using a single ScrollView would have been easier but i trying to not use this solution.
I'm using a ScrollListener for each ScrollView to set the others ScrollView scroll position like in this thread : Synchronise ScrollView scroll positions - android.
The problem is that this method will works but the first time. When i'm on a ScrollView, the two others are not drawn already and their height is null. So setting their scroll position isn't working.
/*Instanciate ScollViews*/
    scrollViewLeft = (ScrollableScrollView) findViewById(R.id.scroll_prev);
    scrollViewCenter =(ScrollableScrollView) findViewById(R.id.scroll_current);
    scrollViewRight = (ScrollableScrollView) findViewById(R.id.scroll_next);

/*Fill views with events*/
    setDayEvents(calIns.getPrevCal(),leftDayView);
    setDayEvents(calIns.getActualCal(),centerDayView);
    setDayEvents(calIns.getNextCal(),rightDayView);

    scrollViewLeft.setScrollViewListener(this);
    scrollViewCenter.setScrollViewListener(this);
    scrollViewRight.setScrollViewListener(this);

So finally my question is, should i use another method to find the scroll position of the two others views ? Or can i force the view to be drawn in a ViewFlipper ?
Thanks :)
Clement.

A:

Try saving the positions in global variables before you change the views and then just apply it to your current view.


Q:

php authentication best practice...?

I have a simple login page that checks credentials against database and then every page includes auth.php that verifies $_SESSION['logged'] is set and that session isn't expired.
Problem is that every page also includes another page tab.php (something like a menu), which I also need to restrict access to, but including auth.php inside tab.php makes the inclusion occur twice. If I don't include the auth.php in tab.php, though, anyone can access tab.php directly bypassing authentication check and possibly retrieve private information.
Any best practice to solve this situation?
EDIT:
And I forgot to ask, but what path you use to make it relative to site root? As both auth.php and tab.php are in folder and the index.php which includes tab.php is in root - the include function gives an error for either index.php or tab.php according to what path I use ('./includes/auth.php' OR './auth.php') - If you know what I mean. I tried '/includes/auth.php' but that doesn't work.

A:

include_once and require_once will definitely assure that you don't have the same file included more than once (at the same time make sure you're authenticated).
What I would do, however, is add your includes in a "include" folder and forbid access - to people who would type in the path manually - through an htaccess file. This way you could keep your includes in one place (whatever your header includes might look like) and keep your include files clean and still out of reach. If you were to do this you'd only have to do what Jan. mentioned in the answer above and check if your $_SESSION['logged'] is set (and whatever other checks you need)


