the prize considered equivalent to nobel prize for mathematics is

The Fields Medal is regarded as one of the highest honors a mathematician can receive, and has been described as the mathematician's "Nobel Prize".[1][2][3] According to Academic Excellence Survey by ARWU, the Fields Medal is the top award in the field of mathematics worldwide,[4] and in another reputation survey conducted by IREG in 2013-14, the Fields Medal came closely after the Abel Prize as the second most prestigious international award in mathematics.[5][6]

Fields Medal

The Fields Medal is a prize awarded to two, three, or four mathematicians under 40 years of age at the International Congress of the International Mathematical Union (IMU), a meeting that takes place every four years.

The prize comes with a monetary award which, since 2006, has been CA$15,000.[7][8] The name of the award is in honor of Canadian mathematician John Charles Fields.[9] Fields was instrumental in establishing the award, designing the medal itself, and funding the monetary component.[9]

The medal was first awarded in 1936 to Finnish mathematician Lars Ahlfors and American mathematician Jesse Douglas, and it has been awarded every four years since 1950. Its purpose is to give recognition and support to younger mathematical researchers who have made major contributions. In 2014, the Iranian mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani became the first woman Fields Medalist.[10][11][12]  In all, sixty people have been awarded the Fields Medal.

The most recent group of Fields Medalists received their awards on 1 August 2018 at the opening ceremony of the IMU International Congress, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.[13]  The medal belonging to one of the four joint winners, Caucher Birkar, was stolen shortly after the event.[14]

The Fields Medal is often described as the "Nobel Prize of Mathematics" and for a long time has been regarded as the most prestigious award in the field of mathematics.[1][2][3] Unlike the Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal is only awarded every four years.  The Fields Medal also has an age limit: a recipient must be under age 40 on 1 January of the year in which the medal is awarded. This is similar to restrictions applicable to the Clark Medal in economics. The under-40 rule is based on Fields' desire that "while it was in recognition of work already done, it was at the same time intended to be an encouragement for further achievement on the part of the recipients and a stimulus to renewed effort on the part of others."[15]  Moreover, an individual can only be awarded one Fields Medal; laureates are ineligible to be awarded future medals.[16]  This is in contrast with the Nobel Prize which can be, and has been awarded to an individual or an entity more than once, whether in the same category (John Bardeen and Frederick Sanger), or in different categories (Marie Curie and Linus Pauling).

The monetary award is much lower than the 8,000,000 Swedish kronor (roughly 1,400,000 Canadian dollars)[17] given with each Nobel prize as of 2014.[18] Other major awards in mathematics, such as the Abel Prize and the Chern Medal, have larger monetary prizes compared to the Fields Medal.

University of Florida, US[42]

Moscow State University, Russia
University of Maryland-College Park, US[43][44]

Collège de France, France
Ohio State University, US[51]

Vanderbilt University, US[61]

École polytechnique, France[66]

University of California, San Diego, US[68]

University of Cambridge, UK

Rutgers University, US

Rutgers University, US[71]

Princeton University, US

Institute for Advanced Study, US

Vietnam Institute for Advanced Study, Vietnam[80]

St. Petersburg State University, Russia[81]

Institut Henri Poincaré, France

Institut Henri Poincaré, France[82]

CNRS, France
Instituto Nacional de Matemática Pura e Aplicada, Brazil

Institute for Advanced Study, US[89]

In 1954, Jean-Pierre Serre became the youngest winner of the Fields Medal, at 27. He still retains this distinction.

In 1966, Alexander Grothendieck boycotted the ICM, held in Moscow, to protest Soviet military actions taking place in Eastern Europe.[90] Léon Motchane, founder and director of the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, attended and accepted Grothendieck's Fields Medal on his behalf.[91]

In 1970, Sergei Novikov, because of restrictions placed on him by the Soviet government, was unable to travel to the congress in Nice to receive his medal.

In 1978, Grigory Margulis, because of restrictions placed on him by the Soviet government, was unable to travel to the congress in Helsinki to receive his medal. The award was accepted on his behalf by Jacques Tits, who said in his address: "I cannot but express my deep disappointment—no doubt shared by many people here—in the absence of Margulis from this ceremony. In view of the symbolic meaning of this city of Helsinki, I had indeed grounds to hope that I would have a chance at last to meet a mathematician whom I know only through his work and for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration."[92]

In 1982, the congress was due to be held in Warsaw  but had to be rescheduled to the next year, because of martial law introduced in Poland on 13 December 1981. The awards were announced at the ninth General Assembly of the IMU earlier in the year and awarded at the 1983 Warsaw congress.

In 1990, Edward Witten became the first  physicist to win the award.

In 1998, at the ICM, Andrew Wiles was presented by the chair of the Fields Medal Committee, Yuri I. Manin, with the first-ever IMU silver plaque in recognition of his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Don Zagier referred to the plaque as a "quantized Fields Medal". Accounts of this award frequently make reference that at the time of the award Wiles was over the age limit for the Fields medal.[93]  Although Wiles was slightly over the age limit in 1994, he was thought to be a favorite to win the medal; however, a gap (later resolved by Taylor and Wiles) in the proof was found in 1993.[94][95]

In 2006, Grigori Perelman, who proved the Poincaré conjecture, refused his Fields Medal[7] and did not attend the congress.[96]

In 2014, Maryam Mirzakhani became the first woman as well as the first Iranian, Artur Avila the first South American and Manjul Bhargava the first person of Indian origins to win the Fields Medal.

The medal was designed by Canadian sculptor R. Tait McKenzie.[97]

Translation: "Mathematicians gathered from the entire world have awarded [understood but not written: 'this prize'] for outstanding writings."

In the background, there is the representation of Archimedes' tomb, with the carving illustrating his theorem On the Sphere and Cylinder,  behind a branch. (This is the mathematical result of which Archimedes was reportedly most proud: Given a sphere and a circumscribed cylinder of the same height and diameter, the ratio between their volumes is equal to â…”.)

The rim bears the name of the prizewinner.

In terms of the most prestigious awards in STEM fields, only a small proportion have been awarded to women. The Fields Medal was obtained for the first time by a woman, Maryam Mirzakhani fromÂ Iran, in 2014 out of a total of (at the time) 56 medalists.[99][100]


where was the movie days of heaven filmed

Production began in the fall of 1976.[11] Although the film was set in Texas, the exteriors were shot in Whiskey Gap, Alberta, a ghost town, and a final scene was shot on the grounds of Heritage Park Historical Village, Calgary.[12]

Days of Heaven

Days of Heaven is a 1978 American romantic drama film written and directed by Terrence Malick and starring Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, Sam Shepard, and Linda Manz. Set in 1916, it tells the story of Bill and Abby, lovers who travel to the Texas Panhandle to harvest crops for a wealthy farmer. Bill encourages Abby to claim the fortune of the dying farmer by tricking him into a false marriage.

