Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton may be strongly positioned to win her party's nomination for president, but she came out swinging in our exclusive interview on Thursday. We sat down with Clinton after she finished a rally with students just north of New York City, where she had been greeted by legions of supporters as well as hecklers and backers of her Democratic challenger, Bernie Sanders. Clinton leads in the polls in her adopted home state, but she is still aggressively campaigning ahead of the April 19 primary. Our conversation came a week after the terrorist attacks in Brussels. It was also a day after Donald Trump's controversial comments on abortion, a catalyst for what became a rocky week for the Republican frontrunner, whose momentum has shown signs of waning. Meanwhile, Clinton's opponent, Bernie Sanders, continues to give her a fight in states such as Wisconsin, which holds its primary on Tuesday. Our conversation spanned the threat of ISIS, her thoughts on Trump's suitability to be commander-in-chief, the anger felt by American voters, and the good and bad of Wall Street. Edited for clarity and length.

Henry Blodget: There was another horrific attack in Brussels last week. Republicans keep hammering on the Democrats for not being aggressive enough on ISIS. President Obama seems to be saying we shouldn't worry that much. We're making progress. Are Americans too worried about ISIS?

Hillary Clinton: I think Americans have every reason to be worried about ISIS and the network of terrorist groups, because they have proven to be sophisticated and effective in wreaking violence and murder in many parts of the world, including in San Bernardino with their somehow connected radicalization of that couple there. But what I don't think we should do is panic, and I don't think we should advocate for ideas and plans that will make things worse.

I think it was said just this week that the way Donald Trump talks about terrorism and his very insulting language towards Muslims is making him the recruiting sergeant for ISIS. So you do have to walk a fine line here. And what I have said is that I will take a backseat to no one in keeping America safe. I have a very clear set of proposals about how we defeat ISIS. And I think it's important that we do it in concert with other nations in Europe, the Middle East, elsewhere if necessary. And that means you've got to work with people. You don't insult them. You don't insult their religion. And it means we have to see our entire country, all of the people in it, as part of our first line of defense. So that means you don't insult American Muslims and religiously profile them the way that has been suggested by Ted Cruz.

'People sometimes ask me, You're still in a primary — why are you criticizing Trump?'

Blodget: And Donald Trump's approach to ISIS: He talks about waterboarding, he talks about going after their families, he talks about bombing the hell out of them. Do you trust Donald Trump with our military?

Clinton: Of course not. No, of course not. His suggestions are not only offensive but, in certain cases, dangerous and sometimes even illegal, like his dismissal of the laws of the United States international law when it comes to torture. His attitude towards our longest defense alliance and NATO, that we should somehow walk away from it. His suggestions that the United States should leave the Pacific and let Japan, South Korea, or whoever else wants to develop nuclear weapons. These are incredibly dangerous ideas that need to be confronted.

People sometimes ask me, "You're still in a primary — why are you criticizing Trump?" It's because I don't want what he's saying to stand unanswered. And one of the problems, frankly, the Republicans seem to have had is they don't like his personality, his tactics, but they basically agree with him on so many of the issues. So they can't go after him where I think he needs to be criticized. So I'm going to keep speaking out about what he says, because I'm getting messages from leaders around the world who are just bewildered. They want to know what's going on. And the amount of publicity that he gets, the coverage that he gets. So he said some very ill-considered, dangerous thing, and it's around the world in a nanosecond.

Blodget: One of the things that's fueling that rhetoric, I think, is if you look at the polls, the majority of Americans actually disapprove of President Obama's foreign policy, and you were the architect of that foreign policy for four years. Do you feel like that's a rejection of your own foreign policy?

Clinton: Absolutely not. These approval ratings go up and down. In fact, the last numbers I saw was the president's approval ratings above 50% right now. So yes, they go up, they go down. I think what President Obama has done is to chart a steady course. When I was there, the first four years we had a lot of cleanup to do. We inherited a lot of bad feelings from the Bush administration, and much of what I spent my time doing was traveling around the world reassuring friends and allies. And I think people need to remember what the situation was when President Obama came into office. I'll give you one quick example. It was during George W. Bush's presidency that Iran mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, that they built covert facilities, that they stocked them with centrifuges, that they were spinning merrily away toward getting a nuclear-weapons program.

That happened before Barack Obama walked in the door. So what he and I did was to say clearly what we're doing, all the bluster, all of the sanctions, that are just imposed by the American government haven't had much impact. Let's see if we can put together an international coalition to really cripple Iran, and then maybe we can begin a negotiation, and that's what I did. It was difficult. We had to get China and Russia on board, and not just get them on board by signing a piece of paper. We had to get them on board so that they would actually not help Iran, not buy from Iran. We had to go see a lot of our friends, from India to Japan, that are energy hungry, but that they would do the same. So we did. We got an international coalition, and we imposed that. It was slow, patient diplomacy, nothing at all particularly headline-worthy. But then you got to the point where the negotiations — which I started and Secretary Kerry completed — I think made the world safer. So when people say, well, they disapprove, I'd like to know what the specifics are, because sometimes — and the president has admitted this — they may not feel like he's really explaining and understanding the emotion behind some of these fears. And that's a perfectly legitimate question for people to ask. But if you look at the results of where we are, I think there are some things I agree with and some things I don't agree with, and I think that's absolutely fair game.