. Let a = 604798.98 - 604795.47999971. Let m = a + l. Round m to 7 dps.
0.0000003
Let q = -14 - -9. Let f = -5.000005 - q. Round f to 5 decimal places.
-0.00001
Let b = 34.0976 - 20.2919. Let y = 13.8 - b. Round y to 3 dps.
-0.006
Let a = 36 + -36.00000046. What is a rounded to 7 dps?
-0.0000005
Let x = 249 - 418. Let a = x + 169.0000077. What is a rounded to six decimal places?
0.000008
Let l = -0.33 + 0.330000242. Round l to 7 dps.
0.0000002
Let v = -1.1 - 8.9. Let q = 13.3 + v. Round q to zero dps.
3
Suppose -5*m + 4*a = 20, 2*m + 5 = -5*a - 36. Let n = -5 - m. Suppose 3*p - 4*i = 7 + 174, -n*i + 82 = p. What is p rounded to the nearest 10?
70
Let a = 0.13 + 10.87. Let q = a + -10.9997. What is q rounded to four dps?
0.0003
Suppose -5*q + s + 7 + 23 = 0, -2*q - 4*s + 12 = 0. Let n be 4256/q - (-4)/6. Let f be (-1)/(-2)*0 + n. What is f rounded to the nearest 100?
700
Let u = 88.2225927 - 24740.3524627. Let k = u - -24652. Let x = -0.13 - k. Round x to 4 dps.
-0.0001
Let g(k) = 5735*k. Let l be g(1). Let z = l - 2735. Let p be -2*500*z/(-1). Round p to the nearest one million.
3000000
Let j be 6/(-12)*(0 - 8). Let g = j + 0. Suppose -g*i = -8521 + 41321. Round i to the nearest 1000.
-8000
Let p = -0.23 - -0.2301. Round p to five dps.
0.0001
Let d = 752 - 752.00000389. Round d to seven decimal places.
-0.0000039
Suppose 112108468 = 4*o - 80471236. Suppose 2*i + 10350340 = o. Let v = i - 28697293. What is v rounded to the nearest one million?
-10000000
Let v = -11085342 + 6355565. Let a = v + 4729776.80000002. Let d = -0.2 - a. Round d to 7 decimal places.
0
Let o = -0.5 + 91.5. Let f = o + -92.88. Let r = f + 2. Round r to one dp.
0.1
Let b = -1.33 - -1.3299857. Round b to six dps.
-0.000014
Suppose k - 119151 = -19159. Let m = -1 + 5. Suppose 2*p - k = -2*h - 0*p, 0 = -2*h + m*p + 100016. Round h to the nearest 100000.
100000
Let k = 10 - 0. Let g = k - -6. Let f = g - 15.9927. What is f rounded to three decimal places?
0.007
Let s = -8 + 6. Let k(r) = -r**2 - r + 2. Let j be k(s). Suppose -u - 9202 = 4*g, j*g - 3*u + 4594 = -2*g. Round g to the nearest one thousand.
-2000
Let k(u) = u**3 - 8*u**2 - 9*u + 11. Let a be k(9). Let h(w) = 2066*w**2 + w + 3. Let z be h(a). Round z to the nearest one hundred thousand.
300000
Let f = 52.67 - 53. Let s = f + 0.3382. Round s to 3 decimal places.
0.008
Let k = 0.3 + -0.64. Let r = -0.340076 - k. What is r rounded to five dps?
-0.00008
Let i = -111 + 111.0087. Round i to 3 decimal places.
0.009
Let v = 0.2291 - -0.0699. Round v to two dps.
0.3
Suppose 2*x + c + c = -26, x = 4*c - 18. Let g be (-3049998)/5 + x/35. What is g rounded to the nearest 100000?
-600000
Let m = -4.04 + 4. Let n = m - 0.05. Let p = 0.08999986 + n. What is p rounded to seven decimal places?
-0.0000001
Let q(n) be the first derivative of 3*n**4/2 - 4*n**3/3 + 3*n**2/2 - n + 1. Suppose 0*o - 2*o + 4 = 0. Let m be q(o). What is m rounded to the nearest 10?
40
Let f = -2.01 + 0.01. Let g = f + 8. Let r = g + -6.00000042. What is r rounded to 7 dps?
-0.0000004
Let n = -30.49 + 27.3. Round n to one dp.
-3.2
Let d(u) = -4*u + 1. Let h be d(-1). Suppose -33480 = 5*q - 5*v, h*q + 19641 + 13789 = -5*v. Let k = q - -1291. What is k rounded to the nearest one thousand?
-5000
Let t = -0.30000056 + 0.3. Let v = t + 0. Round v to seven decimal places.
-0.0000006
Let l(i) = 20203*i**2 + 8*i - 3. Let q be l(7). Suppose x - 3*g = q, -3*g + 5*g = -3*x + 2970000. Round x to the nearest one hundred thousand.
1000000
Suppose 0 = 2*d + x + 757, 3*d + 2*d - 5*x = -1870. Let b = 217 + d. Round b to the nearest 100.
-200
Suppose 0 = 2*l + 5*g - 3854, 0*g + 1927 = l + 5*g. Let a = -1574 - -2881. Let q = a - l. Round q to the nearest one hundred.
-600
Let a = -6 + 1. Let w(o) = -1619999*o - 1. Let y be w(a). Suppose -5*t = -15, 2*x + 2*t + y = -x. Round x to the nearest 1000000.
-3000000
Let f = 4.6394 + -5.23914. Let d = f - -0.6. What is d rounded to 4 dps?
0.0003
Let b be (-110*3)/((-9)/210). Suppose 5*k - 3 = -5*l - 23, -4*k - 16 = l. Suppose 4*t - 3*t - b = l. Round t to the nearest one thousand.
8000
Let y = -2.1 - -2.0999. Round y to 5 dps.
-0.0001
Let d = 1.99999908 + -2. What is d rounded to seven decimal places?
-0.0000009
Let x = -54.9 + 55.338. What is x rounded to one dp?
0.4
Let w = 1.5499532 + -1.55. Round w to 5 decimal places.
-0.00005
Suppose -2*z - 4*z + 1920 = 0. What is z rounded to the nearest one hundred?
300
Let v = 0.02 + 1.98. Let p = v - 1.9987. What is p rounded to 4 dps?
0.0013
Let u be (2 + -2 - 500)*-354. What is u rounded to the nearest ten thousand?
180000
Suppose -5*l - 4391552 = h + 2373699, -15 = 3*l. Let o = -2165226 - h. What is o rounded to the nearest 1000000?
5000000
Let p = 2.004 - 2. Let m = p - -5.396. Let k = 8 - m. Round k to zero dps.
3
Let u = -2.055947 + -13.9440566. Let h = u - -16. Round h to 6 dps.
-0.000004
Let b = 0.03042 - 0.03. What is b rounded to 4 decimal places?
0.0004
Suppose 0 = 4*n - 205446 - 74554. Round n to the nearest 100000.
100000
Let z = -1.8 - -1.7999935. Round z to 6 dps.
-0.000007
Let b = 1.428499 + 13.3017531. Let x = b - -0.2696959. Let l = x - 15. Round l to five decimal places.
-0.00005
Suppose 4*p = -4*d + 2140, 4*d = 3*d + 3*p + 515. Let h = 4070 + d. Round h to the nearest one thousand.
5000
Suppose 1542068 = z + z. Let d = z + -521034. What is d rounded to the nearest one hundred thousand?
300000
Let q = -11 - -5. Let i = 5.945 + q. Round i to 2 dps.
-0.06
Let l = -0.01 + 0.0100066. What is l rounded to six dps?
0.000007
Let l = -0.07 + 1.07. Let z = 1.05 - l. Let o = z + -0.050005. What is o rounded to six dps?
-0.000005
Let j = -12 - -11.993. Round j to two decimal places.
-0.01
Let u = 218066 + -46986. Let m = -69080 + u. What is m rounded to the nearest ten thousand?
100000
Let a = -0.32999961 - -0.33. What is a rounded to 7 decimal places?
0.0000004
Let y = 14490.96828068 - 14531.96828. Let q = y + 41. What is q rounded to 7 decimal places?
0.0000007
Let b = -0.11 - 17.89. Let h = 18.014 + b. Round h to three decimal places.
0.014
Let i = 254.99602 + -255. What is i rounded to three dps?
-0.004
Let b = -15.1225 - -15.1. Round b to three decimal places.
-0.023
Let j = 107.7 - -6.3. Let b = j - 121.01. Let l = -7 - b. What is l rounded to 2 decimal places?
0.01
Let v = 0.04 - -0.16. Let o = v + -0.2000046. What is o rounded to six decimal places?
-0.000005
Let q = 31.5 - 5.1. Round q to 0 decimal places.
26
Let j = 15.16 - 14. Let m = j - 0.9. Round m to 1 decimal place.
0.3
Suppose 0 = -3*t - 2*t - 460. Let a = -608 + t. What is a rounded to the nearest one thousand?
-1000
Let a = 1.57 + 0.03. Let c = a - 1.599974. Round c to 5 dps.
0.00003
Let w(i) = 2*i**2 + 24*i - 2. Let q(m) = m**2 + 12*m - 1. Let s(r) = 7*q(r) - 4*w(r). Let b be s(-5). Suppose -d - b = 3*d. Round d to the nearest integer.
-9
Let b = 4 + -3.99775. What is b rounded to 4 decimal places?
0.0023
Let y = -0.9 - -0.9. Let z = y - 0.000125. What is z rounded to 5 decimal places?
-0.00013
Let v = -1.685 + 1.2526. Let r = 0.44 + v. Round r to 3 decimal places.
0.008
Let v = -1 + -1. Let z = 19.79 - 17.78995. Let h = v + z. Round h to 4 dps.
0.0001
Let w = -8.1 + -77.9. Let o = 86.000102 + w. What is o rounded to five dps?
0.0001
Suppose -4*o = -3*m - 9655, -6*m + m = -5*o + 12075. What is o rounded to the nearest 100?
2400
Suppose w - 6*w + 15 = 0. Suppose w*g - 2 - 4 = 0. Suppose g*l - 9414805 = 9185195. Round l to the nearest one million.
9000000
Let w = 78 - 111. Let c = w - -33.54. What is c rounded to 1 decimal place?
0.5
Suppose -r + 1056000 = 3*r. What is r rounded to the nearest ten thousand?
260000
Let m = 8274453 + -8274460.000006. Let a = m - -7. What is a rounded to six dps?
-0.000006
Suppose -248970 + 1158962 = 5*o - 2*q, 2*q - 8 = 0. Round o to the nearest ten thousand.
180000
Let t(k) = k**2 + 6*k - 8. Let c be t(-7). Let g be 2 + 0 + -100001 + c. Round g to the nearest 1000000.
0
Let h(y) = 2*y + 22. Let s be h(-11). Suppose s = -2*r + 5*i + 6279990, -5*r + 15699990 = -4*i - i. Round r to the nearest 100000.
3100000
Let q = 29.9 + -26. Let g = -12.1 - q. Let n = g - -15.936. What is n rounded to two decimal places?
-0.06
Suppose 0 = -2*z - 2*x - 12, 0*x = 2*z - x + 6. Let u = 2 - z. What is


