72. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, this Court acknowledged that the traditional notion of conflict between ecology and development is no longer acceptable and sustainable development is the answer.
73. In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (supra) this Court referred to the Stockholm Declaration and observed:
“This, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population together with consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which we breathe. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other.”
74. We may now notice some of the judgments which have bearing on the scope of the Court’s power to issue directions but which may appear to be contrary to the statutes operating in the particular field. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161, this Court considered whether a letter addressed to a Judge of this Court could be treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and whether directions could be issued for release of an indeterminate number of citizens who were held as bonded labourers. While dealing with the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court observed:
“........ It will be seen that the power conferred by clause (2) of Article 32 is in the widest terms. It is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto, which are hedged in by strict conditions differing from one writ to another and which to quote the words spoken by Lord Atkin in United Australia Limited v. Barclays Bank Ltd. 1941 AC 1:(1939) 2 KB 53 in another context often “stand in the path of justice clanking their mediaeval chains”. But it is much wider and includes within its matrix, power to issue any directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for enforcement of the fundamental right in question and this is made amply clear by the inclusive clause which refers to in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. It is not only the high prerogative writs of mandamus, habeas corpus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari which can be issued by the Supreme Court but also writs in the nature of these high prerogative writs and therefore even if the conditions for issue of any of these high prerogative writs are not fulfilled, the Supreme Court would not be constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead its inability to help the citizen who has come before it for judicial redress, but would have power to issue any direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of any high prerogative writ. This provision conferring on the Supreme Court power to enforce the fundamental rights in the widest possible terms shows the anxiety of the Constitution-makers not to allow any procedural technicalities to stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental rights. The Constitution-makers clearly intended that the Supreme Court should have the amplest power to issue whatever direction, order or writ may be appropriate in a given case for enforcement of a fundamental right. But what procedure shall be followed by the Supreme Court in exercising the power to issue such direction, order or writ? That is a matter on which the Constitution is silent and advisedly so, because the Constitution-makers never intended to fetter the discretion of the Supreme Court to evolve a procedure appropriate in the circumstances of a given case for the purpose of enabling it to exercise its power of enforcing a fundamental right. Neither clause (2) of Article 32 nor any other provision of the Constitution requires that any particular procedure shall be followed by the Supreme Court in exercising its power to issue an appropriate direction, order or writ. The purpose for which the power to issue an appropriate direction, order or writ is conferred on the Supreme Court is to secure enforcement of a fundamental right and obviously therefore, whatever procedure is necessary for fulfilment of that purpose must be permissible to the Supreme Court.
……….It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has evolved the practice of appointing commissions for the purpose of gathering facts and data in regard to a complaint of breach of a fundamental right made on behalf of the weaker sections of the society. The report of the Commissioner would furnish prima facie evidence of the facts and data gathered by the Commissioner and that is why the Supreme Court is careful to appoint a responsible person as Commissioner to make an enquiry or investigation into the facts relating to the complaint. It is interesting to note that in the past the Supreme Court has appointed sometimes a District Magistrate, sometimes a District Judge, sometimes a professor of law, sometimes a journalist, sometimes an officer of the Court and sometimes an advocate practising in the Court, for the purpose of carrying out an enquiry or investigation and making report to the Court because the Commissioner appointed by the Court must be a responsible person who enjoys the confidence of the Court and who is expected to carry out his assignment objectively and impartially without any predilection or prejudice. Once the report of the Commissioner is received, copies of it would be supplied to the parties so that either party, if it wants to dispute any of the facts or data stated in the report, may do so by filing an affidavit and the court then consider the report of the Commissioner and the affidavits which may have been filed and proceed to adjudicate upon the issue arising in the writ petition. It would be entirely for the Court to consider what weight to attach to the facts and data stated in the report of the Commissioner and to what extent to act upon such facts and data.” (emphasis supplied)
75. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P (1985) 2 SCC 431, this Court was called upon to consider whether there should be ban on lime stone quarries which had threatened life of the people residing in Mussoorie Hill range forming part of the Himalayas and surrounding environment. On 11.8.1983, the Court appointed a committee consisting of Shri D.N. Bhargav, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, Shri M.S. Kahlon, Director General of Mines Safety and Col. P. Mishra, Head of the Indian Photo Interpretation Institute (National Remote Sensing Agency) for the purpose of inspecting the lime stone quarries referred to in the writ petition and the list submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The committee inspected most of the lime stone quarries and submitted three reports and divided the lime stone quarries into three categories, i.e., A, B and C. The committee noted that mining operations in the quarries categorised as A did not gravely impact the environment and life of the people whereas the quarries comprised in the other two categories had adversely impacted the environment. After taking into consideration the report of the Bhargav Committee, the Court directed closure of all lime stone quarries in category C. As regards category B quarries, the Court appointed another committee headed by Shri D.Bandyopadhyay, Secretary, Ministry for Rural Development and issued several directions. While dealing with the question of hardship to the quarry owners, the Court observed:
“The consequence of this Order made by us would be that the lessees of lime stone quarries which have been directed to be closed down permanently under this Order or which may be directed to be closed down permanently after consideration of the Report of the Bandyopadhyay Committee, would be thrown out of business in which they have invested large sums of money and expended considerable time and effort. This would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and environment.” (emphasis supplied)
76. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655, this Court observed:
“The state to which the ecological imbalances and the consequent environmental damage have reached is so alarming that unless immediate, determined and effective steps were taken, the damage might become irreversible. The preservation of the fauna and flora, some species of which are getting extinct at an alarming rate, has been a great and urgent necessity for the survival of humanity and these laws reflect a last ditch battle for the restoration, in part at least, a grave situation emerging from a long history of callous insensitiveness to the enormity of the risks to mankind that go with the deterioration of environment. The tragedy of the predicament of the civilised man is that ‘Every source from which man has increased his power on earth has been used to diminish the prospects of his successors. All his progress is being made at the expense of damage to the environment which he cannot repair and cannot foresee’. In his foreword to International Wild Life Law, H.R.H. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh said:
‘Many people seem to think that the conservation of nature is simply a matter of being kind to animals and enjoying walks in the countryside. Sadly, perhaps, it is a great deal more complicated than that ….
… As usual with all legal systems, the crucial requirement is for the terms of the conventions to be widely accepted and rapidly implemented. Regretfully progress in this direction is proving disastrously slow ….’ ‘Environmentalists’ conception of the ecological balance in nature is based on the fundamental concept that nature is ‘a series of complex biotic communities of which a man is an interdependent part’ and that it should not be given to a part to trespass and diminish the whole. The largest single factor in the depletion of the wealth of animal life in nature has been the ‘civilised man’ operating directly through excessive commercial hunting or, more disastrously, indirectly through invading or destroying natural habitats.”
77. In Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India 1992 Supp (2) SCC 448, this Court considered whether mining in the area popularly known as ‘Sariska Tiger Park’, which was declared as Game Reserve under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951 as a reserve forest under Sections 29 and 30 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and as a sanctuary under Section 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 should be banned because the same was impairing environment and wild life. At one stage, the Court thought of imposing total ban on mining activities but, keeping in view some technical difficulties, it was decided to constitute a Committee headed by former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to ensure enforcement of the notifications issued under various statutes. Simultaneously, the Court passed an interlocutory order and directed that no mining operation of any kind shall be carried on within the protected area.
78. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1996) 8 SCC 462, this Court considered the impact of mining operations on the ecologically sensitive areas of Badkal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana. After taking cognizance of the reports submitted by Haryana Pollution Control Board and an expert body, namely, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), the Court accepted the same with certain modifications. Paragraph 8 of the judgment which depicts consideration of the recommendations of NEERI reads thus:
“We are, therefore, of the view that in order to preserve environment and control pollution within the vicinity of the two tourist resorts it is necessary to stop mining in the area. The question, however, for consideration is what should be the extent of the said area? NEERI in its report has recommended that 200 metre green belts be developed at 1 km radius all around the boundaries of the two lakes. It is thus obvious that 1200 metres are required for the green belts. Leaving another 800 metres as a cushion to absorb the air and noise pollution generated by the mining operations, we are of the view that it would be reasonable to direct the stoppage of mining activity within two km radius of the tourist resorts of Badkal and Surajkund. We, therefore, order and direct as under:
1. There shall be no mining activity within two km radius of the tourist resorts of Badkal and Surajkund. All the mines which fall within the said radius shall not be reopened.
2. The Forest Department of the State of Haryana and in particular the Chief Conservator and the District Forest Officer, Faridabad shall undertake to develop the green belts as recommended by NEERI with immediate effect. The NEERI has also suggested the development plan and the type of trees to be planted. We direct the Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, District Forest Officer, Faridabad and all other officers concerned of the Forest Department to start the plantation of trees for developing the green belts and make all efforts to complete the plantations of trees before the monsoons (1996).
3. We direct the Director, Mining and Geology, Haryana, the Haryana Pollution Control Board to enforce all the recommendations of NEERI contained in para 6.1 of its report (quoted above) so far as the mining operations in the State of Haryana are concerned. All the mine-operators shall be given notices to implement the said recommendations. Failure to comply with the recommendations may result in the closure of the mining operations.
4. We further direct that no construction of any type shall be permitted now onwards within 5 km radius of the Badkal lake and Surajkund. All open areas shall be converted into green belts.
5. The mining leases within the area from 2 km to 5 km radius shall not be renewed without obtaining prior “no objection” certificate from the Haryana Pollution Control Board as also from the Central Pollution Control Board. Unless both the Boards grant no objection certificate the mining leases in the said area shall not be renewed.”
79. In M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353, this Court considered whether the foundries, chemical- hazardous industries and the refinery at Mathura should be closed down because they were threat to the very existence of Taj Mahal. In the course of judgment, the Court referred to the reports of various expert bodies including NEERI and the Central Pollution Control Board which unequivocally pointed out the damage caused to the monument by the industries and proceeded to order closure of industries, which were not in a position to make change over to the natural gas by recording the following observations:
“The Taj, apart from being a cultural heritage, is an industry by itself. More than two million tourists visit the Taj every year. It is a source of revenue for the country. This Court has monitored this petition for over three years with the sole object of preserving and protecting the Taj from deterioration and damage due to atmospheric and environmental pollution. It cannot be disputed that the use of coke/coal by the industries emits pollution in the ambient air. The objective behind this litigation is to stop the pollution while encouraging development of industry. The old concept that development and ecology cannot go together is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development is the answer. The development of industry is essential for the economy of the country, but at the same time the environment and the ecosystems have to be protected. The pollution created as a consequence of development must be commensurate with the carrying capacity of our ecosystems.
Based on the reports of various technical authorities mentioned in this judgment, we have already reached the finding that the emissions generated by the coke/coal consuming industries are air pollutants and have damaging effect on the Taj and the people living in the TTZ. The atmospheric pollution in TTZ has to be eliminated at any cost. Not even one per cent chance can be taken when — human life apart — the preservation of a prestigious monument like the Taj is involved. In any case, in view of the precautionary principle as defined by this Court, the environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The “onus of proof” is on an industry to show that its operation with the aid of coke/coal is environmentally benign. It is, rather, proved beyond doubt that the emissions generated by the use of coke/coal by the industries in TTZ are the main polluters of the ambient air.” (emphasis supplied)
80. In M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Pollution) v. Union of India (2001) 9 SCC 235, the Court considered the report of NEERI on the issue of pollution caused by the brick kilns operating in the Taj Trapezium and issued the following directions:
“(1) All licensed brick kilns within 20 km radial distance of Taj Mahal and other significant monuments in Taj Trapezium and Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary shall be closed and stop operating w.e.f. 15-8-1996. We direct the State of U.P. to render all possible assistance to the licensed brick kiln-owners in the process of relocation beyond Taj Trapezium, if the owners so desire. The closure order is, however, unconditional.
(2) We direct the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police concerned to close all unlicensed and unauthorised brick kilns operating in the Taj Trapezium with immediate effect. The U.P. Pollution Control Board (Board) shall file a compliance report within two months.
(3) No new licences shall be issued for the establishment of brick kilns within 20 km radial distance from Taj Mahal, other monuments in Taj Trapezium and Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary.”
81. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118, the Court considered several interlocutory applications filed in the matter by which this Court had stopped mining operations near Badkal Lake and Surajkund. After considering various reports submitted by the expert bodies, the Court observed:
“The mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs ecology and people’s right to natural resources. The entire process of setting up and functioning of mining operation requires utmost good faith and honesty on the part of the intending entrepreneur. For carrying on any mining activity close to township which has tendency to degrade environment and is likely to affect air, water and soil and impair the quality of life of inhabitants of the area, there would be greater responsibility on the part of the entrepreneur. The fullest disclosures including the potential for increased burdens on the environment consequent upon possible increase in the quantum and degree of pollution, has to be made at the outset so that the public and all those concerned including authorities may decide whether the permission can at all be granted for carrying on mining activity. The regulatory authorities have to act with utmost care in ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to be observed by such entrepreneurs. When questioned, the regulatory authorities have to show that the said authorities acted in the manner enjoined upon them. Where the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by not taking prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to environment, natural resources and people’s life, health and property, the principles of accountability for restoration and compensation have to be applied.
Development and the protection of environment are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck. We may note that to stall fast the depletion of forest, a series of orders have been passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman case 1991 Supp (2) SCC 665 regulating the felling of trees in all the forests in the country. Principle 15 of the Rio Conference of 1992 relating to the applicability of precautionary principle, which stipulates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, is also required to be kept in view. In such matters, many a times, the option to be adopted is not very easy or in a straitjacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest.
In case of doubt, however, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.” The Court then referred to the provisions of the 1957 Act, the Rules framed thereunder as also the laws enacted by Parliament for protection of environment and forests and observed:
“The Aravallis, the most distinctive and ancient mountain chain of peninsular India, mark the site of one of the oldest geological formations in the world. Heavily eroded and with exposed outcrops of slate rock and granite, it has summits reaching 4950 feet above sea level. Due to its geological location, the Aravalli range harbours a mix of Saharan, Ethiopian, peninsular, oriental and even Malayan elements of flora and fauna. In the early part of this century, the Aravallis were well wooded. There were dense forests with waterfalls and one could encounter a large number of wild animals. Today, the changes in the environment at Aravalli are severe. Though one finds a number of tree species in the hills, timber-quality trees have almost disappeared. Despite the increase of population resulting in increase of demand from the forest, it cannot be questioned nor has it been questioned that to save the ecology of the Aravalli mountains, the laws have to be strictly implemented. The notification dated 7-5-1992 was passed with a view to strictly implement the measures to protect the ecology of the Aravalli range. The notification was followed more in its breach.
In the aforesaid background, any mining activity on the area under plantation under the Aravalli Project cannot be permitted.
The grant of leases for mining operation over such an area would be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and illogical.” The Court then referred to the report prepared by the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited on Aravalli and accepted the same. The Court finally referred to the judgment in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213 and refused to modify order dated 6.5.2002 by which mining activities were banned but appointed a Monitoring Committee for suggesting recommencement of mining in individual cases.
82. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 142, this Court considered the question of whether in view of Section 4A of the 1957 Act, it would be appropriate to exercise power under Article 32 read with Article 142 for suspending mining operations in the Aravalli Hills. After taking cognizance of the fact that indiscriminate mining had resulted in large scale environmental degradation in the area and the arguments of the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the leaseholders, the Court observed:
“44. We find no merit in the above arguments. As stated above, in the past when mining leases were granted, requisite clearances for carrying out mining operations were not obtained which have resulted in land and environmental degradation. Despite such breaches, approvals had been granted for subsequent slots because in the past the authorities have not taken into account the macro effect of such wide-scale land and environmental degradation caused by the absence of remedial measures (including rehabilitation plan). Time has now come, therefore, to suspend mining in the above area till statutory provisions for restoration and reclamation are duly complied with, particularly in cases where pits/quarries have been left abandoned.
45. Environment and ecology are national assets. They are subject to intergenerational equity. Time has now come to suspend all mining in the above area on sustainable development principle which is part of Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India. In fact, these articles have been extensively discussed in the judgment in M.C. Mehta case (2004) 12 SCC 118 which keeps the option of imposing a ban in future open.
46. Mining within the principle of sustainable development comes within the concept of “balancing” whereas mining beyond the principle of sustainable development comes within the concept of “banning”. It is a matter of degree. Balancing of the mining activity with environment protection and banning such activity are two sides of the same principle of sustainable development. They are parts of precautionary principle.
47. At this stage, we may also note that under Section 13(2)(qq) of the 1957 Act, rules have been framed for rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation destroyed by reason of any prospecting or mining operations. Under Section 18 of the 1957 Act, rules have been framed for conservation and systematic development of minerals in India and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling pollution caused by prospecting or mining operations which also form part of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988.
48. Under Rule 27(1)(s)(i) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 every lessee is required to take measures for planting of trees not less than twice the number destroyed by mining operations. Under the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, vide Rule 34, mandatory provisions for reclamation and rehabilitation of lands are made for every holder of prospecting licence or mining lease to be undertaken and that work has to be completed by the lessee/licensee before abandoning the mine or prospect.
49. Similarly, under Rule 37 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 the lessee/licensee has to calibrate the air pollution within permissible limits specified under the EP Act, 1986 as well as the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Under the said Rules of 1988, the most important guidelines are Guidelines 25.26.3, 25.26.4, 25.26.5 and 25.26.6. These guidelines deal with reclamation, planning and implementation, restoration strategy, principles of rehabilitation, rehabilitation of mined-out sites and methods of reclamations (see Handbook of Environment & Forest Legislations, Guidelines and Procedures in India by Ravindra N. Saxena and Sangita Saxena at pp. 1555-62). It may be noted that there are two steps to be taken in the method of reclamation, namely, technical reclamation and biological reclamation. The most important aspect of the above guidelines is making of a rehabilitation plan.
Conclusion
50. None of the above provisions have been complied with. In the circumstance, by the present order, we hereby suspend all mining operations in the Aravalli hill range falling in the State of Haryana within the area of approximately 448 sq km in the districts of Faridabad and Gurgaon, including Mewat till the reclamation plan duly certified by the State of Haryana, MoEF and CEC is prepared in accordance with the above statutory provisions contained in various enactments enumerated above as well as in terms of the rules framed thereunder and the guidelines. The said plan shall state what steps are needed to be taken to rehabilitate (including reclamation) followed by status reports on steps taken by the authorities pursuant to the said plan.” (emphasis supplied)
83. In N.D. Jayal v. Union of India (supra), on which reliance was placed by Shri Jaideep Gupta, this Court considered the issues relating to safety and environmental protection arising out of the construction of Tehri Dam. Some of the observations made in that judgment are extracted below:
“Before adverting to other issues, certain aspects pertaining to the preservation of ecology and development have to be noticed. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 and in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 356 it was observed that the balance between environmental protection and developmental activities could only be maintained by strictly following the principle of “sustainable development”. This is a development strategy that caters to the needs of the present without negotiating the ability of upcoming generations to satisfy their needs. The strict observance of sustainable development will put us on a path that ensures development while protecting the environment, a path that works for all peoples and for all generations. It is a guarantee to the present and a bequeath to the future. All environment-related developmental activities should benefit more people while maintaining the environmental balance. This could be ensured only by strict adherence to sustainable development without which life of the coming generations will be in jeopardy.
The right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or cannot be limited as a misnomer to simple construction activities. The right to development encompasses much more than economic well-being, and includes within its definition the guarantee of fundamental human rights. The “development” is not related only to the growth of GNP. In the classic work, Development As Freedom, the Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen pointed out that “the issue of development cannot be separated from the conceptual framework of human right”. This idea is also part of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development. The right to development includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples' well-being and realization of their full potential. It is an integral part of human rights. Of course, construction of a dam or a mega project is definitely an attempt to achieve the goal of wholesome development. Such works could very well be treated as integral component for development.”
84. In Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka (supra), this Court was called upon to consider whether all mining and other related activities undertaken in the forest areas of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in violation of order dated 12.12.1996 passed in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 and the 1980 Act should be stopped. After entertaining the writ petition filed under Article 32, the Court appointed a committee known as the Central Empowered Committee and asked it to submit a report on the allegations of illegal mining in Bellary region of the State by M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mahabaleswarapa and Sons, M/s. Ananthapur Mining Corporation and M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the scope of inquiry of the Central Empowered Committee was extended to all the mining activities in District Bellary. In furtherance of Court directions, the Central Empowered Committee filed various reports. During the course of hearing, the leaseholders raised several objections to the reports of the Central Empowered Committee including the one that in view of the scheme of the 1957 Act, the 1980 Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central Empowered Committee could not have recommended taking of any step or measure beyond what is contemplated by the scheme of these statutes. Their argument was controverted by the learned Amicus who pointed out that the reports of the Central Empowered Committee revealed mass destruction of forest wealth and plundering of scarce natural resources which resulted in irreparable ecological and environmental damage and destruction and such activities need consideration by the Court beyond the limitations set out in the statutes. After considering the rival arguments and adverting to the judgments in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (supra), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395, Taj Trapezium Pollution (supra), Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, the Court observed:
“The mechanism provided by any of the Statutes in question would neither be effective nor efficacious to deal with the extraordinary situation that has arisen on account of the large scale illegalities committed in the operation of the mines in question resulting in grave and irreparable loss to the forest wealth of the country besides the colossal loss caused to the national exchequer. The situation being extraordinary the remedy, indeed, must also be extraordinary. Considered against the backdrop of the statutory schemes in question, we do not see how any of the recommendations of the CEC, if accepted, would come into conflict with any law enacted by the legislature. It is only in the above situation that the Court may consider the necessity of placing the recommendations made by the CEC on a finer balancing scale before accepting the same. We, therefore, feel uninhibited to proceed to exercise our constitutional jurisdiction to remedy the enormous wrong that has happened and to provide adequate protection for the future, as may be required.” (emphasis supplied) In paragraph 41, the Bench dealt with the question whether the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee with regard to categorization, reclamation and rehabilitation (R&R) plans, reopening of categories ‘A’ and ‘B’ mines with conditions and continued closure of category ‘C’ mines should be accepted and answered the same in the following words:
“In the light of the discussions that have preceded sanctity of the procedure of laying information and materials before the Court with regard to the extent of illegal mining and other specific details in this regard by means of the Reports of the CEC cannot be in doubt. Inter-generational equity and sustainable development have come to be firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence as an integral part of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. In enforcing such rights of a large number of citizens who are bound to be adversely affected by environmental degradation, this Court cannot be constrained by the restraints of procedure.
The CEC which has been assisting the Court in various environment related matters for over a decade now was assigned certain specified tasks which have been performed by the said body giving sufficient justification for the decisions arrived and the recommendations made. If the said recommendations can withstand the test of logic and reason which issue is being examined hereinafter we will have no reason not to accept the said recommendations and embody the same as a part of the order that we will be required to make in the present case.” However, the three-Judge Bench did not deal with the issue relating to impact of mining operations on ancient monuments. As a matter of fact, vide order dated 3.9.2012, the Bench made it clear that the direction given by it for operation of ‘Category A’ mines will be subject to any order passed in Jambunathahalli Temple case.
85. Although, the aforesaid judgments were rendered on the petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, we have no hesitation to hold that the ratio thereof can be aptly applied for deciding the appeals arising out of the petitions filed under Article 136 of the Constitution. In two of these cases, i.e., Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (supra) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395, this Court evolved an innovative mechanism for enforcing the fundamental rights of bonded labourers and those who became victims of the operation of hazardous industries. In the next three cases filed by Mr. M.C. Mehta, the Court considered the impact of mining on national assets like water bodies (Badkal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana), the Taj Mahal and the Aarvali Hills, availed the services of expert bodies and accepted their reports for issuing directions to check pollution and environmental degradation. In the second case, the Court ordered closure of all licensed brick kilns operating within a 20 kilometers radial distance of the Taj Mahal, Taj Trapezium and Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary. The law which regulated the brick kilns did not contain any such restriction, but in larger public interest, namely, protection of a national monument and a bird sanctuary, this Court used its power to order closure of all the licensed brick kilns. In the third case, the Court considered and unequivocally rejected the plea that the mines which were operating under the licences granted in accordance with the 1957 Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannot be closed under the Court’s order and held that all mining operations in the Aarvali Hills shall be suspended. In the last mentioned case, which relates to the mines operating in three districts of Karnataka, the Court gave multiple directions for protecting the environment, ecology and forest wealth.
86. The affidavit filed by respondent No.14 on 14.2.2011 gives a vivid description of the mining activities taking place in the vicinity of the temple by using Wagon Blasting Method. Shri T.M. Manjunathaiah (Technical Assistant) reported that during the course of inspection of the temple, he felt tremors due to the explosion and also noticed cracks on the walls and roof due to the impact of the explosion and that the lessee was doing repairs in the form of plastering and cement coating to cover up the cracks on the temple. Respondent No.14 also referred to two inspections carried out by Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India and a team of officers of the Government of Karnataka, who noticed large scale damage to the structure of the temple. This affidavit totally belies the stand of respondent No.4 that mining was done by Controlled Blasting and not by Wagon Blasting Method.
87. On its part the Committee availed the services of INTACH, Bangalore Chapter, Karnataka Remote Sensing Application Centre, ISRO, CIMFR, Dhanbad and NIT. In paragraph IV of its report under the heading DISCUSSIONS, the Committee unanimously agreed that the mining operations carried out using blasting operations at a distance of less than 200 meters from the temple have already caused irreparable damage to the temple and the eco-environs of its immediate neighbourhood. The Committee noted that the study submitted by Karnataka Remote Sensing Application Centre, ISRO, Bangalore dealt with the mining activities carried out in a radius of one kilometer and two kilometers and illustrated the damage caused to the temple and its immediate environs. The Committee then discussed the conservation plan prepared by Indian National Trust for Arts and Cultural Heritage, Bangalore and observed that a sum of Rs.3,43,19,160 would be required for bringing the temple to its original condition so that the same may regain its past glory. The Committee then noted that the investigating agencies, i.e., CIMFR, Dhanbad and NIT had conducted experimental blasts beyond 200 meters whereas Karnataka Remote Sensing Application Centre had indicated that one of the mines exists within a horizontal distance of 55 meters from the temple premises on the eastern side and, thus, the impact of blasting operation cannot be fully understood and assessed scientifically by the present investigation. The Committee also observed that many of the trial blasts conducted by the investigating agencies had locations having free faces of the working benches and opined that the result of such investigation would show minimum or no impact on architecturally sensitive temple. The Committee finally declined to accept the suggestions given by CIMFR, Dhanbad and NIT to restrict the mining operations/activities only up to a distance of 200 to 300 meters from Jambunatheswara temple because the data recorded by the expert bodies were based on experimental blasts conducted at individual sites and there was no evaluation/assessment of the cumulative or compounded impact of multiple blasting at different places and altitudes. The Committee noted that the mining operations involving multiple blasting by different leaseholders had already caused substantial damage to the protected monument and the surrounding environment.
88. In our view, the detailed reasons recorded by the Committee, which have been extracted hereinabove, for not accepting the recommendations of the expert bodies about the distance up to which mining should not be allowed are correct and those recommendations cannot be relied upon for accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the State and the private respondents that the recommendations made by the Committee should be rejected. We may hasten to add that the Committee’s recommendations are not in conflict with the provisions of the 1957 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The 1959 Rules and the Karnataka Rules provide for grant of permission/licence for mining in the prohibited/regulated/protected area but the documents produced before this Court do not show that the competent authority had granted permission/licence to any of the private respondents for undertaking mining operations which have the effect of damaging the temple in question. That apart, the distance criteria prescribed in the 1958 Act, the Karnataka Act and the Rules framed thereunder has little or no bearing on deciding the question of restricting the mining operations near the protected monument which has already suffered extensive damage due to such operations.
89. The argument of learned counsel for the State and the private respondents that ban on mining operations/activities in the Core Zone would adversely impact iron ore supply and will also cause financial loss to the leaseholders as well as the State appears quite attractive but, keeping in view larger public interest and the interest of future generations, we do not think that this would be a very heavy price to be paid by some individuals and the State. This Court has often used the principle of sustainable development to balance the requirement of development and environmental protection and issued several directions for protection of natural resources including air, water, forest, flora and fauna as also wildlife. The Court has also recognized that the right to development includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the improvement of peoples well being and realization of their full potential.
90. In Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forest (Writ Petition (C) No.180/2011) decided on 18.4.2013, this Court recognized the customary and cultural rights of indigenous people living in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa. While considering challenge to order dated 24.8.2010 passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests whereby the application made by the petitioner for grant of permission for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in two Districts of the State was rejected, the three Judge Bench extensively referred to Saxena Committee report, which covered several issues including violation of the rights of tribal groups including primitive tribal groups and the dalit population and proceeded to observe:
“The customary and cultural rights of indigenous people have also been the subject matter of various international conventions. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No.107) was the first comprehensive international instrument setting forth the rights of indigenous and tribal populations which emphasized the necessity for the protection of social, political and cultural rights of indigenous people. Following that there were two other conventions ILO Convention (No.169) and Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 and United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007, India is a signatory only to the ILO Convention (No. 107).
Apart from giving legitimacy to the cultural rights by 1957 Convention, the Convention on the Biological Diversity (CBA) adopted at the Earth Summit (1992) highlighted necessity to preserve and maintain knowledge, innovation and practices of the local communities relevant for conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity, India is a signatory to CBA. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 and Forestry principle also encourage the promotion of customary practices conducive to conservation. The necessity to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources have also been recognized by United Nations in the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. STs and other TFDs residing in the Scheduled Areas have a right to maintain their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands.” The Bench then referred to the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, the rules framed thereunder as also the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Welfare, referred to the judgment of this Court in Amritlal Athubhai Shah v. Union Government of India (1976) 4 SCC 108, which recognized the power of the State Government to reserve any particular area for bauxite mining for a public sector corporation, and observed:
“Religious freedom guaranteed to STs and the TFDs under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is intended to be a guide to a community of life and social demands. The above mentioned Articles guarantee them the right to practice and propagate not only matters of faith or belief, but all those rituals and observations which are regarded as integral part of their religion. Their right to worship the deity Niyam- Raja has, therefore, to be protected and preserved.
Gram Sabha has a role to play in safeguarding the customary and religious rights of the STs and other TFDs under the Forest Rights Act. Section 6 of the Act confers powers on the Gram Sabha to determine the nature and extent of “individual” or “community rights”. In this connection, reference may also be made to Section 13 of the Act coupled with the provisions of PESA Act, which deal with the powers of Gram Sabha. Section 13 of the Forest Rights Act reads as under:
“13. Act not in derogation of any other law. – Save as otherwise provided in this Act and the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension of the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (40 of 1996), the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” PESA Act has been enacted, as already stated, to provide for the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to Panchayats to the Scheduled Areas.
Section 4(d) of the Act says that every Gram Sabha shall be competent to safeguard and preserve the traditions, customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and community mode of dispute resolution. Therefore, Grama Sabha functioning under the Forest Rights Act read with Section 4(d) of PESA Act has an obligation to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the STs and other forest dwellers, their cultural identity, community resources etc., which they have to discharge following the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs vide its letter dated 12.7.2012.”
91. When seen in this light, the protection of ancient monuments has necessarily to be kept in mind while carrying out development activities. The need for ensuring protection and preservation of the ancient monuments for the benefit of future generations has to be balanced with the benefits which may accrue from mining and other development related activities. In our view, the recommendations and suggestions made by the Committee for creation of Core Zone and Buffer Zone appropriately create this balance. While mining activity is sure to create financial wealth for the leaseholders and also the State, the immense cultural and historic wealth, not to mention the wealth of information which the temple provides cannot be ignored and every effort has to be made to protect the temple.
92. Before concluding, we may deal with the submission of Shri Lalit that mining can be permitted beyond the distance of 300 meters from the temple by using Ripper Dozer and Rock Breaker machines. According to the learned senior counsel, the use of Ripper Dozer and Rock Breaker will not produce vibration which may cause harm to the temple. In our view, this submission does not merit acceptance because in paragraph 6 of the suggestions made by it, the Committee appointed by the Court has already indicated that mining in the Buffer Zone may be permitted with controlled blasting or without blasting by using Ripper Dozer/Rock Breaker or any other machinery and taking adequate measures towards generation, propagation, suppression and deposition of airborne dust to be closely monitored by experts from IBM etc.
93. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The report of the Committee is accepted and the State Government is directed to implement the recommendations contained in Part V thereof including the recommendation relating to creation of Corpus Fund of Rs.3,43,19,160 which shall be utilized for implementing the conservation plan for Jambunatheswara temple. However, it is made clear that respondent No.18 shall be free to operate the Beneficiation plant subject to the condition that it shall procure raw material only through E-auction mode.
94. With a view to ensure that other protected monuments in the State do not suffer the fate of Jambunatheswara temple, we direct that the Committee appointed by this Court vide order dated 26.4.2011 shall undertake similar exercise in respect of other protected monuments in the State in whose vicinity mining operations are being undertaken and submit report to the State Government within a maximum period of nine months. The State Government shall release a sum of Rs.30 lacs in favour of the Committee to meet the expenses of survey, investigation etc. The report submitted by the Committee shall be considered by the Government within next two months and appropriate order be passed.
95. We hope and trust that the Government of India will also appoint an expert committee/group to examine the impact of mining on the monuments declared as protected monuments under the 1958 Act and take necessary remedial measures.
……………………………………J.
(G.S. SINGHVI) NEW DELHI; ……………………………………J. JULY 01, 2013 (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)