On emails: 'I did what I did, and I've said that it was a mistake'

Blodget: You've said it was a mistake to have a private email server when you were secretary of state. Do you understand why that bothers people?

Clinton: I said it was a mistake. It wasn't the best choice. But all my emails have been turned over to the public. I'm the most transparent secretary of state because of that. I've been willing to say, "OK, read them all." And there was no prohibition against it. What I did was permitted. My emails went to state.gov accounts. I did what I did, and I've said that it was a mistake. I've tried to do the best I could to get that information out to people.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. REUTERS/Scott Audette (L), Javier Galeano (R) On Trump: 'What's important here is that the Republicans agree with him'

Blodget: Donald Trump recently said that if abortion is illegal, women should be punished for seeking an abortion or getting an abortion. He later changed that. What was your reaction when you heard that?

Clinton: It was outrageous that he would be advocating [that] women who exercise their constitutional right and have autonomy over their healthcare decisions would be criminals, along with the doctors that served them. He did try to walk it back — I think pretty unconvincingly. But again, what's important here is that the Republicans agree with him. They all want to see women's rights eroded and for abortion to become illegal again. That's why so many state Republican governors and legislators are defunding Planned Parenthood and shutting down clinics that not only provide a safe abortion but HIV testing, cancer screenings, and so much else that women have every right to access, which is harder if you are unemployed or you are a low-income woman that's part of the real service that Planned Parenthood provides. So he tried to walk it back, but I think you have to take him at his word. And I think what we heard was a very unvarnished view that he has, and I for one have been very vocal in criticizing him and criticizing the other Republicans who are now embarrassed that he said what they all believe.

Trump 'an equal-opportunity insulter'

Blodget: One of the reactions to his comment was from women saying, wow, I thought it was time when he was going to start courting women voters, given how important they are. You've said that Trump has a "penchant for sexism." Others use much stronger words — misogyny and and so forth. Do you think this will be an issue for him in the general election?

Donald Trump with his Republican opponents Ted Cruz and John Kasich at a CNN debate. Joe Raedle/Getty Images Clinton: Look, I think you have to take the man at his word. He's kind of an equal-opportunity insulter. He started by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. He moved on to denigrating John McCain's heroism during the Vietnam War. He has gone after people with disabilities. He has said Muslims should be kept out of our country. He certainly has gone after individual women in the media, in the political arena. I think you have to take the man and say to yourself, this is someone who wants to occupy the Oval Office, where Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and people who were our president, and I don't think it's just a woman's issue. I think it's an issue that should be of concern to all Americans.

Blodget: You talked about his tendency to insult everybody. One can imagine if you are running against him in a general election that he will come after you with everything he's got. Do you practice being insulted by Donald Trump on a daily basis? [Clinton laughs.] Do you do that? And can you beat him? Because he has destroyed all of his challengers.

Clinton: Part of the reason he destroyed his Republican challengers is because they agree with him on issues. And he apparently struck a vein of entertainment among the Republican primary voters, so all they had left was kind of whining and insulting back and forth, as opposed to taking him on where I think a presidential election should, which is what you stand for, what you're saying, what the actual results of that would be, both at home and around the world. I'm not going to be responding to him. I have pretty thick skin. I've been in the arena a long time, and that means that I am not going to get down with him and go insult for insult.

I'm going to keep talking about what I would do as president, the experience that I bring, the temperament and judgment that led President Obama to ask me to be secretary of state after we ran a really hard primary against each other. It's funny to me, because when I have a position, whether it's first lady, or senator, or secretary of state, and I'm doing the work, I'm really quite popular.

I take seriously the concerns that voters are expressing ... people who believe the economy has failed them, their government has failed them, politics has failed them.

When I left the secretary of state office, I had a 69% approval rating. Once I start running for office and all the incoming you know is battering away, people are going to say, "Hey, wait a minute — what's that mean, what's that mean?" I get all of that, but I don't think we do any service to our country or the voters if we descend into the kind of insult fest that he seems to relish.

Blodget: So you don't think the right response in the general election will be to go punch the bully in the nose and stop them.

Clinton: I think you have to stand up to a bully. But I'm not concerned about what he says about me. That doesn't matter to me. I'm going to stand up for immigrants. I'm going to stand up for American Muslims who are working hard in this country that they love and consider their own. I'm going to stand up for other women. I'm going to stand up for the right to choose. I'm going to stand up for what he says and does that is threatening to Americans, to the lives of Americans, the rights of Americans. Maybe he's just never dealt with somebody who's not particularly impressed by his carrying on, but I'm not. So I'm going to stay focused on what's at stake in this election.

'There's a lot of disappointment, fear, even anger'

Blodget: Both Trump and Bernie Sanders have surprised a lot of people with their staying power and the support that they have. What is the message that voters on both sides are sending to that? And what do you take away from that?