I've exported tens (if not hundreds) of PDFs with InDesign and I've never experienced this problem. It's pretty weird... The problem is that grey boxes appear around some objects. Next to that, the image quality is very good in Apple Preview, but it's pretty bad in Adobe Acrobat X and Adobe Reader 11.

What happens:

All objects with an outer glow get a grey box around them (these include external images but also squares created in InDesign)

Some images with a transparent background get a grey box around them (not all, seems random). Happens to PNG, AI, PDF.

Image quality is very good in Preview, but bad in Adobe Acrobat X (grained edges). This happens to images, not to text (vector I suppose?)

PDF details:

All images are embedded

All placed items are high quality

I've tried:

Exporting in the standard High Quality settings; both problems occur

Exporting in press quality; both problems occur

Exporting as Acrobat 4 (PDF 1.3). This solves the grey box problem, but the quality problem remains. I've read somewhere that PDF 1.3 flattens? Maybe this can explain the grey boxes? Using this option is not really preferable since I would like to use hyperlinks in the document and PDF 1.3 doesn't support that.

I'm using

InDesign CS6 v8.0

Mac OSX 10.8.5

Apple Preview 6.0.1 (765.6)

Adobe Acrobat X (10.1.1)

Adobe Reader 11.0.0

The final document is a professional portfolio which will be send via e-mail so I don't necessarily need 300dpi quality, but chances are people will view them on big monitors so I was thinking at least 200dpi.

UPDATE

I've added a screenshot of an object with a transparent background where you can see the grey box around it. This is zoomed in at 300%.

The grey boxes at least are 'artefacts': these do show up on most (if not all) on-screen pdf viewers, but will never show in a printed product. You can check whether a box is an artifact by zooming in: if the box remains 1px wide regardless of zoom, it's an artifact.
– VincentSep 25 '13 at 14:43

Thanks for your comment, but I don't really know what you mean though. The grey box is showing up on my on-screen pdf viewer, so I'm assuming it will at other people's macs using Preview. It's not 1px wide if I zoom in, it's really a grey box around some objects with a transparent background. I can not take the guess that this won't show up at other people's computers since it's my portfolio. I'll try to add a screenshot to my question to show the issue.
– joostvanhoofSep 25 '13 at 14:47

I see what you mean. These are not the boxes I was referring to, this is probably another problem altogether. Weird, I have no real clue as to what this may be.
– VincentSep 25 '13 at 14:58

You mention this affects objects with an outer glow effect: where is this effect coming from? Is it applied in InDesign or in another application then copied or placed into InDesign?
– user56reinstatemonica8Sep 26 '13 at 12:06

Both. There are InDesign objects (simple white squares with an outer glow) and external files which are placed (not copied) into InDesign. In both cases the grey square shows up in Preview as can be seen in the screenshot in my post. I first thought that the problem was with these external files, therefor I've tested with PNG, PDF and AI files, but the problem occurred with every one of them.
– joostvanhoofSep 26 '13 at 16:14

5 Answers
5

A possible solution would be to export your document as a hi-res, high-quality *.jpg, place that in a new InDesign file an then export as a *.pdf. This way, everything is flattened and any artifact will not show up anymore. I'm not sure it will help your quality issues, though.

EDIT

Incorporating some important info from Scott's comment: Most pdf viewers are full of rendering bugs. Apple's Preview and Adobe Acrobat itself are notorious for displaying artefacts like these, especially in *.pdfs that are optimised for print. Using transparency, shadows, glows and/or blending modes in your file makes these problems more likely to show up.

If you want to create a high-fidelity preview, send a *.jpg or a *.jpg placed into a *.pdf. Those will show properly, without you having a lot of explainin' to do to your client.

I could do that, but it feels like a pretty hacky workaround. I'm sure that I'm missing something here and I'd like to find out what so I'm able to solve it if it occurs again.
– joostvanhoofSep 25 '13 at 14:53

1

@joostvanhoof Apples Preview is full of rendering bugs. You have to dummy-down files for Preview to display them properly. THis is by far the best solution if you are worried about Preview rendering. At least until Apple begins to care about things like spot colors and transparency within PDF rendering. It is a hack... but there's no other way to work around the Apple bugs.
– ScottSep 25 '13 at 15:42

OK thanks, then I understand where the problem comes from. So I should export the document as high res .jpg in InDesign? Although it's a workaround, it's important that my document is viewable in both Preview and Adobe. Hope this will also solve the quality issue. I'll select the answer as accepted, thanks!
– joostvanhoofSep 25 '13 at 22:01

Exporting from InDesign to a hires .jpg seems easiest, indeed. Then open a new document of the same size, and place the .jpg.
– VincentSep 26 '13 at 9:04

I know this is an old topic, but I've had the same problem with the gray box showing up on PDFs and printing. I finally got around it by exporting the file as a 2002 PDF. I don't know why the older PDF versions work and not the newer ones, but that's what's been working for me.

As a less than perfect solution to fix this I found that if you create a large box, bigger than the page, and add an effect to it with an opacity of zero and set that box to 0% transparency it would get rid of these weird fray boxes. I think it's a transparency issue, and overlaying that box with the effect, even though it's transparent, will sort of even all the issues out. Not perfect, but it works.

In Indesign, go to Edit>Transparency Flattener Presets, click on "High" as a starting point, then click on "New".
In the dialog box that comes up, slide the raster/vector slider all the way to the left.
Set the lifework resolution to around 1200/600/300 (whatever your printer's resolution is) and then set the gradient/mesh resolution to 150 or 300 if you are not happy with 150.
Save this file as a new Flattener Preset.
Then in File>Print, under Output, choose composite CMYK and Check the "Simulate Overprint check box. Under advanced, select your all-new raster flattener.