Days of Heaven was Malick's second feature film, after the enthusiastically received Badlands (1973), and was produced on a budget of $3,000,000. Production was particularly troublesome, with a tight shooting schedule and significant budget constraints. Additionally, editing took Malick a lengthy three years, due to difficulty with achieving a general flow and assembly of the scenes. This was eventually solved with an added, improvised narration by Linda Manz.[3] The film was scored by Ennio Morricone and photographed by Néstor Almendros and Haskell Wexler.

Days of Heaven received positive reviews on its original theatrical release; its photography was widely praised, although a small number of critics considered only this aspect to be worthy of high praise.[4] It was not a significant commercial success, but did win an Academy Award for Best Cinematography along with three nominations for the score, costume design and sound. Malick also won the Best Director Award at the Cannes Film Festival.

Days of Heaven has since become one of the most acclaimed films of its decade,[5] noted particularly for its cinematography. In 2007, it was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". It continues to appear in polls of the best films ever made, and appeared at #49 on a BBC poll of the greatest American films.[6]

In 1916,[7] Bill (Gere), a Chicago manual laborer, knocks down and kills a boss (Margolin) in the steel mill where he works. He flees to the Texas Panhandle with his girlfriend Abby (Adams) and his young sister Linda (Manz). Bill and Abby pretend to be siblings to prevent gossip. The three hire on as part of a large group of seasonal workers with a rich, shy farmer (Shepard). Bill overhears a doctor apparently telling the farmer he has only a year to live, although the nature of the illness isn't specified.

After the farmer falls in love with Abby, Bill encourages her to marry him so they can inherit his money after he dies. The marriage takes place and Bill stays on the farm as Abby's "brother". The farmer's foreman suspects their scheme. The farmer's health unexpectedly remains stable, foiling Bill's plans. Eventually, the farmer discovers Bill's true relationship with Abby. At the same time, Abby has begun to fall in love with her husband. After a locust swarm and a fire destroy his wheat fields, the incensed farmer goes after Bill with a gun but Bill kills him with a screwdriver, fleeing with Abby and Linda. The foreman and the police pursue and eventually find them. Bill is killed by the police. Abby inherits the farmer's money and leaves Linda at a boarding school. Abby leaves town on a train with soldiers departing for World War I. Linda runs away from school with a friend.

Jacob Brackman introduced fellow producer Bert Schneider to Terrence Malick in 1975.[8] On a trip to Cuba, Schneider and Malick began conversations that would lead to the development of Days of Heaven. Malick had tried and failed to get Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino to star in the film.[9] Schneider agreed to produce the film. He and Malick cast young actors Richard Gere and Brooke Adams and actor/playwright Sam Shepard for the lead roles. Paramount Pictures CEO at the time Barry Diller wanted Schneider to produce films for him and agreed to finance Days of Heaven. At the time, the studio was heading in a new direction. They were hiring new production heads who had worked in network television and, according to former production chief Richard Sylbert, "[manufacturing] product aimed at your knees".[8] Despite the change in direction, Schneider was able to secure a deal with Paramount by guaranteeing the budget and taking personal responsibility for all overages. "Those were the kind of deals I liked to make... because then I could have final cut and not talk to nobody about why we're gonna use this person instead of that person", Schneider said.[8]

Malick admired cinematographer Néstor Almendros' work on The Wild Child (1970) and wanted him to shoot Days of Heaven.[10] Almendros was impressed by Malick's knowledge of photography and willingness to use little studio lighting. The two men modeled the film's cinematography after silent films, which often used natural light. They drew inspiration from painters such as Johannes Vermeer, Edward Hopper (particularly his House by the Railroad), and Andrew Wyeth, as well as photo-reporters from the start of the 20th century.[10]

Jack Fisk designed and built the mansion from plywood in the wheat fields and the smaller houses where the workers lived. The mansion was not a facade, as was normally the custom, but authentically recreated inside and out with period colors: brown, mahogany and dark wood for the interiors.[10] Patricia Norris designed and made the period costumes from used fabrics and old clothes to avoid the artificial look of studio-made costumes.[10]

According to Almendros, the production was not "rigidly prepared", allowing for improvisation. Daily call sheets were not very detailed and the schedule changed to suit the weather. This upset some Hollywood crew members not used to working this way. Most of the crew were used to a "glossy style of photography" and felt frustrated because Almendros did not give them much work.[10] On a daily basis, he asked them to turn off the lights they had prepared for him. Some crew members said that Almendros and Malick did not know what they were doing. The tension led to some of the crew quitting the production. Malick supported what Almendros was doing and pushed the look of the film further, taking away more lighting aids, and leaving the image bare.[10]

Due to union regulations in North America, Almendros was not allowed to operate the camera. With Malick, he would plan out and rehearse movements of the camera and the actors. Almendros would stand near the main camera and give instructions to the camera operators.[10] Almendros was gradually losing his sight by the time shooting began. To evaluate his set-ups, "he had one of his assistants take Polaroids of the scene, then examined them through very strong glasses".[8] According to Almendros, Malick wanted "a very visual movie. The story would be told through visuals. Very few people really want to give that priority to image. Usually the director gives priority to the actors and the story, but here the story was told through images".[13]

Much of the film would be shot during magic hour, which Almendros called: "a euphemism, because it's not an hour but around 25 minutes at the most. It is the moment when the sun sets, and after the sun sets and before it is night. The sky has light, but there is no actual sun. The light is very soft, and there is something magic about it. It limited us to around twenty minutes a day, but it did pay on the screen. It gave some kind of magic look, a beauty and romanticism."[13] Lighting was integral to filming and helped evoke the painterly quality of the landscapes in the film. A vast majority of the scenes were filmed late in the afternoon or after sunset, with the sky silhouetting the actors faces, which would otherwise be difficult to see.[14] Interior scenes that feature light coming in from the outside, were shot using artificial light to maintain the consistency of that intruding light. The "magic look", however, would also extend to interior scenes, which did occasionally utilize natural light.

For the shot in the "locusts" sequence, where the insects rise into the sky, the film-makers dropped peanut shells from helicopters. They had the actors walk backwards while running the film in reverse through the camera. When it was projected, everything moved forward except the locusts.[15] For the close-ups and insert shots, thousands of live locusts were used which had been captured and supplied by Canada's Department of Agriculture.[10]

While the photography yielded the director satisfactory results critically, the rest of the production was difficult from the start.[11] The actors and crew reportedly viewed Malick as cold and distant. After two weeks of shooting, Malick was so disappointed with the dailies, he "decided to toss the script, go Leo Tolstoy instead of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, wide instead of deep [and] shoot miles of film with the hope of solving the problems in the editing room."[11]

The harvesting machines constantly broke down, which resulted in shooting beginning late in the afternoon, allowing for only a few hours of light before it was too dark to go on. One day, two helicopters were scheduled to drop peanut shells that were to simulate locusts on film; however, Malick decided to shoot period cars instead. He kept the helicopters on hold at great cost. Production was lagging behind, with costs exceeding the budget $3,000,000 by about $800,000, and Schneider had already mortgaged his home in order to cover the overages.[11][16]

The production ran so late that both Almendros and camera operator John Bailey had to leave due to a prior commitment on François Truffaut's The Man Who Loved Women (1977). Almendros approached cinematographer Haskell Wexler to complete the film. They worked together for a week so that Wexler could get familiar with the film's visual style.[10]

Wexler was careful to match Almendros' work, but he did make some exceptions. "I did some hand held shots on a Panaflex", he said, "[for] the opening of the film in the steel mill. I used some diffusion. Nestor didn't use any diffusion. I felt very guilty using the diffusion and having the feeling of violating a fellow cameraman."[13] Although half the finished picture was footage shot by Wexler, he received only credit for "additional photography", much to his chagrin. The credit denied him any chance of an Academy Award for his work on Days of Heaven. Wexler sent film critic Roger Ebert a letter "in which he described sitting in a theater with a stop-watch to prove that more than half of the footage" was his.[17]

Following the completion of principal photography, the editing process took more than two years to complete.[14][18] Malick had a difficult time shaping the film and getting the pieces to go together.[19] Schneider reportedly showed some footage to director Richard Brooks, who was considering Gere for a role in Looking for Mr. Goodbar.