Clinton: I take seriously the concerns that voters are expressing. There's a lot of disappointment, fear, even anger, among people who believe that the economy has failed them, their government has failed them, politics has failed them. They have every right to be concerned. And I feel like I have to do the best job I can to basically say, "OK, I understand — you have every right to be angry, but anger is not a plan. Here's what I want to do, and that's why I hope you will support me, because I think it will actually improve the lives of Americans." I think for a lot of young people there is a sense that maybe the future is not going to be everything it was held out to be, especially if they're coming out with a lot of student debt.

I have a plan to make tuition debt-free for public colleges and universities. I have a difference with Senator Sanders, who promises free college, which, if you look at the fine print, depends really on governors coming up with a lot of the money, which I don't think is a particularly wise bet. And I have a plan to help people pay down their student debt, because I want to unleash the entrepreneurial energy that young people have. This is a very connected, tolerant, creative generation, but a lot of them feel really constrained because they've got this big debt. They can't do much with it other than try to figure out how to pay it down. They can't take jobs they want. They can't get the credit they would like to start a business. So we're going to refinance it, we're going move people into income-contingent repayment plans, we're going to have a date certain when their obligations end, and I'm not going to let the government harass kids. I'm not going to let the government make a profit out of lending money for people to go to college. So we're going to really change this. I see it as an investment, not an expense, and I'm going to treat it that way.

On Sanders: 'I never can really tell what he's talking about'

Blodget: Senator Sanders keeps saying that you're too cozy with Wall Street. First of all, is that true? And second of all, what's so bad about Wall Street? It's one of our most successful industries — the finance industry employs hundreds of thousands of people, very successful, wonderful exports of finance business. Why is it so bad to be close to Wall Street?

Bernie Sanders has criticized Clinton's Wall Street ties. REUTERS/David Ryder Clinton: I never can really tell what he's talking about. It's just one of these sort of attacks that he pulls out all the time. I believe strongly that we need a finance industry that is good for the economy, and I don't think anybody would argue that during the eight years leading up to the Great Recession, a lot of bets were made [and] risks taken that weren't good for the economy. And I don't think all the blame lies with Wall Street. I think a lot of the blame lies with the Bush administration. They went back to trickle-down economics. They took their eye off the mortgage market, they took their eye off the finance markets, and we ended up in a big mess. I mean, 9 million people lost their jobs and 5 million homes were lost and $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.

So I think there were bad actors in the government and bad actors in the finance, mortgage, markets industries that need to be called out and held accountable. But you also have to make sure that you've got the credit flowing, the financial instruments, that are going to enable Main Street to be successful. So I've laid out my economic plans. I want to grow the economy. That's why I have plans for jobs and raising incomes. I do want to go after bad actors on and off Wall Street, because I think companies that take money from federal, state, and local governments and then pick up and move should have to pay that back. I think companies trying to exercise a so-called inversion should be hit with an exit tax. So I want to change behaviors, and I am deeply distressed about quarterly capitalism, because I think it is causing businesses to make decisions that are not helping the long-term profitability of American corporations or the success of our economy. And I'm on record for that, going back to the time when I was a senator. So I hear that, but the facts don't bear it out.

On quarterly capitalism: 'I think there was a real wrong turn about 20 to 25 years ago'

Blodget: On quarterly capitalism, great companies, some have argued, serve multiple constituencies, not just shareholders. They serve customers, they serve employees, they serve the country and the economy. How do we get out of quarterly capitalism?

Clinton: This is an issue that I've spent a lot of time thinking about and talking to people about, because I think it's one of the biggest challenges facing our economy. And I'll just tell a quick story that I told when I gave my economic speeches last year. There was a recent survey that was done with the heads of major American corporations, and they were asked this question: If you could make an investment today that you know would make the company more profitable — say it was R&D, say it was plant and equipment, say it was investing and training your workers — and you knew that within five to 10 years you'd have so much good returns to show, but it would cost you a penny off your stock price to do it, would you do it? And every one of them said no.

Hillary Clinton and Business Insider CEO and editor-in-chief Henry Blodget. Sam Rega/Business Insider So I knew one of the people who'd been asked, an iconic American corporation, and I called and I said, "Were you in this survey?" "Yes." "You were asked this question?" "Yes." "Clearly it was unanimous you said no, you wouldn't do it. What does that mean? I know the kind of person you are. I know that you are trying to build a great company." The answer was, "I'd be killed. The market would kill me, activist shareholders would kill me. So I would be spending all my time fending off this attack on me and the company [that] I wouldn't even get to doing the work that we want to do."

That's crazy. That to me is not wealth creation for the long term. It's not how we're going to grow this economy, how we're going to have brought inclusive prosperity. So I think we've got to look at corporate law. Back in the day when I studied it, there were different constituencies that were to be served, and I think there was a real wrong turn about 20 to 25 years ago when the theory began to be promoted that your highest duty — in fact, some would argue, your only duty — is to maximize shareholder return. I just don't buy it. And it wasn't the original underpinnings of the legal theory of corporate law.