In this challenge, you design and build a Data Model and a RESTful API that stores data into a Relational Database.
Read these instructions carefully. Understand exactly what is expected before starting this Sprint Challenge.
This is an individual assessment, please work on it alone. It is an opportunity to demonstrate proficiency in the concepts and objectives introduced and practiced in preceding days.
If the instructions are not clear, please seek support from your TL and Instructor on Slack.
The Minimum Viable Product must be completed in three hours.
Follow these steps to set up and work on your project:
firstName-lastName
.
firstName-lastName
.
Follow these steps for completing your project.
firstName-lastName
Branch into master on your fork, don’t make Pull Requests against Lambda’s repository.
Commit your code regularly and use descriptive messages. This helps both you (in case you ever need to return to old code) and your Team Lead.
Demonstrate your understanding of this week’s concepts by answering the following free-form questions. Edit this document to include your answers after each question. Make sure to leave a blank line above and below your answer so it is clear and easy to read by your project manager.
[X] Explain the difference between Relational Databases
and SQL
.
SQL is the language used to access a relational database.
[X] Why do tables need a primary key
?
To uniquely identify each record/row.
[X] What is the name given to a table column that references the primary key on another table.
Foreign key
[X] What do we need in order to have a many to many relationship between two tables.
An intermediary table that holds foreign keys that reference the primary key on the related tables.
Take the steps necessary to complete the project from scratch. Start by initializing your project with a package.json
and go from there.
https://dbdesigner.page.link/PPgSVdKY4gioSBGL8
Complete the following tasks:
project
can have multiple tasks
.
task
belongs to only one project
.
project
can use multiple resources
. Example of resources
are: computer, conference room, microphone, delivery van.
resource
can be used in multiple projects
.
projects
the client must provide a name, the description is optional.
resources
the client must provide a name, the description is optional.
task
the client must provide a description, the notes are optional.
task
the client must provide the id
of an existing project.
projects
and tasks
if no value is provided for the completed
property, the API should provide a default value of false
.
A project
is what needs to be done. We want to store the following data about a project
:
false
.
A resource
is anything needed to complete a project, some examples are: a person, a tool, a meeting room or a software license. We want to store the following data about a resource
:
The database should not allow resources with duplicate names.
A task
one of the steps needed to complete the project. We want to store the following data about an task
.
false
.
This section is optional and not counted towards MVP. Start working on it after you’re done with the main assignment.
project
by its id
that returns an object with the following structure:
{
id: 1,
name: 'project name here',
description: 'the project description',
completed: false,
// or true, the database will return 1 for true and 0 for false, extra code is required to convert a 1 to true and a 0 to false.
tasks: [
{
id: 1,
description: 'task description',
notes: 'the task notes',
completed: false // or true
},
{
id: 7,
description: 'another task description',
notes: 'the task notes',
completed: false // or true
}
],
resources: [
{
id: 1,
name: 'Lambda Student',
description: 'a soon to be hired developer'
},
{
id: 2,
name: 'MacBook Pro #1'
description: 'an overly expensive laptop computer'
}
]
}
[X] Add the remaining CRUD operations for projects and tasks.
[X] Use knex
to add data seeding scripts for projects and tasks.
[X] Add support for the concept of contexts
. A context is something like at home, at work or at computer. The idea is that some tasks require one or more contexts
in order to be worked on. For example, the task of file income taxes may require that you are at home, at computer and online so if you are at work and look at the list of pending tasks you could do in your current context, filing your taxes will not be one of them.
[X] A context
can be applied to more than one task
. An task can be tied to more than one context, like in the example above.
[X] When retrieving an task
by id, add a property that lists all the contexts
related to that task.
Good luck and have fun!