According to Schneider, the editing for Days of Heaven took so long that "Brooks cast Gere, shot, edited and released [Looking for Mr. Goodbar] while Malick was still editing".[11] A breakthrough came when Malick experimented with voice-overs from Linda Manz's character, similar to what he had done with Sissy Spacek in Badlands. According to editor Billy Weber, Malick jettisoned much of the film's dialogue, replacing it with Manz's voice-over, which served as an oblique commentary on the story.[11] After a year, Malick had to call the actors to Los Angeles, California to shoot inserts of shots that were necessary but had not been filmed in Alberta. The finished film thus includes close-ups of Shepard that were shot under a freeway overpass. The underwater shot of Gere's falling face down into the river was shot in a large aquarium in Spacek's living room.[12]

Meanwhile, Schneider was disappointed with Malick. He had confronted Malick numerous times about missed deadlines and broken promises. Due to further cost overruns, he had to ask Paramount for more money, which he preferred not to do. When they screened a demo for Paramount and made their pitch, the studio was impressed and reportedly "gave Malick a very sweet deal at the studio, carte blanche, essentially".[11] Malick was not able to capitalize on the deal. He was so exhausted from working on the film that he moved to Paris with his girlfriend. He tried developing another project for Paramount, but after a substantial amount of work, he abandoned it. He did not make another film until 1998's The Thin Red Line twenty years later.[19]

The soundtrack for Days of Heaven is a strong reflection of the film's context. Ennio Morricone provided the film's score and received his first Academy Award nomination in his soundtrack composing career for his work on the film.[20] Morricone recalled the process as being "demanding" and said of Malick: "He didn't know me very well, so he made suggestions, and in some cases, gave musical solutions. This kind of annoyed me because he'd say: 'This thing... try it with three flutes.' Something impossible! So, to humor him, I would do it with three flutes and then he'd decide to use my version after all. His was impossible or I would have written it myself. And more nitpicking like that which means he was very attentive and careful about music."[21]

The score centers around three main themes: the main theme, which references “Aquarium", the seventh movement from Camille Saint-Saëns’s Carnival of the Animals, a "pastoral melody" for flute, and finally a love theme. The soundtrack was remastered and re-released in July 2011 on the Film Score Monthly label, in a two-disc edition and featuring excerpts of Manz's narration.[22]

Additional songs were contributed by guitarist Leo Kottke. Kottke was originally approached by Malick for the entire score, but declined.[23]

Days of Heaven opened theatrically on September 13, 1978. It later premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, in 1979, where Malick won the award for Best Directorâ€”making him the first American director to win the award since Jules Dassin in 1955 for Rififi (in a joint win shared with two other directors). The film was a commercial failure: its box office gross of $3,446,749 was only slightly more than it cost to make the film ($3 million),[citation needed] but Charles Bluhdorn who ran Paramount's parent company Gulf + Western, loved it so much he offered Malick $1 million for his next project, whatever it was.[24]

Critical reaction initially varied. Many critics found the film visually beautiful, but others found a flaw in the perceived weakness of its story. Dave Kehr of The Chicago Reader offered a positive review and wrote: "Terrence Malick's remarkably rich second feature is a story of human lives touched and passed over by the divine, told in a rush of stunning and precise imagery. Nestor Almendros's cinematography is as sharp and vivid as Malick's narration is elliptical and enigmatic. The result is a film that hovers just beyond our graspâ€”mysterious, beautiful, and, very possibly, a masterpiece".[25] Variety called the film "one of the great cinematic achievements of the 1970s."[26] Gene Siskel of The Chicago Tribune also wrote that the film "truly tests a film critic's power of description... Some critics have complained that the Days of Heaven story is too slight. I suppose it is, but, frankly, you don't think about it while the movie is playing".[27] Time magazine's Frank Rich wrote, "Days of Heaven is lush with brilliant images".[28] The periodical went on to name it one of the best films of 1978.[29] Nick Schager of Slant Magazine has called it "the greatest film ever made."[30]

Meanwhile, detractors targeted the film's direction of storyline and structure. In his review for The New York Times, Harold C. Schonberg wrote, "Days of Heaven never really makes up its mind what it wants to be. It ends up something between a Texas pastoral and Cavalleria Rusticana. Back of what basically is a conventional plot is all kinds of fancy, self-conscious cineaste techniques."[31] Additionally, Monica Eng of the Chicago Tribune criticized the lack of significant plot and stated "the story becomes secondary to the visuals".[32]

The Chicago Sun-Timesâ€™ Roger Ebert responded to these criticisms by saying:

Terrence Malick's "Days of Heaven" has been praised for its painterly images and evocative score, but criticized for its muted emotions: Although passions erupt in a deadly love triangle, all the feelings are somehow held at arm's length. This observation is true enough, if you think only about the actions of the adults in the story. But watching this 1978 film again recently, I was struck more than ever with the conviction that this is the story of a teenage girl, told by her, and its subject is the way that hope and cheer have been beaten down in her heart. We do not feel the full passion of the adults because it is not her passion: It is seen at a distance, as a phenomenon, like the weather, or the plague of grasshoppers that signals the beginning of the end.[33]

Days of Heaven was re-evaluated years after its original theatrical release and is now considered a pioneering achievement in cinema. The film holds a 94% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes with an average rating of 8.3/10 based on 48 reviews, as well as a 93/100 weighted average score on Metacritic.[34] It is frequently cited by critics and scholars, including Roger Ebert, as one of the most visually arresting films ever made;[4][35][36] in 1997, Ebert added Days of Heaven to his Great Movies list.[37] In 2007, the Library of Congress selected the film for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

In 2012, TIME included the film among the 20 new entries added to the magazine's "All-TIME 100 Movies" list.[38] The same year, Days of Heaven ranked #112 in the British Film Institute's decennial Sight & Sound critics' poll of the greatest films ever made,[39] and #132 in the directors' poll of the same magazine.