Cpl. Rob Richards's scout sniper platoon made international headlines in January 2012 when a video of four Marines urinating on dead insurgents appeared online. (Mike Morones / Staff)

More video

Related Links

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — At long last, they got him. After weeks of observation, Sgt. Rob Richards and his fellow Marine scout snipers had taken out the insurgent leader in Afghanistan responsible for the improvised explosive devices that had killed two of their fellow Marines. One of the Marines’ bodies had been desecrated by the Taliban, his leg hung in a tree to send a defiant message, Marines said.

It was with this history that Richards and his fellow scout snipers bagged the remains of the leader and two other insurgents in Helmand province’s Musa Qala district and brought them back to their nearby forward operating base on July 27, 2011, to collect intelligence, he said. Before they did so, however, Richards and three other Marines made a decision that would erupt into an international controversy five months later: They urinated on the enemy they had just killed, laughing as they did so.

“We were cheering at the time because, I don’t know how much I can get into it, but he was a high-value target or a person of great interest,” said Richards, 27, during an exclusive interview with Marine Corps Times. “I guess one thing led to another and, jokingly, four of us took a piss on him. Looking back, I know it sounds kind of taboo or distasteful doing it, but at the time it was just hilarious. It made sense. It was just another ordinary day.”

The act was recorded on video by another Marine in 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines, out of Camp Lejeune, N.C. It was never intended for public distribution, but the Marine behind the camera stepped on an IED within two weeks of the video being recorded, Richards said. He lost a leg and was sent home to the U.S., his belongings packed up and inventoried by others in the unit. Richards, a burly six-year veteran with three combat tours, believes the camera was stolen by another Marine in their battalion. The video was posted anonymously on YouTube in January 2012.

The scout sniper and his wife of more than six years, Raechel, 25, met with Marine Corps Times on Sept. 11 for a wide-ranging 90-minute discussion in their Jacksonville, N.C., home. It marked the first interview he has done in the 19 months since the video was posted. Richards discussed the operations that led to his scout sniper platoon killing more than 230 enemy fighters, his fight to deploy with 3/2 despite sustaining major injuries in an IED strike in 2010, and his struggle with post-traumatic stress, among other topics.

“Wherever I go, people ask ‘Why did you videotape it?’ And I say, ‘We didn’t f---ing know,’ ” Richards said. “We didn’t know at the time, and we didn’t know it would get in the hands of a traitor, in my opinion. Not only a traitor, but a coward who would potentially try to destroy us and the Marine Corps at the same time by releasing it selfishly.”

Richards is one of eight Marines to face discipline as a result of the incident. He pleaded guilty in summary court-martial in August to failing to obey a lawful order and violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a catch-all that typically reflects a failure to maintain good order and discipline that brings discredit to the armed forces, Marine officials said. The deal allowed him to avoid a bad-conduct discharge that would have eliminated his military medical benefits. He expects to leave the service with a medical retirement, possibly by the end of the month.

Richards said he is tired of people asking why he and his fellow Marines urinated on the dead insurgents, and angry with Commandant Gen. Jim Amos and other Marine Corps leaders for allowing the cases to take so long to play out. At the same time, he expressed remorse for causing hardship for others in his battalion, and said he was devastated when the video was released.

“What really led up to it is they desecrated one of our Marines,” Richards said of the video. “When you’re under that much stress and in that environment, your whole mental being changes. You’re no longer Joe the Family Man. You’re a warrior, and if you read back to biblical wars and wars since the dawn of time, men have been doing this to men for millennia.”

Wounded in Afghanistan

Richards first fought in Afghanistan in 2008 as a member of the scout sniper platoon with Camp Lejeune’s 1st Battalion, 6th Marines. The unit deployed as part of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, one of the first Marine maneuver units in Afghanistan in years.

Richards said he had “no idea what was going on” during that trip downrange as a junior member of 1/6’s scout sniper platoon. He stayed with the unit after it redeployed to the U.S., however, and attended scout sniper school in Quantico, Va. After he graduated, he became a team leader and prepared to deploy again with 1/6. The battalion had a tough assignment: It was selected to be part of the initial push into Marjah, then a major Taliban stronghold in Helmand province.

The Battle of Marjah began in earnest Feb. 13, 2010, as Marines were airlifted into insurgent-held territory. A month later, on March 19, Richards was hit by a pull-string IED, causing serious injuries from which he still has lingering effects. He sustained shrapnel wounds to his legs, arms, groin and — most significantly — his throat.

“It got set off on us pretty close. I would say 10 to 15 feet at the most,” Richards said. “At the time, I didn’t really know what happened. I remember trying to walk, and I couldn’t walk, but I knew I had to get out of there. ... I went into this pump house, and I remember looking down because I felt like I was choking. And I looked down, and everything was kind of gushing and I couldn’t breathe at the time... The only thing I can remember thinking is, ‘I’m going to suffocate.’ ”

Richards said he contemplated taking his own life using his M4 carbine because he “didn’t want to go out like that.” His corpsman found him moments later, however, and began providing medical treatment. A hexagonal nut in the IED that penetrated his neck also had opened up a hole that allowed him to breathe like he had received a tracheotomy.

Over the next few weeks, the scout sniper traveled to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and received additional treatment. He couldn’t speak for more than two weeks. While at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, a nurse helped Richards show Raechel and his mother that he was OK by taking photographs of him holding up signs expressing his love for them. Still, when he arrived at the intensive care unit at Bethesda, his physical condition was striking, Raechel said.

“He had come into the ICU, and he still couldn’t talk. He was hooked up on all these machines, but he was conscious,” she said, choking up. “... But it was very hard to see him. Just within the couple days it had been since he got hurt, he was so gaunt.”

A rocky recovery

Richards underwent six or seven surgeries, he said. His vocal chords were damaged by the shrapnel, deepening his voice to this day. He also had a mesh screen inserted to hold parts of his throat in place, he said.

Overcoming the mental trauma was even worse. While Richards characterized his treatment at Bethesda as excellent, he struggled with guilt as combat in Marjah continued to take a toll on his battalion and other units deployed there. He also suffered from night terrors and was placed on a cocktail of medications that included painkillers and Valium, he said.

“It’s just like you sitting back at home doing jacks--- and everyone else is back out there,” Richards said. “It’s horrible. I would say it’s worse than the physical wounds. I was just trying to find a way to go back, and there was no way possible to go back. ... It’s almost embarrassing because you feel like you’re not a part of the team anymore.”