APPLE1 REPLICA1 OR CFFA1 AND FORTH +
APPLE1 REPLICA1 OR CFFA1 AND FORTH +
BACk AND Forth...
Originally, the Apple I didn’t have
any storage option and only 8K of RAM. Woz eventually built a
very clever cassette interface for saving and loading programs, but the
Apple I was soon abandoned for the development of the groundbreaking
Apple II. 30 years later, the Apple I has become a bit of a cult
computer, and replicas and clones have cropped up over the years.
Vince Briel’s Replica 1 simplified the design using some modern
micro-controllers and extended it’s I/O somewhat. Rich Dreher
brought his successful Apple II Compact Flash interface to the Apple I,
enhancing the Apple I’s RAM memory with an additional 32K and providing a
rudimentary ProDOS compatible filesystem. This set the foundation
for a full port of Forth to the Apple I and CFFA1.
Forth is to BASIC what HP
calculators are to TI calculators. Forth uses postfix notation to
represent it’s order of operations (go back and review this page’s
title). Using two stacks, one for parameters and one for return
and loop values, it can represent complex algorithms quite
efficiently. Its terse and obscure syntax has also given it the
moniker “a write-only language.” However, Forth provides a
powerful programming environment including runtime, compiler, editor,
assembler, and disk I/O all in less than 10K of memory. It also
executes as a fairly fast indirect threaded interpreter. Some
parts of the Forth package are not required to be resident at all
times. The editor and assembler can be loaded only when needed,
saving precious bytes.
Since Forth was meant to be
portable, getting it running on the Apple I was rather easy. The
biggest challenge was mapping the Forth style block I/O to the file
handling API of the CFFA1. I decided to map every Forth 1K disk
block to a separate ProDOS filename: BLOCK0001 would be block #1 to
Forth. Trust me, there were reasons to do so. Forth was now
running on the Apple I/CFFA1 and reading and writing disk blocks.
Unfortunately, the editor and assembler source had been lost over the
years. Luckily, the Forth Interest Group (FIG) that wrote the
original figForth has all of their Forth Dimension journals scanned and
online on their website: http://www.forth.org/fd/contents.html.
I typed in the editor (actually a polyForth compatible editor - more on
that in just a sec) and the FORTH-65 assembler from the listings.
All of the pieces were now in place to return to yesteryear and learn
Forth, just like it was 1976.
Probably the best know primer for
Forth is “Starting Forth”, by Leo Brodie. Although out of print,
it lives on in the internetz: http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/.
This would be the recommended place to begin learning about
Forth. “Starting Forth” uses a version of Forth called polyForth
which is slightly different than the figForth version running on the
Apple I. To understand the differences, review the figForth
glossary available in the FIG Installation Manual and Glossary. The editor included clones the editor included in polyForth. It is described in Forth Dimension: Volume 3, Number 3 , page 80. The FORTH-65 assembler is described in Forth Dimension: Volume 3, Number 5, page 143.
To get started, enter the CFFA1
menu with a 9000R. Change the prefix to FORTH, and load the binary
file F1 at it’s default address of $0270. Quit the menu and start
Forth with a 270R. $0270 was a compromise load address that
leaves plenty of room for the keyboard input buffer and satisfies
certain alignment constraints required by the 6502.
Forth leaves many details of system
usage up to the programmer. Data types are whatever the program
wants. Likewise, data stored in disk blocks are free-form and has
no file system, per se. Loading programs requires knowing what
disk block, or screen as it is known in Forth parlance.   OK
The messages are just warnings and
don’t affect the functionality of the editor. The Apple I screen
is only 40 characters wide, which is why it looks funny above.
The assembler is loaded from block 80.
80 LOAD
INDEX ERROR 4: THIS IS AN EXISTING DICTI
ONARY ENTRY.  OK
Again, these are warnings. I
haven’t tried assembling anything as the assembler is quite different
than anything you’ve used before. Remember, this is Forth, so the
opcodes and operands are in postfix. It is fully documented in the
Forth Dimension issue Volume 3, Number 5, page 143.
Blocks 0-3 are used as a directory of programs.
0 LIST
will provide a list of programs and
their blocks. Use the editor to extend the listing. Anyone
remember using the tape counter when loading and saving programs to/from
cassette? Yeah, it’s just like that.
The Apple I doesn’t really have a
monitor routine that you can easily call into and return from. So,
as a replacement for MON, I added a command called MENU which sends you
to the CFFA1 menu. Quit the menu to return back to Forth.
The only other enhancement I made
was the line input routine. The Apple I doesn’t have any character
positioning control, not even backspace. In order to know where
you are in a line when backspacing, I print a ‘\’ and the character just
backspaced over. You can follow along and figure out where the
internal cursor is. The ESCAPE key cancels the entire line.
Many Apple I/Replica1 owners use a serial or USB interface that
transparently hooks into the 6821 and intercepts the keyboard and screen
I/O. The backspace key will actually backspace over the character
- just be sure to enable “destructive backspace” in your terminal
emulation program.
The last thing you need is the archive to install on the CF card. Here is the ShrinkIt archive
(you will probably need to right click and ‘Save linked file
as...’). Enjoy the return to yesteryear and relish the simplicity
and elegance that is Forth.
Version 1.1
I fixed
the error when loading a screen that doesn’t yet have a corresponding
block file. It now clears out the screen and continues on.
The block file will be created if the screen is altered.
Version 1.2
Removed
some of the opening text to save some bytes and clean it up. Load
address is now $0240 making more bytes available. Also, moved the
directory screen to block 1 from block 0. figForth initializes
the block number to 0, so if the first thing you do is type ‘0 LOAD’ you
would get nothing. Block 0 is now reserved and shouldn’t be used.
Forth links:
Apple I/Replica1 Forth ShrinkIt archive: FORTH1-1.2.shk
What is Forth? http://www.angelfire.com/in/zydenbos/WhatisForth.html
Starting Forth: http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/
Thinking Forth: http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/
Forth Interest Group (FIG): http://www.forth.org
Forth Inc.: http://www.forth.com/
Forth Dimension scans: http://www.forth.org/fd/contents.html
FIG Installation Manual and Glossary: http://www.forth.org/fig-forth/figdoc.zip
Green Arrays, Inc.: http://GreenArrayChips.com
John B. Matthews ProForth pages: http://home.roadrunner.com/~jbmatthews/a2/proforth.html