The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematography. Per Academy custom, the award was given in the name of principal photographer Néstor Almendros.[19] This was somewhat controversial, as Haskell Wexler also received credit on the film. The film was also nominated for three Academy Awards: the Costume Design, Original Score, and Sound (John Wilkinson, Robert W. Glass, Jr., John T. Reitz, and Barry Thomas).[40] Malick won the Prix de la mise en scène (Best Director award) at the 1979 Cannes Film Festival.[41] Furthermore, he was named the best director by the National Society of Film Critics.

American Film Institute recognition

Days of Heaven has been released on home video on various different formats over the years. Its first notable release was on home video in the early 1980s, followed by various reissues in the 1980s and 1990s. In particular, the film was released on a special widescreen edition format on home video to preserve the film's original theatrical aspect ratio, which was uncommon for videotapes at the time, with majority of them being pan and scan, a technique that crops a portion of the image to focus on the more important composition. This often results in the side being cut out and the middle centre being the only remaining part. Days of Heaven premiered on DVD on March 30, 1999 with no special features. The feature itself was presented in widescreen and released by Paramount Pictures, the copyright owner of the film itself. It was rereleased on DVD in 2004, again without special supplements.

In 2007, the Criterion Collection released an exclusive special edition of the film, with digitally remastered sound and picture, supervised by Malick, editor Billy Weber and camera operator John Bailey. Bonus features include an audio commentary by art director Jack Fisk, editor Billy Weber, costume designer Patricia Norris, and casting director Dianne Crittenden; an audio interview with Richard Gere; video interviews with Sam Shepard, Haskell Wexler, and John Bailey; and a booklet featuring an essay on the film by Adrian Martin and an extract from NÃ©stor Almendros' autobiography.[45] The Criterion Collection also released a Blu-ray disc format of the film on March 7, 2010, with the same special features. The design art created by Criterion for the film's packaging marks a departure from the early video releases, featuring a still of Gere's character in the wheat fields, with the mansion in the horizon.


when was the first cuisinart food processor made

Cuisinart is an American home appliance brand owned by Conair Corporation. The company was started in 1971 by Carl Sontheimer to bring an electric food processor to the US market.[1] The "Food Processor" was the first model, introduced at the National Housewares Exposition in Chicago in 1973 and released in Canada in 1975.[2]

Cuisinart

In 1986, Cuisinart introduced a chopper/grinder (the Mini-Mate) and has since expanded to include a wide variety of products.[1]  Cuisinart became the property of Conair Corporation in 1989.[3]

A partial list of Cuisinart products includes:[1]

Cuisinart products are available in upscale department and specialty stores nationwide.[1]

The Cuisinart line was started by Carl Sontheimer and his wife Shirley Sontheimer. Carl Sontheimer trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He owned and operated Amzac Electronics, until he sold it in 1967.[4] Sontheimer decided to manufacture food processors after seeing a demonstration in France in 1971. With his engineering knowledge and passion for cooking, Sontheimer's food processor could reduce time spent preparing and cooking meals.[1] Sontheimer started by taking apart the prototype machine and making refinements to parts such as the feeding tube, cutting blade, and discs.[1] Sontheimer introduced the food processor at the National Housewares Exposition in Chicago in 1973.

Starting out, Sontheimer's device sold poorly. He tried marketing his food processor to department stores and grocery stores, but to the public it looked like nothing more than a high priced super blender. By 1975, culinary authorities such as James Beard, Julia Child, Craig Claiborne, Jacques Pepin and Helen McCully were using Cuisinart products publicly,[1] causing a sharp rise in the popularity of the food processor. Their endorsements were noted in Gourmet magazine and The New York Times. Two years later in 1977, Cuisinart experienced a sharp rise in sales from a few units per month to several hundred.[1] Cuisinart was first in the market that it created for itself. Eva Pomice, a writer for Forbes said that "With marketing savvy and a credible product, [the Sontheimers] were able to dominate the upper end of the food processor business against such top competitors as Moulinex and Robot-Coupe. Sontheimer did it by making the Cuisinart name synonymous with top quality and price." [1] Company analyst concluded that Cuisinart graduated from selling a few food processors a month to about 150,000-250,000 in 1976. By 1977, Cuisinart's sales reached $50 million.

Since the Robot-Coupe company no longer distributed Cuisinart's food processors, it launched a product of its own in 1978. The French company designed U.S ads that read "It used to be pronounced Cuisinart". Promotional battles spilled over into the 1980s. After battling via slanderous advertisements, a lawsuit ensued, and Robot-Coupe was ordered to stop insinuating Cuisinart sold products manufactured by Robot-Coupe.[1]

Regardless of legal troubles, Cuisinart introduced six new products by 1982. These new products had bigger blades, more attachments, and more features. One of the six models sold for $600 retail price. Expanding the diversity of food processor products was Cuisinart's way of creating variety within their market. Critics felt that this wasn't the kind of diversity they needed, that Cuisinart needed to look outside of the world of food processors, and begin broadening their marketplace there. Kerry Hannon, a writer for Forbes commented that  "Sontheimer's market blindness... kept him from capitalizing on the quality of image that the Cuisinart name conveyed. He introduced a line of high-priced cookware into a jam-packed and fading market. But more natural line extensions like blenders, for example, eluded him."[1]

By 1988, Cuisinart had established itself as a premier North American houseware brand; the introduction of the Mini-Mate chopper-grinder (the first Cuisinart product that was not a food-processor[1]) helped maintain that position. In 1989, the Sontheimers sold the company to a group of investors for $60 million.[4] The company was eventually renamed to 'Cuisinart, Inc' and sold again, this time to Conair Corporation in 1989. Cuisinart remains a Conair brand to this day.[1]


what is a zebra crossing called in the uk

In the United Kingdom, it is the law that motorists give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings (Rule 195 of The Highway Code). They were introduced in the late 1940s and '50s to tackle high death rates of pedestrians crossing roads.[citation needed] For over 60 years they have been recognized as a safe place for pedestrians to cross but more recently, some drivers are failing to give way to pedestrians. It is believed that hundreds of people have died at the crossings and thousands more have been injured. This has prompted some councils to install enforcement cameras at the crossings to catch offenders.

Zebra crossing

A zebra crossing is a type of pedestrian crossing used in many places around the world. Its distinguishing feature is alternating dark and light stripes on the road surface, resembling the coat of a zebra. A zebra crossing typically gives priority to rights of way to pedestrians.

The crossing is characterised by longitudinal stripes on the road, parallel to the flow of the traffic, alternately a light colour and a dark one. The similarity of these markings to those of a zebra give the crossing's name. The light colour is usually white and the dark colour may be painted – in which case black is typical – or left unpainted if the road surface itself is dark. The stripes are typically 40–60 cm (16–24 in) wide.