His downward spiral culminated with an ugly night in Florida. While vacationing on the beach he was caught off-guard by a pirate-themed event in which replica cannon were fired. Richards pulled out a pistol he was carrying, he said, and discharged it in his hotel room while Raechel was present. He thought he was under attack.

“I don’t even remember. I just shot at a mirror or something in the hotel room, and if it weren’t for her ... ” Richards said, his voice trailing off as he struggled to put the experience in words. “I remember seeing her face, and that’s when I came to.. I guess I just… I don’t even remember. I just sat there. I think I went into the closet or bathroom or something, and I just waited there.”

Police arrived on the scene, and treated him kindly, Richards said. He spent the next month in psychiatric treatment, primarily at a veterans facility in Clearwater, Fla. Richards’ attorney, Guy Womack, brought up the incident during his Article 32 hearing in April. While Richards was struggling to recover, Womack said, he was recruited to join 3/2.

Joining 3/2

Initially, Richards was sought by his new scout sniper platoon to impart wisdom without deploying, according to both Richards and documents outlining the Corps’ investigation of the platoon. While he had deployed to Afghanistan twice, many others in the platoon had not been there, and needed help preparing, he said. Soon, he decided they were green enough that he should be with them downrange.

Despite his physical and mental ailments, Richards quit his medication “cold turkey” shortly after getting out of the veterans clinic in Florida and took aim at returning to active duty, he said. The decision put stress on his marriage with Raechel, but he was determined to do it, they both said. Asked if he was ready for it, Richards didn’t have a sure answer.

“Looking back, it’s a double-edged sword,” he said. “I can’t say whether it was a good idea or not. I wouldn’t change it. I don’t think I’d change it for the world. At this point, I think I would still go back.”

The battalion deployed early in 2011, taking over in Musa Qala and Now Zad districts. The area of operations was expansive, and his battalion’s leaders tapped the scout snipers to level the playing field. The heavy responsibilities led to an innovative move in which Richards had a hand: teaming snipers with tanks.

The cooperation started during a mission early in 3/2’s deployment in which tanks were set up in blocking positions to the west of the scout sniper team. The Marines on the ground could see insurgents passing ammunition through holes in a distant compound’s walls, but they didn’t have the firepower to penetrate them. The tanks, with their 120mm main guns, did.

Over that summer, the platoon as a whole recorded more than 230 confirmed kills, according to Richards and documents outlining the 3/2 investigation. Richards’ team, working frequently with the tanks, recorded more than 70.

“They wanted to get some just as much as we did,” he said. “Us using them, they were very grateful for it, and obviously we were extremely grateful for their support as well. And then sometimes they would drive right up to our compounds… and they would drive us out so we didn’t have to worry about blowing our legs off getting back to the main FOB.”

The battlefield success caught the eye of senior Marine officers. In September, Amos and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Mike Barrett met with the platoon for breakfast at Camp Leatherneck, the Corps’ largest base in Afghanistan, as 3/2 prepared to return home.

“He sat us down and talked to the whole platoon, handed out his coins and said, ‘I want you to go back to the schoolhouses and write down what you did that made your deployment so successful,’ ” Richards said of the commandant.

Overall, 3/2 lost six Marines and a corpsman on the deployment.

Legal battles

Following the investigation, Richards and Staff Sgts. Joseph Chamblin and Edward Deptola faced a variety of charges, including some for appearing in the video themselves.

Capt. James Clement, who was serving as the communications link between the sniper team and fellow officers at a nearby command center, was charged with dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer. He was not present when the video was recorded, but was cited by investigators for failing to report other violations that were observed in videos collected by the Corps, including excessive use of small-arms fire.

Chamblin and Deptola eventually pleaded guilty to related charges, and were reduced a rank to sergeant. After a lengthy legal battle, the charges against Clement were dropped in September, but he still faces an administrative Board of Inquiry that could involuntarily separate him from the Corps with an other-than-honorable discharge. Four other Marines involved received nonjudicial punishments and have not been publicly identified.

The cases are complicated by senior leadership’s involvement. In March, a staff judge advocate at Quantico, Va., filed an inspector general complaint with the Defense Department against Commandant Gen. Jim Amos and some of his senior advisers. It alleges the commandant, or others acting on his behalf, deliberately and unlawfully meddled in the urination video cases to ensure stiff punishment, then sought to cover up the involvement. Marine officials have maintained that the legal proceedings for of the accused Marines were conducted fairly.

In July, Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, the first convening authority in the cases, said in a signed declaration for Clement’s case that he was willing to avoid courts-martial for Richards and the other sergeants involved. Amos, however, told Waldhauser he wanted all of the Marines involved “crushed” and tossed from the service, Waldhauser said.

In a Feb. 10, 2012, memo to Waldhauser, Amos acknowledged his comments “could be perceived as possibly interfering with your independent and unfettered discretion to take action in these cases.” The commandant removed the three-star general “to protect the institutional integrity of the military justice process, and to avoid any potential issues,” the memo said.

Marine officials argue the decision shows the commandant was committed to the military justice system, but Richards isn’t buying it. He said he’s “very grateful” that Waldhauser “had the balls enough to stand up to the commandant,” both in disagreeing with how to proceed with the cases and in acknowledging it later for the court.

Richards also praised Maj. James Weirick, the Marine attorney who filed the inspector general complaint that has garnered attention on Capitol Hill, in the national media and across the Corps. Weirick, who handled the cases for Mills, spoke up when no one else would, the scout sniper said.

“I’m very grateful for him, and I’m sorry that his career is probably ruined for it,” Richards said. “I hope he doesn’t hate me for that.”

Richards questioned the way the officers tied to the case — especially Lt. Col. Christopher Dixon, his battalion commander — have been treated. Dixon, who was not found negligent in the investigation, had already been selected for promotion to colonel and a prestigious top-level school assignment when the video was released. Nevertheless, his career advancement has been halted while the legal cases play out. Conversely, his executive officer in 3/2, Lt. Col. James B. Conway, was promoted to his current rank and allowed to take command of an infantry battalion in Hawaii. He is the son of retired Commandant Gen. James T. Conway.

Richards said that while the “lowly sergeant” in him wonders if someone pulled strings to cut loose the retired commandant’s son, no officers in his battalion should be held accountable for the actions in the video. Dixon and Conway were excellent leaders who were not present when it was recorded and did all they could to prepare the Marines for combat, Richards said.