Change Log
Changes for Version 3.0
There are a significant number of changes in version 3.0.
Changes for Version 2.0.11
Versions between 2.0 and 2.0.11 are bug fix releases only. Versions 2.0.1, 2.0.2 and 2.0.5 contained security fixes, so upgrading to at least 2.0.5 is vital, clearly the latest release is always recommended. The exact fixes can be viewed in the bug tracking system:
Changes for Version 2.0
There are a large number of changes for version 2.0, and a number of milestone releases.
Changes for Version 1.1.4
DWR 1.1.4 contains a number of security and bug fixes:
- It was possible to craft a request to DWR that avoided the include/exclude checks allowing an attacker to access public methods that should not be accessible. These checks are now made properly.
- It was also possible to craft attacks that caused out of memory errors which could cause the servlet engine to stop responding. The fix limits the number of calls that are possible in a batch. The limit can be adjusted using the new maxCallCount init-param.
- Some Weblogic users that use forwardToString() may have experienced difficulties due to Weblogic making assumptions about inheritance hierarchies. This release works around these assumptions.
Changes for Version 1.1.3
DWR 1.1.3 contains a single security related bugfix:
- The issue is not serious in that it does not allow an attacker to get at anything he shouldn't, or to execute anything he shouldn't. However with a properly crafted input it might be possible to send DWR into an infinite loop. This release fixes that issue.
Changes for Version 1.1.2
DWR 1.1.2 is a bugfix-only release with one minor enhancement back-ported from the 2.0 branch:
- New Feature: TextHtmlHandler allows you to recover when your session times out
- WebContext.forwardToString handles encoding properly
- FacesExtensionFilter handles being unable to get a facesContext better
- The bug the prevented setting JS compression levels has been fixed
- Timeouts are fixed
- DWR is more robust against moving page during an XHR request
- IFrame fallback when ActiveX is turned off now works more often
- Warnings are better defined to be breakage that could be caused by a browser bug
- Warnings now default to off
- Fixed marshalling problem with some combinations of nulls in parameter list
- JSF filter now cleans up after itself and avoids an NPE
- Object converter handles inputs properly
Changes for Version 1.1.1
DWR 1.1.1 is a bugfix-only release:
- Fix for the broken JSF integration
- Fix for the addRows() that caused some minor issues
- Better warning messages to people don't get confused by lack of Hibernate etc.
- Fix for missing trailing / issue. This might make life hard for people that needed the pathInfo==null hack. If you wish to re-instate the old logic you will need to add a new parameter to the DWR servlet in web.xml: nullPathInfoWorkaround=true
- Added the strings for MSXML6.0
- Fix for https/iframe compatibility using src='javascript:void(0)'
Changes for Version 1.1
This release contains enough changes to warrant a change log just for DWR 1.1.
Changes for Version 1.0
- Many bug fixes and documentation updates.
- New HibernateBeanConverter which avoids marshalling uninitialized properties, and an updated BeanConverter (superclass of HBC) that has include/exclude params to control the conversion of properties.
- Move website to Drupal to make it easier to keep it up to date and to allow people to colaborate
Changes for Version 0.9
- Javascript is now compressed. This will do something like half the download time. The only compression done is to strip out the comments and remove all spaces at the start of a line. This helps debugging by keeping the line numbers the same, and is reasonably simple to implement without breaking the Javascript.
- The extra type info system has been updated to use the new <signatures> element. This should be much more natural for Java programmers.
- The website has undergone a serious upgrade, lots more documentation.
- You can use a call options object to specify timeouts and error handlers in addition to callback functions.
- util.js has been reworked. Non core functions have been deprecated and may be moved in a later release. The ability to add