In the United Kingdom the crossing is marked with Belisha beacons, flashing amber globes on black and white posts on each side of the road, named after Leslie Hore-Belisha, the Minister of Transport, who introduced them in 1934. Pedestrians have a right of way when they step onto the crossing: The Highway Code states that road traffic "MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing."[1]

In other countries, zebra crossings are also used on pedestrian crossings controlled by traffic signals.[2][citation needed]

Although the origin of the name is disputed, it is generally attributed to British M.P. James Callaghan who, in 1948, visited the country's Transport Research Laboratory which was working on a new idea for safe pedestrian crossings. On being shown a black and white design, Callaghan is said to have remarked that it resembled a zebra.[3]

Crossings were originally marked by beacons and parallel rows of studs. After isolated experiments, the zebra crossing was first used at 1000 sites in the United Kingdom in 1949 in its original form of alternating strips of blue and yellow, and a 1951 measure introduced them into law. In 1971, the Green Cross Code was introduced to teach children safer crossing habits, replacing the earlier "kerb drill".

The lines of a zebra crossing are commonly laid down by a road marking machine. Because the width of crossing lines is wider than other traffic lines, the marking shoe of a zebra cross marking machine is accordingly wider. The machine is hand pushed.[4]

In the United Kingdom, lollipop men or women (School Crossing Patrols) frequently attend zebra crossings near schools, at the hours when schoolchildren arrive and leave. Their widely used nickname arose because of the warning sign they hold up as they stop traffic. It's a large round disc on a long pole and thus resembles a giant lollipop, although they were originally of a square design.

In Germany, Scandinavia, and most other European countries, pedestrians have right of way if they are still on the curb but about to enter the zebra crossing.

In North America, zebra crossings are almost exclusively called (marked) crosswalks[5] and often do not incorporate stripes. In some areas, marked crosswalks are the only places where it is legal to cross the road (see jaywalking).[6]

In New Zealand, motorists are required to give way to pedestrians. Pedestrians wishing to cross the road within 20 metres of a crossing facility (which includes zebra crossings) must use a crossing facility.[7]

In Australia, raised zebra crossings are often called Wombat Crossings.[8]

A 1998 Swedish study by A VÃ¡rhelyi at Lund University found that the frequency of giving way at zebra crossings was 5% and drivers typically did not observe the law concerning speed behaviour at the zebra crossing. Speed behaviour in encounters (148 observations), non-encounters with pedestrian presence (642 observations) and situations without pedestrian presence (690 observations) were compared.

Three out of four drivers maintained the same speed or accelerated and only one out of four slowed down or braked. The study concluded that encounters between cars and pedestrians at the zebra crossing were critical situations in which the driver had to be influenced before he reached the decision zone at 50 to 40 m before the zebra crossing, in order to prevent "signalling by speed" behaviour.[9]

In Switzerland yellow stripes are used for pedestrian crossings. Unlike with yellow "tiger crossings" in the UK, however, cyclists are required to dismount to cross.

In the United Kingdom, a fine of £100 and three licence penalty points is given to those failing to give way at the crossings. Such a penalty has attracted criticisms of leniency when compared to other countries which enforce fines of up to £2,000.[10] For failing to give way at a zebra crossing patrolled by a school crossing patrol ("lollipop man/lady" as they are commonly called), however, the penalty rises to £1,000 and a minimum of three licence points, with the possibility even of disqualification.[11] In the United Kingdom, motorists have to stop for a crossing patrol, even when it is not on a pedestrian crossing.[12][13]

In the United Kingdom, problems with zebra crossings have been discussed by the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain.[14]

A tiger crossing is a variation used in Hong Kong, and formerly (experimentally) in the United Kingdom. It is painted yellow and black. In the United Kingdom, it allowed cyclists to cross in a central area of the road without dismounting, and obliged motorists to give way to both cyclists and pedestrians. Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire experimented with tiger crossings during 2006â€“2007, but replaced them with toucan crossings.[15]

A zebra crossing appears on the cover of The Beatles' Abbey Road album. It made it a tourist attraction, and it has been incorporated into the Abbey Road Studios logo. Since the Abbey Road photo was taken, zigzag lines at the kerb and in the centre of the road have been added to all zebra crossings to indicate the no-stopping zones on either side. The band Shriekback's album Sacred City contains an entire song, "Beatles Zebra Crossing?", about the Abbey Road zebra crossing and its status as a tourist attraction. English Heritage has given this crossing Grade II listed building status.[16]

There is also a tongue-in-cheek reference to zebra crossings in the science-fiction comedy The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by English author Douglas Adams, in reference to Man using the improbable creature called the Babel fish as proof of the non-existence of God; the novel says, "Man then goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing."

The La Paz traffic zebras is a team of young people who dress in zebra costumes and dance in the streets of La Paz, Bolivia in order to make drivers and pedestrians aware of traffic rules.

A zebra crossing immediately outside the Russian Embassy in Helsinki was painted in summer 2013 with the colours of the rainbow in protest the Russian government's policy towards lesbian and gay people, the rainbow being one symbol of the LGBT culture.

A similar protest has also been made on a zebra crossing near the Russian Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden.[citation needed]

Yellow zebra crossing in Switzerland

A zebra crossing outside the Russian Embassy, Helsinki painted with a rainbow.


what is the song goodbye yellow brick road about

The Yellow Brick Road is an image taken from the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz. In the movie, Dorothy and her friends are instructed to follow the yellow brick road in search of the Wizard of Oz, only to find that they had what they were looking for all along. The road leads to the Emerald City in the land of Oz, often referred to as a metaphor for "The road that leads to life's fantasies" or "The road that leads to life's answers." The lyrics describe wanting to go back to a simpler existence after living what the narrator thought was the good life, but realizing they had simply been treated like a pet.

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (song)

"Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" is a ballad performed by musician Elton John. Lyrics for the song were written by Bernie Taupin and the music composed by John for his album Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. Its musical style and production were heavily influenced by 1970s soft rock. It was widely praised by critics, and some critics have named it John's best song.[1]

The song was released in 1973 as the album's second single, and entered the Top Ten in both the United Kingdom and the United States. It was one of John's biggest hits, and surpassed the previous single, "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting", in sales and popularity quickly following its release. In the US, it was certified Gold on 4 January 1974 and Platinum on 13 September 1995 by the RIAA.[citation needed]

The Wizard of Oz was reportedly the first film that Elton John's songwriting partner Bernie Taupin had ever seen, and he used the imagery in the lyrics relating to his own life as his desire to "get back to [his] roots".[citation needed]

"Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" received generally positive response from music critics. Janis Schacht of Circus describes it as "delicate and beautiful".[2] Allmusic writes that the song is "a vocal triumph" and a "pinnacle of its style".[1] In 2010, Rolling Stone magazine ranked it No. 380 in their list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.[3]

In Canada, the single reached No.1 on the RPM 100 national singles chart on 22 December 1973 and held the position for one week,[4] making it John's third No.1 in the year 1973 in that country (following "Crocodile Rock" and "Daniel"). It entered the US charts at No. 62, the highest debut of that week and in seven weeks rose to the No. 2 spot (8 December 1973), where it stayed for three weeks.[citation needed] In Ireland, it reached No. 4; in the UK it peaked at No. 6.[5]

The song's flip side is a song called "Screw You", though the US release re-titled the song "Young Man's Blues" so as not to offend American record buyers.

John's One Night Only: The Greatest Hits Live at Madison Square Garden had this song done as a duet with Billy Joel.

"Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" is still regularly included in John's live performances, although since 1997 he has transposed the key of the song downward (from F major to E-flat major) due to no longer being able to sing its high falsetto chorus.[citation needed]

On 12 November 2010, he performed the song live at Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas.[citation needed]

The song is featured in Stephen King's 1981 novel Roadwork.

The song was performed by Camile Velasco on the third season of American Idol for the Elton John theme night; she was eliminated after her performance.

The band Keane (with Faultline) covered the song for the Help: A Day in the Life compilation around 2005.

Australian artist Sarah Blasko recorded an acoustic version of the song, which can be found on Triple J's 2006 Like a Version (vol. #2).

Rapper RZA stated that he listened to the song "at least ten times a day" while making the film The Man with the Iron Fists.[18]

On rapper Raekwon's 2009 album Only Built 4 Cuban Linx... Pt. II, RZA, a close friend of John's, sampled the song on the track "Kiss the Ring". John has allowed few other instances of sampling of his music.

On 13 November 2010, Matt Cardle sang "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" on Elton John night of Series 7 of The X Factor in the UK.

There is a Dream Theater version of this song, yet it has not been officially released.[19]

Casey Crescenzo of The Dear Hunter released a cover version of the song.

Sara Bareilles often covers the song live and released a piano & solo voice, down-tempo version on Brave Enough: Live at the Variety Playhouse as the concert-ending track.

The song was featured in David O. Russell's film American Hustle and the film's soundtrack. It also features in the 1990s British television series "Our Friends in the North" and Thomas Vinterberg's 2016 film "The Commune". Additionally it is featured in Lars Von Trier's film "Breaking the Waves".

The song was used in a wordless montage sequence in the fifth season finale of The Americans[20].

Progressive rock band Transatlantic covered this song on their 2014 album Kaleidoscope, on disc 2 of the special edition.

An instrumental version of the song as featured on an episode of Japanese variety show AKBingo!, during comments about "heart-warming" story from Ali Takajo's grandfather.

Country singer Hunter Hayes covered the song for the 40th Anniversary deluxe edition of Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.[21]

In July 2008, Ben & Jerry's created a limited-batch ice cream flavor, Goodbye Yellow Brickle Road, in honor of an Elton John performance in Vermont. Sales proceeds were donated to the Elton John AIDS Foundation.[22]


what is the name for the safeguard that gives each branch of government power over the others

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating  in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined abilities to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as Montesquieu advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the opinions of the framers of the United States Constitution.

Strict separation of powers did not operate in the United Kingdom, the political structure of which served in most instances as a model for the government created by the U.S. Constitution.[citation needed]

Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the Governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as Vice Presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."

Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. The city of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.

Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power is given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."

Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. The United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.

Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications,[1] in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission (created by the War Claims Act of 1948), the Interstate Commerce Commission,and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.

Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetos without a 2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.

Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."

Congress may establish "legislative courts," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. In Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate "public rights" questions (cases between the government and an individual and political determinations).

The president exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. The Vice President serves as president of the Senate, but he may only vote to break a tie.

The president, as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent.  He also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves.  Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient.  The President is not mandated to carry out the orders of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court does not have any enforcement power; the enforcement power lies solely with the executive branch.  Thus, the executive branch can place a check on the Supreme Court through refusal to execute the orders of the court.  For example,  in Worcester v. Georgia, President Jackson refused to execute the orders of the Supreme Court.

The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis.[2] However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office.

Courts check both the executive branch and the legislative branch through judicial review. This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, The Federalist Papers mention it). The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political realities in the particular case paradoxically restrained opposing views from asserting themselves. For this reason, precedent alone established the principle that a court may strike down a law it deems unconstitutional.

A common misperception is that the Supreme Court is the only court that may determine constitutionality; the power is exercised even by the inferior courts. But only Supreme Court decisions are binding across the nation. Decisions of a Court of Appeals, for instance, are binding only in the circuit over which the court has jurisdiction.

The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls.

The Chief Justice presides in the Senate during a president's impeachment trial. The rules of the Senate, however, generally do not grant much authority to the presiding officer. Thus, the Chief Justice's role in this regard is a limited one.

The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

One may claim that the judiciary has historically been the weakest of the three branches. In fact, its power to exercise judicial review—its sole meaningful check on the other two branches—is not explicitly granted by the U.S Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court exercised its power to strike down congressional acts as unconstitutional only twice prior to the Civil War: in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). The Supreme Court has since then made more extensive use of judicial review.

Throughout America's history dominance of one of the three branches has essentially been a see-saw struggle between Congress and the president. Both have had periods of great power and weakness such as immediately after the Civil War when republicans had a majority in Congress and were able to pass major legislation and shoot down most of the president's vetoes. They also passed acts to essentially make the president subordinate to Congress, such as the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson's later impeachment also cost the presidency much political power. However the president has also exercised greater power largely during the 20th century. Both Roosevelts greatly expanded the powers of the president and wielded great power during their terms.

The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed 12 billsâ€”more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." Congress, however, managed to override fifteen of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the Tenure of Office Act. The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the president would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a de facto prime minister. Grover Cleveland, the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. During his first term, he vetoed over 400 billsâ€”twice as many bills as his 21 predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Overall, this meant that Cleveland's Administration marked the end of presidential subordination.

Several 20th-century presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the president was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the lawâ€”in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. Congress had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority; in Panama Refining v. Ryan, the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The aforementioned Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a "Court Packing" plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the president to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.

Richard Nixon used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight; furthermore, he impounded federal funds (that is to say, he refused to spend money that Congress had appropriated for government programs). In the specific cases aforementioned, however, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon. This was also because of an ongoing criminal investigation into the Watergate tapes, even though they acknowledged the general need for executive privilege. Since then, Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security or that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. Though such claims have in general been more limited than Nixon's, one may still conclude that the presidency's power has been greatly augmented since the 18th and 19th centuries.

Many political scientists believe that separation of powers is a decisive factor in what they see as a limited degree of American exceptionalism. In particular, John W. Kingdon made this argument, claiming that separation of powers contributed to the development of a unique political structure in the United States. He attributes the unusually large number of interest groups active in the United States, in part, to the separation of powers; it gives groups more places to try to influence, and creates more potential group activity. He also cites its complexity as one of the reasons for lower citizen participation.[citation needed]

Separation of powers has again become a current issue of some controversy concerning debates about judicial independence and political efforts to increase the accountability of judges for the quality of their work, avoiding conflicts of interest, and charges that some judges allegedly disregard procedural rules, statutes, and higher court precedents.

Many legislators hold the view that separation of powers means that powers are shared among different branches; no one branch may act unilaterally on issues (other than perhaps minor questions), but must obtain some form of agreement across branches. That is, it is argued that "checks and balances" apply to the Judicial branch as well as to the other branchesâ€”for example, in the regulation of attorneys and judges, and the establishment by Congress of rules for the conduct of federal courts, and by state legislatures for state courts. Although in practice these matters are delegated to the Supreme Court, the Congress holds these powers and delegates them to the Supreme Court only for convenience in light of the Supreme Court's expertise, but can withdraw that delegation at any time.