This has been a development that I think has been promoted for other reasons, but nevertheless we're living with it. So I think we have to take a look at corporate law. We have to take a look at the incentives that we can perhaps use to encourage more longer term. I think if you had a capital-gains system where the long, patient capital would actually be rewarded, nanosecond capital turning would not be. I think there's a lot we could do that maybe would give a little more decision space to CEOs, to shareholders who want to hold for the long term, to investors who want to be part of the long term, that they would maybe have a little more room to withstand the pressure that is otherwise coming down on them.

Hillary Clinto speaks to supporters after winning the South Carolina primary in February 2016. REUTERS/Randall Hill 'Congress ... They act like activist shareholders'

Blodget: The economy's made tremendous progress in the last eight years. I think most people would still agree that we'd like to see it grow faster. If you could make one change, what would it be?

Clinton: I think we need to invest more in America. And for the life of me I don't understand — we've had, as you know so well, practically zero-interest rates. They're creeping up, not by much. What a time to invest in infrastructure, advanced manufacturing. I've been really impressed at some of the investments that I've seen in community college and technical schools that are training young people for these jobs in 3D printing and the like. I think a revolution transitioning from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy — somebody's going to be the 21st-century clean-energy superpower. I think it's going to be China, Germany, or us. Why not us? Jobs you do here at home or new discoveries that can be transformed into exports around the world.

The Congress is not willing to think about the long term. They act like activist shareholders, to use that phrase again. They're not thinking about what can we do that will make us richer, safer, and stronger next year, and the year after, and five and 10 years out. How do we protect against climate change. How do we create jobs for so many Americans who are feeling pushed out, not just left out, pushed out of the modern economy. Obviously it's skills and education. But it's also jobs. So if I could do anything it would be to take this moment in time that we've got when, yes, our recovery is better, we've had steadier growth, I don't think President Obama frankly gets the credit he deserves for the kind of steady hand that he and his advisers apply to moving through that really dangerous period. So OK, we are out of the ditch, we're standing, we're walking, but we're not running. I want to grow the economy. I am not somebody who just says let's beat up on the bad guys. No. I want to summon the good guys and give people the incentives and opportunities to actually grow this economy, put more people to work, get the middle class really feeling like they're back in business.

Hillary Clinton campaigns for the Senate in 2000. AP 'I will go anywhere, anytime, to meet with anyone to find common ground'

Blodget: One thing President Obama is criticized for, even by Democrats, is for being too aloof. He doesn't get in the back rooms and make deals and persuade Congress to do things. Would you be different? And how would you persuade Congress to do something like invest in infrastructure?

Clinton: Everybody brings their personality to any position, and that's true for presidents like anyone else. I am a very committed person when it comes to finding common ground. I will go anywhere, anytime, to meet with anyone to find common ground. I did it as first lady, I did it as a senator, I did it as secretary of state, and I know how hard it is. It's not something you do once or twice and then throw your hands up because it is grinding work. But it is necessary work. So I am really welcoming of the opportunity to meet with not only people who agree with me but those who don't to see what we can do to try to bridge the differences.

When we didn't succeed at healthcare reform back in 1993, 1994, I went to work with Democrats and Republicans and we created the Children's Health Insurance Program. When I got to the Senate, I started working with Republicans. I think I practically worked with every single one of them, and a lot of them were on record talking about what a good colleague I am and how I like to get things done. When I was secretary of state, I had to be responsible for getting a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia through the Senate. We needed, I think, 13 Republican votes to get to 67. I started working in the summer making just endless phone calls, meetings, bringing experts to talk to Republicans, and then we finally got it done at the end of the year 2010. So I'm excited to roll up my sleeves and get into the business of solving problems and making progress together.

'That's why I'm so well-suited to this time'

Hillary Clinton at Wellesley College. Lee Balterman/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Blodget: Going back to those years, too, you have a remarkable career as a progressive activist for women's issues and so forth. Have your views changed since then? And following on that, those folks today seem to be supporting Bernie Sanders, rather than you, the younger generation. What is that like for you, having been so progressive and vocal about that when you were younger?

Clinton: I do remember being young. [Laughs.]

Blodget: I do, too!

Clinton: I think I've been very consistent in my values. I believe that what I've worked for — women and children, civil rights against poverty, trying to level the playing field for people to have a better chance — is what I still believe is important and what I'm trying to do today. So I am somewhat influenced by the years that I've spent trying to actually get things done, whether it was reforming education in Arkansas or a survey and Legal Services Corporation board when President Carter appointed me and trying to get lawyers for poor people. I have worked in these areas. I know it's more than just a hope. You've got to translate it into a policy that leads to action. And I think that's why I'm so well-suited to this time, because I think the values reflect really profound American values, and I think my agenda would be the best way to really get Americans once again to feel more confident and more optimistic about our future and deliver results, which I think is what it's about.

'I can't compete with making promises you can't keep'

Blodget: So you've learned how to get things done. And that is different than simply talking about things.