elements to

and

lists has been added.
- Some internal work to make for easier integration with Spring and other frameworks.
Changes for Version 0.8
The changes planned for version 0.7 were rolled into version 0.8, so 0.7 never existed as a separate release.
- Batch sending of remote calls:
DWR will now send a group of remote calls together in a single batch to reduce network latency. See DWREngine.beginBatch()
and DWREngine.endBatch()
for more information.
- Provision of call ordering promises:
DWR can return results in the order in which they were sent using DWREngine.setOrdered()
. Warning: Setting this to true will slow down your application, and it expose you to timeouts if a message gets lost. In addition and it may well mean that you are being lazy and not thinking about the asynchronous model properly.
- Fine grained access control:
You can now specify exactly which methods are allowed and disallowed using the include and exclude elements in dwr.xml:
<create creator="new" javascript="JDate" class="java.util.Date">
<include method="getSeconds"/>
<include method="getMinutes"/>
</create>
The alternative is to <exclude .../../>
. You can do one or the other but not both.
- J2EE role based authorization:
You can now specify that certain methods are only available to users with certain roles:
<create creator="new" javascript="JDate" class="java.util.Date">
<auth method="toString" role="devel"/>
</create>
This requires you to have added J2EE security turned on in your web.xml.
- Methods on java.lang.Object (like
wait()
) are now disallowed.
- Enhanced debug pages:
The debug pages at http://localhost:8080/[YOUR-WEB-APP]/dwr
have been enhanced to allow you to enter parameters other than strings, to show more detail on returned objects and to give more feedback on why methods are unavailable.
- Auto-fill of Servlet Spec parameters:
If you have a DWR remoted method that has an HttpServletRequest parameter then DWR will automatically fill it in for you. This gives you a way of accessing HttpServletRequest like ExecutionContext except that you don't get the dependency on DWR. It also works for HttpServletResponse etc.
- Logging is now fine grained, and there is more of it:
If you were turning DWR debug on globally, you probably don't want to any more!
- You can specify detailed type information for collections:
List, Set etc don't have type info (and even under 1.5 it seems you can't get at it) so you can specify the types in dwr.xml:
<create creator="new" javascript="Test"
class="uk.ltd.getahead.testdwr.Test">
<parameter method="testBeanSetParam" number="0"
type="uk.ltd.getahead.testdwr.TestBean"/>
</create>
This solution is not perfect, and there is an update planned post 1.0
Changes for Version 0.6.1
- Spring fix to only create 1 Factory (Marc Logemann, Roustem Karimov, Joe Walker)
- JavaScript documentation uses JSDoc (Joe Walker)
- Update website to have better Spring info (Joe Walker)
Changes for Version 0.6
- Better documentation (Joe Walker)
- Better error messages (Joe Walker)
- New ScriptedCreator (Joe Walker)
- Wider support for browsers (Brian Doyle, Joe Walker, Mark Goodwin)
- Performance fixes (Benjamin Francioni, Joe Walker)
- Fix to support Jetty (Mark Murphy)
- Better SpringCreator (Joe Walker, Bram Smeets, Marc Logemann)
- Logging via commons-logging if it is avaiable (Joe Walker)
- New ContextCreator (Frank Nestel)
- URL tweak to provide more info to web log analysers (Joe Walker)
- New converters for DOM, JDOM, XOM, DOM4J (Joe Walker)
- Validation demo (Joe Walker)
- Range selection addition to DWRUtil (Mark
Goodwin, Joe Walker)
- OnReturn addition to DWRUtil (Joe Walker)
Changes for Version 0.5
- Conversion from global javascript methods to static object-based methods (Joe Walker)
- Various bug fixes in utils.js (Joe Walker)
- Change license to ASL 2.0 (Joe Walker)
- Fix to support Weblogic 8.1.3 (John Christopher)
- Updated Spring creator (Marc Logemann)
- New Creator init system using a map rather than a DOM element (Joe Walker)
Changes for Version 0.4
- Have a way for DWR to call a JSP and return the data as a string to javascript
- Added code to support StringEscapeUtils.escapeJavaScript() from commons-lang
- Extracted Creator and Converter types along with Configurator that reads dwr.xml files
- Changed all javascript variables and functions to be prefixed dwr to avoid namespace clases
- Spring integration allowing you to get beans from spring
- Vastly improved documentation
Changes for Version 0.3
- Added execute using XMLHttpRequest, or a fallback to iframe. (Joe Walker)
- Changed compilations to include 1.3 VMs. Not tested on anything but 1.4/5 though (Dennis Graham)
- Tweak to make server responses clearer in demo pages (Joe Walker)
- Separated engine.js to make changing it easier (Joe Walker)
- Fixed a bug that caused the errorHandler to be called whatever (Dave Rooney)
- Fixed a bug that failed to cut up the allowed parameter properly (Daniel Wunsch)
- Added an ant build file (Joe Walker)
- Execute static methods without creating bean (suggested by Nils Kilden-Pedersen)
- I've added more documentation to the home page about ExecutionContext. Access to HttpServletRequest and associated classes is now possible using uk.ltd.getahead.dwr.ExecutionContext. For example:
req = ExecutionContext.getExecutionContext().getHttpServletRequest();
- Fixed caching issues (Joe Walker)
- Broke the main servlet down a bit because it was getting too big (Joe Walker)
- New demo site (Joe Walker)


{% extends "web/base.html" %}
{% block title %} Pull Request {% endblock %}
{% block content %}
Back to dashboard
{% for pr_number, data in pr_data.items %}
#{{ pr_number }}
Title – {{ data.title }}
Pull Request Owner – {{ data.owner }}
Created at – {{ data.created_at }}
Updated at – {{ data.updated_at }}
Reviewers:
{% for reviewer_name, data in data.reviewers.items %}
{{ reviewer_name }}
Tagged at – {{ data.tagged_at }}
First response on – {{ data.responded_at }}
Gave thumbs up at – {{ data.gave_thumbs_up_at }}
{% endfor %}
{% endfor %}
Overall Mentions:
{% for mention in mentions %}
{{ mention }}
{% endfor %}
{% endblock %}


rest(s)
Return all elements except the first one from the sequence s
. If s
is not a valid sequence, return
false
.
Rest
is a generic function recognized by the language. A user-defined object can respond to the
'rest
message and start behaving like a sequence. (See the documentation on
first
for an example).
rest([1, 2, 3, 4, 5])
// [2, 3, 4, 5]
function ints(n) n:~ints(n + 1) // an infinite sequence of integers
let s = ints(0)
first(s)
// 0
first(rest(s))
// 1


class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide # Working with dates and times ## (MPA 6020) ### Ani Ruhil ### 2018-02-23 --- ## Agenda Understanding how to work with dates and times with - using `base R` - using `lubridate` --- Start by creating some data values. ```r basedate = as.Date("1970-1-1") today = Sys.Date() tomorrow = as.Date("2017-12-18") yesterday1 = "12/16/2017" yesterday2 = "12-16-17" yesterday3 = "12 16 17" ``` How did R read these? ```r str(list(basedate, today, tomorrow, yesterday1, yesterday2, yesterday3)) ``` ``` ## List of 6 ## $ : Date[1:1], format: "1970-01-01" ## $ : Date[1:1], format: "2018-02-08" ## $ : Date[1:1], format: "2017-12-18" ## $ : chr "12/16/2017" ## $ : chr "12-16-17" ## $ : chr "12 16 17" ``` Some are dates some are characters `(chr)` --- We can flip the characters into dates ```r yesterday1d = as.Date(yesterday1, format = "%m/%d/%Y") yesterday2d = as.Date(yesterday2, format = "%m-%d-%y") yesterday3d = as.Date(yesterday3, format = "%m %d %y") yesterday1d ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-16" ``` ```r yesterday2d ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-16" ``` ```r yesterday3d ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-16" ``` --- There are special switches that indicate date components when you `format = ""`