On the other side of this debate, many judges hold the view that separation of powers means that the Judiciary is independent and untouchable within the judicial sphere. In this view, separation of powers means that the Judiciary alone holds all powers relative to the judicial function and that the Legislative and Executive branches may not interfere in any aspect of the Judicial branch. An example of the second view at the state level is found in the Florida Supreme Court holding that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts.[citation needed] The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.[citation needed]


where is the hospital for special surgery located

Located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, HSS is built over the Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) drive and partially located in the Belaire building at 535 East 70th Street. Currently HSS has 205 beds and 29 operating rooms. HSS recently completed the construction of a new, ninth floor that adds 85,000 square feet (7,900 m2) of new space and 100,000 square feet (10,000 m2) of re-engineered and re-designed space.

Hospital for Special Surgery

Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) is a hospital in New York City that specializes in orthopedic surgery and the treatment of rheumatologic conditions.[1][2]

Founded in 1863 by James Knight, HSS is the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States and is considered one of the top hospitals in the world for joint replacement.[3] The hospital also performs the most knee replacement surgeries of any hospital in the United States.[4] Todd Albert, M.D. serves as the medical director and surgeon-in-chief, and Louis Shapiro serves as its president and chief executive officer.

Additional areas of expertise at HSS include spine surgery and sports medicine.[5] HSS physicians with a subspecialty training in the field of spine surgery focus on patients who suffer from congenital or acute spinal disorders as well as from chronic back pain. The sports medicine services at HSS treat athletic injuries of the musculoskeletal system with a special focus on shoulder, elbow, and knee injuries.[6]

In addition, orthopedic surgeons at HSS perform limb lengthening, a procedure that uses the body's capacity to create new bone as well as the soft tissues, ligaments, blood vessels, and nerves that surround and support it.

HSS also offers professional medical education programs, including continuing medical education lecture series, conferences and symposia. Services are available in person at the New York facility and remotely worldwide through the Grand Rounds partnership "eConsult" platform.[7]

The hospital has 327 active medical staff.[8]

Current clinical trials focus on issues related to lupus and arthritis. In addition to clinical trials, HSS has several research programs that center on the prevention of musculoskeletal diseases. Basic and applied research conducted at the hospital addresses specific problems such as arthritis, injury, osteoporosis, scoliosis, autoimmune diseases such as lupus, and related musculoskeletal diseases as they affect children and adults.

The Hospital for Special Surgery is affiliated with the NewYork-Presbyterian Healthcare System through the hospital's affiliation with Weill Cornell Medical College. The hospital is also affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Rockefeller University.

HSS has several specialized centers that focus on specific patients and joint problems, including:

HSS was founded in 1863 as the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled in the home of James Knight on Second Avenue, just south of 6th Street. It opened its doors to the first patient, a four-year-old boy with paralysis, on May 1, 1863. There were 28 beds available, all for children. Adults were treated as outpatients. In 1870 it moved to a newly constructed 200-bed building on the corner of 42nd street and Lexington Avenue. There was no operating room until 1888 after a hospital fire. At the turn of the century, it became the target for efforts to expand Grand Central Terminal and negotiations were led by Cornelius Vanderbilt, II, a member of the Board of Managers of the hospital. In 1912, the hospital moved to a six-story building on 42nd Street between First Avenue and Second Avenue that is now the home of the Ford Foundation. The hospital moved to its present location in 1955.[10][11]

Notable alumni include:


what are the 2 purposes of the preamble

A preamble is an introductory and expressionary statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy. When applied to the opening paragraphs of a statute, it may recite historical facts pertinent to the subject of the statute. It is distinct from the long title or enacting formula of a law.

Preamble

In parliamentary procedure using Robert's Rules of Order, a preamble consists of "Whereas" clauses that are placed before the resolving clauses in a resolution (formal written motion).[2] However, preambles are not required to be placed in resolutions.[2] According to Robert's Rules of Order, including such background information may not be helpful in passing the resolution.[2]

While preambles may be regarded as unimportant introductory matter, their words may have effects that may not have been foreseen by their drafters.

In France, the preamble to the constitution of the Fifth Republic of 1958 was considered ancillary and therefore non-binding until a major jurisprudential reversal by the Constitutional Council in a decision of 16 July 1971.[3] This decision, which began with the words "Having regard to the constitution and its preamble," affected a considerable change of French constitutional law, as the preamble and the texts it referred to, the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 and the preamble to the constitution of the Fourth Republic, took their place alongside the constitution proper as texts understood as being invested with constitutional value.

In Canada, the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 was cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Provincial Judges Reference, to increase guarantees to judicial independence. In India, the Supreme Court frequently rules unconstitutional amendments which violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution, especially its Preamble. The Bosnian Constitutional Court, particularly citing the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, also declared that the provisions of the preamble of the Bosnian Constitution are invested with a normative force thereby serving as a sound standard of judicial review for the Constitutional Court.[4]

Due to concern over its potential effects, the draft preamble of the proposed European Constitution, in 2002, caused much controversy because of the possible inclusion of a reference to the Christian heritage of Europe. Likewise, in Australia in 1999, a referendum on whether to adopt a new preamble was accompanied by a promise that the preamble, if adopted, could not be enforceable by the courts, as some were concerned with how the preamble could be interpreted and applied.[5]


how many miles is the garden route in south africa

The Garden Route (Afrikaans: Tuinroete) is a 300-kilometre (190Â mi)[1]stretch of the south-western coast of South Africa which extends from Mossel Bay in the Western Cape to the Storms River in the Eastern Cape. The name comes from the verdant and ecologically diverse vegetation encountered here and the numerous lagoons and lakes dotted along the coast. It includes towns such as Knysna, Plettenberg Bay, Mossel Bay, Little Brak River and Nature's Valley; with George, the Garden Route's largest city and main administrative centre.

Garden Route

It has an oceanic climate, with mild to warm summers, and mild to cool winters. It has the mildest climate in South Africa and the second mildest climate in the world, after Hawaii, according to the Guinness Book of Records. Temperatures rarely fall below 10 °C in winter and rarely climb beyond 28 °C in summer. Rain occurs year-round, with a slight peak in the spring months, brought by the humid sea-winds from the Indian Ocean rising and releasing their precipitation along the Outeniqua and Tsitsikamma Mountains just inland of the coast.

The Route is sandwiched between the aforementioned mountains and the Indian Ocean. The Outeniqua and Tsitsikamma indigenous forests are a unique mixture of Cape Fynbos and Temperate Forest and offer hiking trails and eco-tourism activities. Nearly 300 species of bird life are to be found in a variety of habitats ranging from fynbos to forest to wetlands.

Ten nature reserves embrace the varied ecosystems of the area as well as unique marine reserves, home to soft coral reefs, dolphins, seals and a host of other marine life. Various bays along the Garden Route are nurseries to the endangered Southern Right Whale which go there to calve in the winter and spring (July to December).