Clinton: I think talking's important. I think aspirations are critical. I think setting big goals ... but I think I've set some big goals. The American people haven't had a raise in 15 years. Getting incomes up is a huge goal. Now maybe it's not as exciting to some people, but it's a huge goal. Making college affordable is a really important goal, and my plan will work better than Senator Sanders' plan by everybody who has looked at it. Working to get the Affordable Care Act to cover everybody and get the cost down will work better and every analyst who's looked at what I want to do compared to Senator Sanders has reached the same conclusion.

So I can't compete with making promises you can't keep, but I am very comfortable saying what I believe I can do, being very specific about how we will do it, how we will pay for it, and having people know that I want them to hold me accountable. I think part of our problem right now in the country is that people feel that nobody listens to them. And that means that they just don't trust anybody in government, anybody in politics, and anybody in the economy. And if we don't rebuild that connection with people we will really find even bigger gaps, because our gap on inequality is not just economic. That's a huge problem, one that I want to address. But we have gaps that are rooted in systemic racism. Racial inequality is a big problem. We still have gaps that are rooted in gender inequality. Certainly we have discrimination against the LGBT community. We have a lot of inequality, and I'm not a one-issue candidate, because I don't think this is a one-issue country. So I want to knock down all the barriers that stand in the way of people getting ahead and staying ahead.


Q:

How to interpret the instruction of the dilution of hydrogen peroxide?

I am required to prepare $\pu{120cm3}$ of hydrogen peroxide to each of one of my students tomorrow. Some material is given to me on the method of preparing the solutions. Within the method of preparing $\ce{H2O2}$, it says:

Prepare from freshly purchased $100$ volume ($30\%~\text{w/w}$, $\pu{8.3 mol/dm3}$) or $20$ volume ($6\%~\text{w/w}$, $\pu{1.7 mol/dm3}$) $\ce{H2O2}$. Dilute $\pu{200 cm3}$ of $100$ volume solution to $\pu{1 dm3}$ of $20$ volume solution, then dilute $\pu{59 cm3}$ of $20$ volume solution to $\pu{1 dm3}$ of $\pu{0.1 mol/dm3}$ solution.

Can someone please explain the quoted part?

A:

Take $\pu{200 mL}$ of the $30\%$ solution, add water to a final volume of $1$ liter. Then you have a $6\%$ solution. Next, take $\pu{59 mL}$ of the $6\%$ solution and add water until it is $1$ liter.
After the first dilution it's not exactly $6\%$, because the density of $30\%$ $\ce{H2O2}$ is $\pu{1.135 g/cm3}$. It's more like $6.6\%$, but the instructions are referring to it as $6\%$. If you want exactly $6\%$ you should dilute by weight instead of volume.


Prolonged shedding of amantadine- and oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H3N2) virus with dual mutations in an immunocompromised infant.
In this study, we report a case of multidrug-resistant influenza A(H3N2) virus isolated from an immunosuppressed patient with prolonged viral shedding. We also describe the genetic characterization of the haemagglutinin, neuraminidase and M2 influenza genes. The virus contained the substitutions E119V in neuraminidase and V27A in M2, which produce resistance to oseltamivir and adamantanes, respectively. This is the first report of this dual mutation pattern in multidrug-resistant influenza A(H3N2) virus.


Domino Trail

The Domino Trail is a shared used path running from Trentham, Victoria to Lyonville, 75km northwest of Melbourne. The trail mostly follows part of the route of the former Carlsruhe to Daylesford railway line  part of which is still running as the Daylesford Spa Country Railway . The trail has been primarily developed for walkers, but is usable by mountain bikes.

References
http://www.railtrails.org.au/component/railtrails/?view=trail&id=166&Itemid=66

Category:Rail trails in Victoria (Australia)


Ok this was mentioned by Mayuri around the beginning of the story arc, the balance of souls, now we all know there is a constant balance between the Human World, Soul Society and Hueco Mundo. Now when the hollows were being killed off by the VR Mayuri took steps to restore the balance temporarily by killing off several Rukongai citizens, in the aftermath of the First Battle of Soul Society there were over a thousand confirmed Shinigami deaths, the number could be even significantly higher but there is no way to know for sure, so my question is between the death of all these hollows, the Rukongai citizens and the Shinigami wouldn't throw the balance off quite a bit and having too many souls being reincarnated to the human world? If that is the case would that mean that they have to kill off several humans to balance everything back out, and if so that is bound to be very much noticed.


#!/usr/bin/env rspec
require 'spec_helper'

describe "the regsubst function" do
  before :all do
    Puppet::Parser::Functions.autoloader.loadall
  end

  before :each do
    @scope = Puppet::Parser::Scope.new
  end

  it "should exist" do
    Puppet::Parser::Functions.function("regsubst").should == "function_regsubst"
  end

  it "should raise a ParseError if there is less than 3 arguments" do
    lambda { @scope.function_regsubst(["foo", "bar"]) }.should( raise_error(Puppet::ParseError))
  end

  it "should raise a ParseError if there is more than 5 arguments" do
    lambda { @scope.function_regsubst(["foo", "bar", "gazonk", "del", "x", "y"]) }.should( raise_error(Puppet::ParseError))
  end