“At the end, it was my decision — or our decision — and I’m not saying whether it was right or wrong. But what I am saying is we’re the only ones who should have been punished for it,” Richards said, “not some colonel who was in the [combat operations center] at the time. That’s one thing I don’t understand ... I should have been punished, but their careers, they should have been able to keep their careers.”

Life after the Corps

Richards speculated that the commandant took personal interest in their cases, in part, because he had met them in Afghanistan before the video was published. Sought for comment, a Marine Corps spokesman said Amos had no comment for this story.

“Though well aware of the high interest in these cases and mindful of the distorted picture some have drawn, the commandant has refrained from weighing in publicly, believing that respect for the unfinished legal process demands restraint,” said Lt. Col. Neil Murphy, the spokesman. “He looks forward to responding at the appropriate time.”

Richards expressed frustration with Marines who have criticized him and his buddies, especially if they haven’t served in combat.

“They join the Marine Corps for the T-shirt, you know?” he said. “You’re always going to run into that for the rest of your life, and they’re always going to be the loudest, most obnoxious, because deep down they know they didn’t do a goddamn thing. And it’s those [Marines] who are still ridiculing us and calling us pieces of s--- and a disgrace to wear the uniform. My response to them is, ‘What have you done?’ ”

Richards said he is assessing what he will do after he leaves the Corps — something he couldn’t address until he knew the results of his legal case. Ten years from now, he hopes he no longer has the title, “Rob, the sniper who pissed on dead bodies,” he said. He’s proud of the good work he did in the Corps, and grateful for the opportunities he had as a scout sniper.

“That’s the only thing I was really good at in life, being a Marine sniper, and I’ll miss it every day,” Richards said. “I wish I could go back if I had known all this would happen, but I don’t know what I would do. I guess the only thing is, I can’t have any regrets. Everything happens for a reason.”


op {
  name: "ScatterNdUpdate"
  input_arg {
    name: "ref"
    type_attr: "T"
    is_ref: true
  }
  input_arg {
    name: "indices"
    type_attr: "Tindices"
  }
  input_arg {
    name: "updates"
    type_attr: "T"
  }
  output_arg {
    name: "output_ref"
    type_attr: "T"
    is_ref: true
  }
  attr {
    name: "T"
    type: "type"
  }
  attr {
    name: "Tindices"
    type: "type"
    allowed_values {
      list {
        type: DT_INT32
        type: DT_INT64
      }
    }
  }
  attr {
    name: "use_locking"
    type: "bool"
    default_value {
      b: true
    }
  }
}


333 F.Supp. 1128 (1971)
David BURNHAM et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Russell G. OSWALD, New York State Commissioner of Correctional Services, and Vincent R. Mancusi, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Defendant.
Civ. No. 1971-132.
United States District Court, W. D. New York.
October 28, 1971.
Herman Schwartz and Edward I. Koren, Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiffs.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York (Joseph J. Ricotta, Dunkirk, N. Y. and John H. Stenger, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for defendants.
CURTIN, District Judge.
On March 25, 1971, the plaintiffs instituted a lawsuit against the defendants seeking an order of this court permitting press interviews of inmates in New York State correctional facilities. During the summer of 1971, the parties voluntarily discussed the issuance of rules permitting press interviews, and, on July 15, 1971, the Department of Correctional Services issued "Administrative Bulletin # 9," entitled "Policy Statement and Guidelines on Release of Information to and Cooperative Effort with the News Media by Department of Correctional Services Personnel"[1] [hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines"]. After the issuance of the Guidelines, there was no further court activity until September 28, 1971, when the plaintiffs made the pending application for limited preliminary relief.
Under the Guidelines, press interviews with inmates were allowed from July 15 to September 9, 1971. During that period, no newsman's request for an interview was denied. On September 9, because of the riot at Attica Correctional Facility, Superintendent Vincent R. Mancusi declared a state of emergency at the facility. From September 9 to September 12, limited interviews by pool reporters were permitted in the besieged D Block area. Since the riot was quelled on September 13, Mr. Mancusi and other *1129 state authorities have denied newsmen's requests for interviews with inmates at Attica.
The repeated denials led to plaintiffs seeking and obtaining, on September 28, an order to show cause why an order should not be entered permitting "journalists the right to interview inmates of Attica Correctional Facility who wish to speak with them."
On October 7, 1971, the court held a hearing at which the plaintiffs presented the testimony of six reporters and the defendants the testimony of Superintendent Mancusi. The plaintiffs' witnesses were Fred Ferretti of the New York Times, Robert Schakne of CBS News, James Willwerth of Time, Clarence Dick Edwards of the Amsterdam News, Edward Hershey of Newsday, and Nat Hentoff, who is a staff writer for the New Yorker, a columnist for the Village Voice, and an associate professor at the Graduate School of Education of New York University.
The newsmen testified that since September 13, 1971 they had sought without success permission from correctional officials to conduct interviews with Attica prisoners. It was their consensus that interviews of prisoners would assist them in reporting all sides of the Attica situation. Since September 13, Commissioner of Correctional Services Russell G. Oswald and other state officials have made statements to the press and have participated in television interviews. The reporters claim that without access to the inmates' information they cannot give a balanced or complete version of what occurred on September 9-13. If permitted to interview prisoners, they would question them about their grievances, the causes of the uprising, what happened during the takeover, the conditions in D Yard during the period of September 9-13, what happened when the state forces suppressed the rebellion, and the conditions at Attica since that time.
At the hearing, Mr. Mancusi stated his opinion that to allow interviews at the present time would, in the language of Paragraph 3 of the Guidelines, "adversely affect the integrity, security, and safety of correctional programs and facilities, and inmates." He supported this conclusion by pointing to the climate of hostility between inmates and correctional officers, the disruption of programs and activities for inmates, the need for repairs of the institution's physical plant, the heavy demands which visits by attorneys and relatives placed upon correctional officers who were working twelve-hour shifts, and the need to protect inmates' constitutional rights in the face of the criminal investigation being conducted at the prison by Deputy Attorty General Robert E. Fischer. Mr. Mancusi was opposed to interviews not only of the prisoners who were still at the Attica Correctional Facility but also of others who had been transferred to other state correctional facilities and to hospitals. It was his opinion that it was not prudent to fix a date less than one month away from October 7 for returning to a policy of permitting press interviews.
It was not apparent to the court why these reasons, except for the concern for inmates' constitutional rights, would mandate the banning of interviews at hospitals and at other correctional facilities to which Attica inmates had been transferred.[2] Yet, when Mr. Mancusi was asked if he would oppose such interviews if a man were warned of his constitutional rights beforehand, he said that he would. It finally became apparent that the main reason for forbidding interviews was, as Mr. Mancusi testified, that "certain types of news stories *1130 can be inflammatory; can have a devastating effect upon the climate; can provide a difference of opinion."
It should be pointed out that the court affords little weight in this decision to the argument that Attica Correctional Facility does not have space or personnel to accommodate newsmen, for not only are lawyer and family visits being permitted, but visits by some outside groups have evidently been permitted.[3]
The instant application initiated by the September 28 order is one for limited relief only. Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their application sets forth the limits of their demand in this way:
Plaintiffs present challenge to the defendants' current refusal to allow media-prisoner interviews is a limited one in that the July 15, 1971 Guidelines are not themselves being attacked here. This is not to say, however, that plaintiffs accept these Guidelines as proper. * * * But this is a matter for another day, since all that plaintiffs challenge at this time is the present specific denial.
The court is not asked to decide whether an inmate has a constitutional right to be interviewed by representatives of the news media, whether a correspondent has a constitutional right to interview an inmate who seeks or consents to be interviewed or whether the Guidelines infringe anyone's First Amendment rights. The question is whether the application of the Guidelines by correctional officials to forbid interviews of Attica inmates since September 13 is so unreasonable under present circumstances that the prohibition should be held to be an abridgement of any constitutional rights of the newsmen plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that the reasons given by Superintendent Mancusi for forbidding interviews are insufficient to support such a ban. They claim that none of the problems expounded by Mr. Mancusi in his testimony support a finding that to allow interviews will "adversely affect the integrity, security and safety of correctional programs and facilities, and inmates."
Reasonable men may differ about whether press interviews would presently heighten or lessen tension at Attica Correctional Facility. Compare the opinion of Superintendent Mancusi with the general views of Professor Lloyd E. Ohlin, expressed in an affidavit filed in Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 326 F.Supp. 209, 212 (D.Mass.1971).[4] Reasonable men *1131 might also differ about what priorities should be given to visitation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the prison facility in the aftermath of the riot.
A disagreement among reasonable men does not, however, necessarily rise to the level of a violation of constitutional rights. Before a federal court can act under the Civil Rights Act, there must be a clear violation of the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief. Although there is no doubt that in recent years the federal courts have subjected the administration of prisons to increased scrutiny, a federal court will not substitute its own judgment about what restrictions are required for the safety and security of the institution for that of the prison administrator unless a violation of constitutional rights is clear. See generally Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1971).
In the instant case, the newsmen plaintiffs disagree with Superintendent Mancusi's determination that to allow press interviews at this time would adversely affect the security of the facilities, staff and inmates of Attica Correctional Facility. But they have failed to make a clear showing that this disagreement presently amounts to a violation of any constitutional rights which they may assert against correctional officials. Considering all of the circumstances of the instant case, the court cannot say at this time that the prohibition on interviews at Attica Correctional Facility is an unreasonable restriction on contacts between prisoners and the press. The court therefore believes that at this time deference should be given to Superintendent Mancusi's judgment regarding press interviews.
Plaintiffs' application for an order giving journalists immediate access to Attica Correctional Facility is denied.