A river mouth in the Tsitsikamma National Park, situated on the Garden Route

Fairy Knowe station

A tranquil scene at a lake on the Garden Route

A vineyard on the Garden Route in winter


who wrote the song it's only make believe

"It's Only Make Believe" is a song written by Jack Nance and American country music artist Conway Twitty, and produced by MGM Records' Jim Vienneau, released by Twitty as a single in July 1958. The single topped both U.S.[1] and the UK Singles Chart,[2] and was Twitty's only number-one single on the pop charts of either country. On a segment of Pop Goes The Country, Twitty states the single was a hit in 22 different countries and sold over 8 million copies.[3] It is believed that Twitty wrote his part of the song while sitting on a fire escape outside his hotel room, to escape the summer heat, in Hamilton, Ontario. Twitty had come to Canada at the request of another American singer, Rompin' Ronnie Hawkins, due to Hawkins saying to Twitty that Canada was the 'promised land' for music.[citation needed]

It's Only Make Believe

Twitty recorded many subsequent versions of "It's Only Make Believe", including a 1970 duet with Loretta Lynn on their very first collaborative album, We Only Make Believe. Twitty joins in on the last verse in a 1988 uptempo cover by Ronnie McDowell, which was a #8 hit on the country music charts. Additionally, Twitty contributed to an alternative cover by McDowell.

The song's lyrics describe the thoughts and feelings of a man who is in a one-way relationship: He has a girlfriend, but she does not love him and only stays in the relationship for appearances, a fact of which he is painfully aware. He hopes and prays that, at some point in the future, the woman whom he is in love with will return his love, but laments that, at present, "it's only make believe."

Robert Gordon covered this song in 1979[6]


at what temperature does diesel fuel start to jail

Gel point is the temperature at which diesel or biodiesel fuel freezes solid and can no longer flow by gravity or be pumped through fuel lines. This phenomenon happens when a fuel reaches a low enough temperature whereby enough wax crystals have formed to prevent any movement in the oil. For #2 diesel this is usually around 17.5 °F (−8.1 °C).

Gel point (petroleum)

For the fuel to become pumpable again, it needs to be brought above the gel point temperature to the Ungel point, which is typically near its pour point. However, most of the waxes will still remain in solid form and the fuel has to be warmed up further until its Remix temperature in order to completely remelt and redissolve the waxes.

Anti-gel additives are therefore commonly added to diesel or biodiesels where cold temperature is expected. They act to reduce the formation of wax crystals in the fuel, thereby lowering the pour point and the gel point of the fuel. Anti-gel additives may not necessarily affect the cloud point.


is the film a united kingdom based on a true story

A United Kingdom is a 2016 British biographical romantic drama film directed by Amma Asante and written by Guy Hibbert, based on the true-life romance between Sir Seretse Khama and his wife Ruth Williams Khama.[7] David Oyelowo and Rosamund Pike portray Seretse and Ruth, respectively.

A United Kingdom

It was screened at the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival,[8] and was the opening film at the 60th London Film Festival, the second year in a row that a British film featured.[9]

The film is based on the true story of the heir to the throne of Bechuanaland, Seretse Khama of the Bamangwato people, who studies law in London immediately after World War II. There he meets a white woman, Ruth Williams, whom he eventually marries, despite the protests of both their families and opposition from the British government, which is concerned about relations with South Africa and the stability of the entire region of southern Africa. The National Party government in South Africa fears that the marriage of a black king to a white woman in neighboring Bechuanaland will inspire unrest, and pressures the British government to end the marriage.

Khama's uncle, the Regent, demands that he end his marriage to Ruth, and marry a Bamangwato princess, a demand that Khama rejects. The British administrators use the dispute between the King and the Regent to argue that the marriage of Seretse and Ruth is "causing" unrest in Bechuanaland. Seretse discovers that the British have allowed a US mining corporation to prospect for precious stones, and is eager to make sure that, if anything is found, the exploitation of the country's resources should solely be done by the people of Bechuanaland.

Seretse wants his people to support him as king and manages to win their backing, while the British government decides to exile him from his own country. Meanwhile, Ruth has their baby in Bechuanaland and becomes accepted by the local people by "walking the road with them". When the British want to proclaim an administrator to the Bechuana people instead of their king, the tribe refuses to convene a meeting to do so. The prime minister, Clement Attlee, tells the backbencher Tony Benn, that Britain needs gold from South Africa and he is willing to pay any price such as attempting to destroy the Khamas' marriage to stay in the good graces of South Africa. During this time, diamonds are found and Seretse makes sure that the British government publicly declares that the Bechuana people have the sole right to exploit these resources.

Churchill promises, if he were elected in the 1951 general election, to lift the exile on Seretse; however after his victory he turns the five-year ban into a lifelong one. In London, powerful people start supporting his claim, and he also receives support from the US government. Meanwhile, apartheid develops in South Africa and begins to overshadow Bechuanaland as well. Eventually, with the help of pressure from local people, he is allowed to return to Bechuanaland and negotiates its independence from the British. Seretse shows his uncle a leaked British government document showing he is qualified to be king, and that only opposition from South Africa is motivating the actions of the British government. Post-ending text reveals that Seretse oversees the creation of present day Botswana, and that his son subsequently becomes the country's fourth elected president in 2008. It is revealed that Ruth and Seretse are buried side by side on a hilltop overlooking Serowe village, where they had lived for the remainder of their lives.

Pike joined the cast in May 2015, with Asante joining shortly afterwards.[10] In September 2015 Asante revealed that shooting would be split between Botswana and London, and that it would begin in October in preparation for a 2016 release coinciding with the 50th anniversary of independence in Botswana.[11]

In October 2015 actors Jack Davenport and Tom Felton joined the cast.[12] In November 2015 some filming took place around Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens including Imperial College Union. The cinematographer was Sam McCurdy and the production designer was Simon Bowles.[citation needed]

The film had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on 9 September 2016.[13] It will also screen at the BFI London Film Festival on 6 October 2016.[14][15] Shortly after, Fox Searchlight Pictures acquired U.S distribution rights to the film.[16] The film was released in the United Kingdom on 25 November 2016.[17] It was scheduled to be released in the United States on 17 February 2017,[18] but was pushed up to 10 February.[19]

A United Kingdom grossed $3.9 million in the United States and Canada and $9.9 million in other countries for a worldwide total of $13.8 million,[6] against a production budget of $14 million.

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 83%, based on 126 reviews, with an average rating of 6.8/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Well-acted, solidly crafted, and all-around worthy, A United Kingdom presents an absorbing look at a singular true-life love story."[20] On Metacritic, the film has a score of 65 out of 100, based on 41 critics, indicating "generally favourable reviews".[21]

Glen Kenny, in the New York Times, described the filmmaking as "staid" but with "an acute sense of pace". He was complimentary about the performances and described Oyelowo's as "remarkable, genuinely riveting work".[22] In Time Out London, Tom Huddleston wrote that "David Oyelowo and Rosamund Pike are strong in this compelling and moving, if basic, true-life tale" but that the film "is just a little too cosy and sentimental for its own good."[23]