  it "should raise a ParseError when given a bad flag" do
    lambda { @scope.function_regsubst(["foo", "bar", "gazonk", "X"]) }.should( raise_error(Puppet::ParseError))
  end

  it "should raise a ParseError for non-string and non-array target" do
    lambda { @scope.function_regsubst([4711, "bar", "gazonk"]) }.should( raise_error(Puppet::ParseError))
  end

  it "should raise a ParseError for array target with non-string element" do
    lambda { @scope.function_regsubst([["x", ["y"], "z"], "bar", "gazonk"]) }.should( raise_error(Puppet::ParseError))
  end

  it "should raise a ParseError for a bad regular expression" do
    lambda { @scope.function_regsubst(["foo", "(bar", "gazonk"]) }.should(
      raise_error(Puppet::ParseError))
  end

  it "should raise a ParseError for a non-string regular expression" do
    lambda { @scope.function_regsubst(["foo", ["bar"], "gazonk"]) }.should( raise_error(Puppet::ParseError))
  end

  it "should handle groups" do

    result = @scope.function_regsubst(

      [ '130.236.254.10',

        '^([0-9]+)[.]([0-9]+)[.]([0-9]+)[.]([0-9]+)$',
        '\4-\3-\2-\1'
      ])
    result.should(eql("10-254-236-130"))
  end

  it "should handle simple regexps" do

    result = @scope.function_regsubst(

      [ "the monkey breaks banana trees",
        "b[an]*a",

        "coconut"
      ])
    result.should(eql("the monkey breaks coconut trees"))
  end

  it "should handle case-sensitive regexps" do

    result = @scope.function_regsubst(

      [ "the monkey breaks baNAna trees",
        "b[an]+a",

        "coconut"
      ])
    result.should(eql("the monkey breaks baNAna trees"))
  end

  it "should handle case-insensitive regexps" do

    result = @scope.function_regsubst(

      [ "the monkey breaks baNAna trees",
        "b[an]+a",
        "coconut",

        "I"
      ])
      result.should(eql("the monkey breaks coconut trees"))
  end

  it "should handle global substitutions" do

    result = @scope.function_regsubst(

      [ "the monkey breaks\tbanana trees",
        "[ \t]",
        "--",

        "G"
      ])
    result.should(eql("the--monkey--breaks--banana--trees"))
  end

  it "should handle global substitutions with groups" do

    result = @scope.function_regsubst(

      [ '130.236.254.10',

        '([0-9]+)',
        '<\1>',
        'G'
      ])
    result.should(eql('<130>.<236>.<254>.<10>'))
  end

  it "should apply on all elements of an array" do
    data = ['130.236.254.10', 'foo.example.com', 'coconut', '10.20.30.40']
    result = @scope.function_regsubst([ data, '[.]', '-'])
    result.should(eql( ['130-236.254.10', 'foo-example.com', 'coconut', '10-20.30.40']))
  end

  it "should apply global substitutions on all elements of an array" do
    data = ['130.236.254.10', 'foo.example.com', 'coconut', '10.20.30.40']
    result = @scope.function_regsubst([ data, '[.]', '-', 'G'])
    result.should(eql( ['130-236-254-10', 'foo-example-com', 'coconut', '10-20-30-40']))
  end

  it "should handle groups on all elements of an array" do
    data = ['130.236.254.10', 'foo.example.com', 'coconut', '10.20.30.40']

      result = @scope.function_regsubst(

        [ data,

        '^([0-9]+)[.]([0-9]+)[.]([0-9]+)[.]([0-9]+)$',
        '\4-\3-\2-\1'
      ])
    result.should(eql( ['10-254-236-130', 'foo.example.com', 'coconut', '40-30-20-10']))
  end

  it "should handle global substitutions with groups on all elements of an array" do
    data = ['130.236.254.10', 'foo.example.com', 'coconut', '10.20.30.40']

      result = @scope.function_regsubst(

        [ data,

        '([^.]+)',
        '<\1>',
        'G'
      ])

        result.should(eql(

          ['<130>.<236>.<254>.<10>', '<foo>.<example>.<com>',

      '<coconut>', '<10>.<20>.<30>.<40>']))
  end

  it "should return an array (not a string) for a single element array parameter" do
    data = ['130.236.254.10']

      result = @scope.function_regsubst(

        [ data,

        '([^.]+)',
        '<\1>',
        'G'
      ])
    result.should(eql(['<130>.<236>.<254>.<10>']))
  end

  it "should return a string (not a one element array) for a simple string parameter" do
    data = '130.236.254.10'

      result = @scope.function_regsubst(

        [ data,

        '([^.]+)',
        '<\1>',
        'G'
      ])
    result.should(eql('<130>.<236>.<254>.<10>'))
  end

end


At Engonnia, a one horse, one pub town in far western New South Wales, the locals are learning to keep their heads down.

It's bush tomato season. Harvest begins in late autumn and continues throughout winter unless halted by a severe frost.

This is the first harvest in a new joint venture and the enthusiasm is evident.

Each day, a dedicated band of volunteers from the Clara Hart community kneels in the red desert sand, hovers over rows of carefully tended plants and delicately plucks the valuable fruit from the bush tomato's spiny branches.