APPENDIX

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ALBANY

July 15, 1971
ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN # 9
TO: SUPERINTENDENTS OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND STATE INSTITUTIONS, DIRECTORS OF STATE HOSPITALS AND CAMPS, PAROLE AREA DIRECTORS AND SUPERVISORS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE, CENTRAL OFFICE GROUP AND DIVISION HEADS
FROM: RUSSELL G. OSWALD, COMMISSIONER (s) Russell G. Oswald
RE: POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES ON RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO AND COOPERATIVE EFFORT WITH THE NEWS MEDIA BY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PERSONNEL
This policy statement is to be used as a guilding directive to all personnel who *1132 may have occasion to respond to news media inquiries or initiate release of information to the news media.
The objective of this policy is to provide accurate information, and to be cooperatively responsive to requests, about Department policies, programs and other areas of public interest in an effort to keep the public fully informed of Department activities, while at the same time providing inmates and parolees under Department supervision their right to privacy.
This Administrative Bulletin supercedes any previous policy statement or guidelines issued on the release of information and is effective as of the date of this Bulletin, July 15, 1971.

1. Information Sources

Superintendents of Correctional Facilities and Directors of Area Parole Offices have responsibility for release of information and response to inquiries from news media representatives pertaining to their respective facilities and areas. (Lists attached)
Information pertaining to overall departmental operations, policies, procedures, etc., will be released or responded to through the Office of Public Information in Albany, N. Y. (Public Information Officer address and phone attached)

2. Inquiries

News media inquiries will be answered fully, frankly, and as quickly as possible depending upon the situation, accessibility and availability of required information.

2A Data for Release

The following data regarding inmates or parolees may be provided: name, age, birthplace, city of previous residence, physical description, commitment information, criminal record, institutions to which committed, institutional assignments and behavior, state of general health, cause of death, nature of injury or critical illness and actions regarding sentence or release.
Information regarding inmates and parolees adjudicated as Youthful Offenders will not be released under laws governing legal release of information regarding Youthful Offenders.

2B
In cases involving inmates and parolees facing possible court action due to commission of a new crime, details of past criminal background and other information which would indicate a previous criminal record will not be released in accordance with the agreement on Fair Trial-Free Press procedures designed to insure fair trials for offenders without prejudicial publicity.

3. Press Interviews

If it is deemed not to adversely affect the integrity, security and safety of correctional programs and facilities, and inmates or parolees thereof, the Superintendent or Area Parole Director may permit a representative of a newspaper entitled to second class mailing privileges, news magazine or other publications which would be entitled to a place on the Department's approved magazine list, news service, or radio and television network or station to interview an inmate or parolee in his custody.
Decisions of Superintendents or Area Parole Directors may be appealed to the Commissioner of Correctional Services.
Arrangements for specific, individual interviews with inmates or parolees are to be made through respective Superintendents or Area Parole Directors. The nature of the requested interview will be made known to the Superintendent or Area Parole Director. Inmates or parolees will be advised of the request for interview and if the individual approves, such interview will be granted.

4. Use of Names and Photographs

Names  In the best interests of the inmate and parolee, identification by *1133 name will not be allowed unless the individual agrees to such use and signs a consent form for such use of name. Such consent forms will be provided by both the interviewing news representative and the Department of Correctional Services. Individuals adjudicated as Youthful Offenders will not be approved for use of name.