Bush tomatoes occur naturally in the surrounding countryside, but like all desert plants only flourish periodically when conditions are ideal. ( Landline: Tim Lee )

The market garden is a mere half hectare, but it presents new and exciting possibilities for this remote, socially disadvantaged Indigenous community.

The driving force behind this community-backed initiative is Tannia Edwards, the chief executive of the Murrawarri Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Two years ago, while attending a Native Foods conference in Dubbo, she saw a presentation by Mike and Gayle Quarmby.

The couple are trailblazers of Australia's nascent native foods industry and the owners of Outback Pride, the nation's largest grower and supplier of bush foods.

"It lit that spark," recalled Ms Edwards, who immediately invited the Quarmbys to Engonnia, an hour's drive north of Bourke, to have them assess the viability of growing bush foods at Clara Hart.

"It means our people get back in touch with our traditional foods," said Tannia Edwards (left) ( Supplied: Gayle Quarmby )

The community gave the idea the thumbs up. A plot was selected, a memorandum of understanding between the parties was signed and work began.

The first step was building a high, vermin-proof perimeter fence to keep out pests such as feral goats.

"Roos and goats, emus. You get a few odd cattle here and there too," said Wayne Kelly, a grandson of Clara Hart, after whom the settlement was named.

It was her advocacy for Aboriginal rights that saw this small area of land granted to traditional owners in the 1950s.

The tomato plant is hard to miss in northern Australia with its large purple flowers. ( Supplied: Chris Martine )

Bush tomatoes occur naturally in the surrounding countryside, but like all desert plants only flourish periodically when conditions are ideal.

In this case, solanum centrale, known to the locals as kutjera, thrives after a mild bushfire, followed by a summer thunderstorm. So the market garden tries to emulate the natural conditions.

The plants get plenty of potash and the water (the plot has drip line irrigation) is turned off in autumn to promote fruit set.

"You see mobs of them way out through the scrub area here," says Mr Kelly. "But to see them like this is amazing." ( Landline: Tim Lee )

The fruit has little resemblance to conventional tomatoes.

When it ripens in the cooler months to yellow it has a vanilla-like taste. When it's further dried it carries a distinctive smoky flavour.

Its unique qualities make it an increasingly sought ingredient for chefs and high gourmet food outlets.

Other traditional food plants have also been planted and are starting to flourish. There's munyeroo, a type of portulaca or pigweed, quandongs or native peach trees as well as marsdenia, often called bush bananas.

The munyeroo, a ground hugger that has small yellow flowers and sometimes pink stems, can grow to a metre across and tastes great barbecued. ( Landline: Tim Lee. )

With Mr Quarmby's guidance a drying shed has just been completed. It will give the bush tomatoes a much longer shelf life.

The bush foods will provide the community with much needed nutrition.

Being a long way from town makes it hard to get fresh fruit and vegetables.

"We can have it right here in our backyard," Ms Edwards said.

"You know one of our kutjera is 10 times the vitamin C content of an orange," she said.

Because of their high nutritional value, bush foods are being embraced as "super foods".

It's one of the fastest growing sectors of the Australia's horticultural industry, albeit from a low base.

"There are thousands of Australian native food plants that Aboriginal people used on an everyday basis," said Mr Quarmby.

"We've only started to really utilise probably a hundred."

Bush banana (marsdenia) getting planted. They're grown in most parts of arid Australia and have four different edible parts. ( Landline: Tim Lee )

"Their nutrient levels are sky high in comparison with world standard," added Mr Quarmby.

"So Aboriginal people didn't need to eat very much to be very healthy, very fit and healthy."

For the Quarmbys, overseeing the work here requires a three-day drive from their base in South Australia.

But to them the venture is more than finding a good supplier of valuable bush foods.

It's about empowering the community to some degree of self-sufficiency.

"So we're very hopeful," Ms Quarmby said.

"We keep coming back here with faith in our hearts and just face whatever is happening and just do the job. Get down and get dirty and do the job."

Mike and Gayle Quarmby are pioneers of Australia's nascent bush foods industry. ( Landline: Tim Lee )

"Plants have a wonderful ability of feelgood," Mr Quarmby added.

"You watch something grow and you can harvest a bit of it and eat it. It improves the psyche of a community.

"When we started this project that's what it was all about; jobs and training and quality of life."

Ms Edwards is determined to see the market garden succeed and expand in the future.

"They'd like to expand it and we'd go along with it, with the expansion of this," Mr Kelly said.

"This is way too great. We need it to grow."

"Now we've got this we can think bigger," Ms Edwards concluded.

"It's also us giving back to our elders and our next generation, to be able to pass that on. It's a game-changer."

Tim Lee's story screens at 12:30pm this Sunday on Landline.


U.S. charges 6 with text messaging consumer fraud

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Six men have been criminally charged over an alleged "mobile cramming" scheme in which they bilked hundreds of thousands of mobile phone users out of more than $50 million by providing unwanted text messaging services, U.S. authorities said on Thursday.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan announced the charges nearly a year after the defendant Lin Miao and several corporate entities settled related civil charges with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission by surrendering more than $10 million of assets including a Beverly Hills, California home, Bentley and Mercedes vehicles, and Tiffany jewelry.

According to the complaint, the scheme ran from 2011 to 2013, and centered on a texting company that Miao owned and where the defendant Yong Jason Lee was chief technology officer.

The defendants allegedly provided messages about celebrity gossip, horoscopes, jokes, love tips and trivia to phone users, through a process called "auto-subscribing."

Victims would be charged $9.99 a month even if they ignored or deleted the messages, and typically were unaware of the fraud until unintelligible items such as "96633IQ16CALL8668611606" began appearing on their phone bills, the complaint said.

Some proceeds would fund "a lavish lifestyle of expensive parties, travel, and gambling," according to the complaint, which was signed by an Internal Revenue Service agent.

That agent quoted from a Nov. 2011 email to Miao from Lee about the collection of phone numbers, and which said: "Please don't forget that I'm your Secret Weapon. :) ... I'm pretty sure you will be ended up [sic] around 1.6 Million valid phone numbers by end of this month. (Can you buy me a house? haha)"

Miao, Lee, Michael Pajaczkowski, Christopher Goff, Michael Pearse and Yongchao Liu were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud. Miao, Pajaczkowski and Goff were also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering. Each count carries a maximum 20 years in prison.

"Stealing incrementally is stealing nonetheless, and if the allegations are proven, the defendants will have to answer for this massive consumer fraud," Bharara said in a statement.

Miao was arrested on Wednesday. Lee, Pajaczkowski and Goff were arrested on Thursday. Pearse and Liu live in Australia and have not been arrested. The U.S.-based defendants were expected to make court appearances on Thursday.

Jeffrey Jensen, a lawyer for Pajaczkowski, declined to comment. Lawyers for the other defendants could not immediately be identified.

The case is U.S. v. Miao et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15-mag-01771.


Did You Know...

If we were talking about Mitt Romney, who spoke to the same group earlier in the week, the MSM headline probably would have been something along the lines of “Presumptive GOP nominee doesn’t trust Latino audience with forks.”

Does a fork or dinner knife pose an unacceptable danger to President Barack Obama?

One wouldn’t think so, given the hundreds of lunches and dinners he’s attended ranging from state dinners to political fundraisers to run-of-the-mill stops on the rubber-chicken circuit.

However, at one such lunch Friday afternoon, guests heard an unusual announcement that they needed to hand over their silverware for security reasons.

“It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference.

Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.

It’s not yet known if the knives and forks were rounded up as a security precaution, or were taken as an involuntary campaign donations.

The Secret Service, whose job it is to jump in front of the president and take a spork for him if necessary, says this kind of thing isn’t at all unprecedented:

“The Secret Service coordinates this process with staff and host committee to ensure tables are cleared of material that may be deemed hazardous prior to the arrival of the president,” Special Agent Max Milien told POLITICO. “Any implication that this was unique for this event is completely inaccurate.”

In other words, the announcement at the Latino officials’ event may have been unusual, but the removal of the silverware usually takes place without anyone realizing it’s a security measure.

Still, there are a wide variety of breakfasts, lunches and dinners the president attends where diners still have the full complement of silverware as Obama speaks.

Knives are also routinely confiscated at Joe Biden’s dinner speeches, but that’s to eliminate any chance of audience members taking their own lives.

Those events where guests can keep their knives and forks would include the White House Correspondents Dinner as well as Sarah Jessica Parker and George Clooney fundraisers.

Here’s the “pre-cut your food and if you’re not finished by the time The One gets here you’ll have to eat with your fingers” announcement:

Update: Keith Koffler at White House Dossier asks the rhetorical question of the day: “President Obama is willing to send guns into Mexico, but American Latinos are not permitted forks in his presence”?


The New Artisans: Arielle de Pinto Keeps Us In the Loop With Her Crocheted Metal Pieces

“Crochet is so laborious; I never thought I’d pursue it,” admits Arielle de Pinto, who uses the age-old stitching technique throughout her self-titled line. “But when I started using chain instead of yarn, I became fixated. And it’s meditative—so it helps me sleep!” Three years on, that explains her commitment to the time-consuming craft because, aside from jewelry, the ambitious designer has turned her nimble fingers to latticed gloves and gossamer bodysuits—also created using her trademark silver-and-stainless-steel fine-gauge links—that take countless days to complete.

“I travel all the time,” says the office-averse Toronto native, “so landscapes are a constant inspiration.” But despite her wanderlust, for spring it’s the graphic psychedelic scenes found in Kiyoshi Awazu’s paintings that inspired these distressed filigree accessories and clothing designs in azure blue, charcoal, and vermilion. With a diverse fan base stretching from young, conceptual sartorialists to “women in their fifties,” de Pinto puts her metalworks’ far-reaching appeal down to simplicity: “It feels like an extension of your skin,” says the 25-year-old, enthusiastically. “The weight of the metal causes the pieces to adapt to the wearer.” arielledepinto.com