4A

Photographs  Identifiable photographs of inmates and parolees will not be allowed unless the individual agrees to be photographed and signs a consent form for such photograph and its use. Photographs of facilities will be allowed providing no identifiable inmate or parolee is shown in any of the photographs.
The same stipulations regarding Youthful Offenders under use of names will apply.
A photographer accompanying a reporter need not be regularly employed by the publication, station or news service, but he must be engaged by it and specifically assigned as the official photographer.
A photographer not accompanied by a reporter must meet all of the criteria of a bona fide reporter.

4B Recording of Interviews

With the written content of the inmate or parolee, interviews may be recorded under the same stipulations on the use of names. Questions should be made known to the inmate or parolee and the answers discussed before the recording is made.

5. Facility Tours

Representatives of the news media may make tours of correctional facilities upon request to the Superintendents of such facilities. In the course of these tours, news media representatives will have access to inmates in the general population and to staff members of the facility. Again, anonymity is expected in comments or in photos of inmates. Staff members may be identified.

6. Exclusion of Interviews, Tours, Etc.

Inmates under Death Sentence and their occupied cell areas are excluded from interviews and tours under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allows only specified visitors without an Order from the Courts. Tours of the room containing the electric chair, and photos of the "chair" will be permitted. No photographs shall be taken of an execution.

7. Emergency Situation

In situations of an emergency nature, such as escapes, disturbances, etc., the cooperation of the news media is requested in that inquiries and information interviews be reasonably limited. The Superintendent of the facility where such emergency occurs will issue periodic up-dating reports and will be available for interviews as he deems necessary, timed for A.M. and P.M. press deadlines.
Emergency situations call for extensive effort on the part of the entire facility staff and, while every effort will be made to keep information current, the emergency of the situation must be respected and the cooperation of the news media will be appreciated.

7A
When a correctional facility is placed under a "State of Emergency," news media representatives will not be allowed access to certain areas as designated by the Superintendent.
Efforts will be made to provide secure areas from which photos may be taken. Approval and designated areas shall be at the discretion of the Superintendent. If the Superintendent judges that the situation is extremely hazardous to news photographers, effort will be made to provide official photographs as soon as available.
NOTES
[1]  A copy of the Guidelines is attached as an appendix.
[2]  In a few instances, inmates transferred from Attica after the riot have been interviewed. Fred Ferretti of the New York Times, Edward Hershey of Newsday, and some other members of the press accompanying New York State Senator John R. Dunne on a tour of New York State correctional facilities were permitted to conduct such interviews. However, Robert Schakne of CBS News was informed that he could not interview inmates transferred from Attica to other institutions.
[3]  The following article appeared in the Buffalo Evening News, October 13, 1971, at 61:

3 VFW LEADERS TOUR ATTICA, TAKE TOUGH STAND ON RIOT
By Buffalo News Staff Reporter
ATTICA, Oct. 13  Three state leaders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Tuesday visited Attica Correctional Facility.
"I wanted to see the damage caused by prisoner criminals who committed new crimes while in jail," said State Commander John M. York of Walden.
"There are too many bleeding hearts sympathizing with the inmates and not enough with their victims."
Mr. York, who was accompanied by LaVern F. Fenton of Attica, past state commander, and Robert F. Stout of Attica, past district commander, took a stiff approach to inmate dealings.
"When a man commits a crime against society, he loses his rights to bargain for anything," he said. "He's lucky to be eating, living and breathing."
Mr. Fenton, a member of the VFW's National Loyalty Committee, called the riot less a protest for reform than a revolutionary act by people trying to overthrow the government.
He attacked the roles and the presence of William B. Kuntsler, the civil rights attorney; Bobby Seale, the Black Panther leader, and Prof. Herman Schwartz of the State University of Buffalo Law School.
[4]  Professor Ohlin's affidavit read in part:

"2. So far as I know, no research has been performed on the effects of permitting or forbidding prisoners to correspond with the press. There is no published body of scholarly or professional opinion on whether such correspondence would be a good or a bad thing from the penological viewpoint.
3. When prisoners riot or go on strike, one of their demands is almost always access to reporters. Prisoners often feel that, in ordinary circumstances, they have no effective way of bringing their grievances to public attention. Costly and destructive prison riots are primarily designed to call public attention to felt abuses, rather than to bring about escape. Over the years, despite the good intentions of prison personnel, public concern and newspaper publicity have tended to be indispensable factors in bringing about prison reform, and these in turn have often resulted from prison disorders. Although one can never be sure, I think there is a good chance that letting prisoners correspond with newspapers and broadcasters would facilitate prison discipline by providing prisoners with a nonviolent and effective outlet for their grievances. In general, I think that the development of more effective correctional practices would be helped by greater ventilation of prison problems.
4. To the extent that correspondence with the press actually brought about reforms making prisons more effective and humane, it would, of course, favor the rehabilitation of prisoners. Being allowed to write to the press might itself help to rehabilitate some prisoners by helping to make them feel able to accomplish something by their own efforts and without violating the law. It seems to me that allowing correspondence with the press would be more likely to help than to harm the rehabilitation process." 326 F.Supp. at 212 (1971).


A five split-field three dimensional conformal technique versus an anterior-posterior on in postoperative radiotherapy for gastric carcinoma: a multicenter comparative study using quality of life measurements as well as clinical and dosimetric parameters.
Several adjuvant approaches are regarded as available options in the management of localized, resectable gastric cancer .The objective of our study was to evaluate multiple field and anteroposterior conformal technique. Ninety-seven patients received three dimensional conformal (3DCRT) postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy for gastric carcinoma. Thirty-five patients received anteroposterior (AP/PA) fields (Group B), while 62 patients were irradiated with multifield technique (Group A). Their ages ranged between 29-85 years. The objective of the study was to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) for all patients after the completion of radiotherapy using the QLQ-C30 of the EORTC questionnaire (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) and to investigate any measurable differences between those two radiation techniques according to QUANTEC criteria and the radiotoxicity. In terms of QUANTEC criteria, the multifield technique was superior concerning the left kidney (p=0.025), right kidney (p<0.001), spinal cord (p<0.001) and planning target volume (PTV) coverage (p<0.001). According to EORTC/ RTOG toxicity criteria, the rate of diarrhea was higher in AP/ PA technique (p=0.028). In terms of QLQ-C30, the multifield technique was superior concerning appetite loss (p=0.022), diarrhea (p=0.046) and global QoL (p<0.001). On the basis of QLQ-C30 questionnaire, EORTC/ RTOG toxicity and dosimetric parameters, the present report has shown that the three dimensional multifield conformal radiotherapy is superior compared to AP-PA techniques.