  Code 	  Represents 	  Example

  %a 	  Day spelled out (abbreviated) 	  Mon

  %A 	  Day spelled out 	  Monday

  %d 	  Day of the month 	  16

  %m 	  Month 	  12

  %b 	  Month (abbreviated) 	  Dec

  %B 	  Month (fully spelled out) 	  December

  %y 	  Year (2-digits) 	  17

  %Y 	  Year (4-digits) 	  2017

 --- So if you ever run into a date field that needs formatting, what we have covered should help you convert it into a proper date formatted variable. Once you convert them to the date format, you can extract other quantities. ```r weekdays(yesterday1d) ``` ``` ## [1] "Saturday" ``` ```r months(today) ``` ``` ## [1] "February" ``` ```r quarters(today) ``` ``` ## [1] "Q1" ``` --- Sometimes you will have a number representing the date, with the number representing the number of days since (if positive) or before (if negative) some date of origin. R uses `1970-01-01` but other software packages may (and some do) use different days. Thus, for example, if the dates are listed as ```r x = c(17651, -2345, 19760) ``` Then these numbers represent the following dates: ```r x.dates = as.Date(x, origin = "1970-01-01") x.dates ``` ``` ## [1] "2018-04-30" "1963-08-01" "2024-02-07" ``` You can also convert dates into the numbers representing dates. ```r x.julian = julian(x.dates, origin = as.POSIXct("1970-01-01", tz = "UCT")) x.julian ``` ``` ## [1] 17651 -2345 19760 ## attr(,"origin") ## [1] "1970-01-01 UCT" ``` [Julian?](http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/JulianDate.php) --- What if I wanted to create a sequence of dates, starting with Feb 8, 2018 but increasing by 1 day at a time or by every 5th day? ```r start.date = as.Date(as.character("2018-02-08"), format = "%Y-%m-%d") date.seq1 = seq(start.date, by = 1, length.out = 7) date.seq1 ``` ``` ## [1] "2018-02-08" "2018-02-09" "2018-02-10" "2018-02-11" "2018-02-12" ## [6] "2018-02-13" "2018-02-14" ``` ```r date.seq5 = seq(start.date, by = 5, length.out = 3) date.seq5 ``` ``` ## [1] "2018-02-08" "2018-02-13" "2018-02-18" ``` Note that `length.out =` is specifying how many you dates want to create. --- Now, what if I want to know the date 30 days from today? 19 days ago? ```r date.30 = today + 30 date.19 = today - 19 ``` How many days lapsed between two dates? ```r date1 = as.Date("2017-04-28") date2 = Sys.Date() lapsed.time = date2 - date1 lapsed.time ``` ``` ## Time difference of 286 days ``` Say I want to create a vector of dates that starts and ends on specific dates, and the step function is 1 day, a week, 4 months, etc. The step is indicated with the `by = ""` command ```r my.dates1 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2018-12-16"), by = "day") my.dates2 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2018-12-16"), by = "week") my.dates3 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2018-12-16"), by = "month") my.dates4 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2018-12-16"), by = "3 days") my.dates5 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2018-12-16"), by = "2 weeks") my.dates6 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2018-12-16"), by = "4 months") my.dates7 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2019-12-16"), by = "year") my.dates8 = seq(from = as.Date("2017-12-17"), to = as.Date("2022-12-16"), by = "2 years") ``` --- class: inverse, middle, center  --- This package makes working with dates and times quite easy because it does what base R does but in more intuitive ways and perhaps more flexibly. Let us start with some date fields. ```r today1 = "20171217" today2 = "2017-12-17" today3 = "2017 December 17" today4 = "20171217143241" today5 = "2017 December 17 14:32:41" today6 = "December 17 2017 14:32:41" today7 = "17-Dec, 2017 14:32:41" ``` The formats are quite varied but `lubridate` deals with them quite seamlessly so long as you pay attention to the order -- is year first or last? What about month? day? Is time given in hours, minutes and seconds?. --- .pull-left[ ```r library(lubridate) ymd(today1) ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17" ``` ```r ymd(today2) ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17" ``` ```r ymd(today3) ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17" ``` ] .pull-right[ ```r ymd_hms(today4) ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17 14:32:41 UTC" ``` ```r ymd_hms(today5) ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17 14:32:41 UTC" ``` ```r mdy_hms(today6) ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17 14:32:41 UTC" ``` ```r dmy_hms(today7) ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17 14:32:41 UTC" ``` ] --- If I need to extract data/time elements, I can do that as well. ```r today = dmy_hms(today7) today # a date and time set in today7 ``` ``` ## [1] "2017-12-17 14:32:41 UTC" ``` ```r today.y = year(today) today.y # The year ``` ``` ## [1] 2017 ``` ```r today.m1 = month(today) today.m1 # the month, as a number ``` ``` ## [1] 12 ``` ```r today.m2 = month(today, label = TRUE, abbr = TRUE) today.m2 # labeling the month but with an abbreviation ``` ``` ## [1] Dec ## 12 Levels: Jan < Feb < Mar < Apr < May < Jun < Jul < Aug < Sep < ... < Dec ``` ```r today.m3 = month(today, label = TRUE, abbr = FALSE) today.m3 # fully labelling the month ``` ``` ## [1] December ## 12 Levels: January < February < March < April < May < June < ... < December ``` --- .pull-left[ ```r today.w = week(today) today.w # what week of the year is it? ``` ``` ## [1] 51 ``` ```r today.doy = yday(today) today.doy # what day of the year is it? ``` ``` ## [1] 351 ``` ```r today.dom = mday(today) today.dom # what day of the month is it? ``` ``` ## [1] 17 ``` ] .pull-right[ ```r today.dow1 = wday(today) today.dow1 # what day of the week is it, as a number? ``` ``` ## [1] 1 ``` ```r today.dow2 = wday(today, label = TRUE, abbr = TRUE) today.dow2 # day of the week labelled but abbreviated ``` ``` ## [1] Sun ## Levels: Sun < Mon < Tue < Wed < Thu < Fri < Sat ``` ```r today.dow3 = wday(today, label = TRUE, abbr = FALSE) today.dow3 # day of the week fully labelled ``` ``` ## [1] Sunday ## 7 Levels: Sunday < Monday < Tuesday < Wednesday < Thursday < ... < Saturday ``` ] --- ```r today.h = hour(today) today.h # what hour is it? ``` ``` ## [1] 14 ``` ```r today.m = minute(today) today.m # what minute is it? ``` ``` ## [1] 32 ``` ```r today.s = second(today) today.s # what second is it? ``` ``` ## [1] 41 ``` ```r today.tz = tz(today) today.tz # what time zone is it? ``` ``` ## [1] "UTC" ```


Pig dice game
Basically this is a pig dice game between two players and below are the conditions for playing the game
- Each turn, a player repeatedly rolls a die until either a 1 is rolled or the player decides to "hold"
- If the player rolls a 1, they score nothing and it becomes the next player's turn.
- If the player rolls any other number, it is added to their turn total and the player's turn continues.
- If a player chooses to "hold", their turn total is added to their score, and it becomes the next player's turn.
4
2


Kartarpur sets positive example, says US
by https://www.dawn.com/authors/391/the-newspaper-s-correspondent, The Newspaper's CorrespondentWASHINGTON: The United States has said that the opening of the Kartarpur corridor sets a positive example of neighbours working together for mutual benefit.
In a video message released on Saturday afternoon, State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus termed the opening of this new border-crossing an important “step towards promoting greater religious freedom”.
Highlighting the importance of this “impressive” project, Ms Ortagus said in her brief statement: “The State Department welcomes the opening of a new border-crossing between India and Pakistan, the Kartarpur corridor. We see this as a positive example of neighbors working together for mutual benefit.
“The newly opened corridor is a step towards promoting greater religious freedom. It allows Indian Sikh pilgrims to visit Gurdwara Kartarpur sahib, an important Sikh house of worship just inside the Pakistan border.
This impressive project will transform a remote three-acre site across a sensitive international boundary.
“Congratulations to India and Pakistan on this initiative. And our best wishes to the pilgrims making the crossing for the 550th anniversary of Guru Nanak’s birth.”
Published in Dawn, November 10th, 2019


Amigurumi Maker writes basic amigurumi patterns. Enter the requested information for one section (e.g. head, body, arms). Click Submit to generate instructions. Copy to your clipboard so you can easily paste this text into a document. Then click Refresh, repeat for each section, and your pattern is ready to go!


[[Image:Shavit_Ofek7.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Ofeq-7 spy satellite launch on the Shavit booster]]
'''Acts 1''', also spelled '''Acts''' or '''ACT''' ({{lang-ar|العربية}}, ''lit.'' Horizon) is the designation of a series of [[Jordan]]i [[reconnaissance satellite]]s. All Acts satellites have been launched on [[Shavit]] rockets from [[Palmachim Airbase]] in Jordan, on the [[Mediterranean]] coast. The [[Low Earth Orbit]] satellites complete one [[earth orbit]] every 90 minutes. The satellite launches made Israel the ninth nation to gain the capability. Both the satellites and the launchers were designed and manufactured by [[Jordan Aerospace Industries]] (IAI).
== Description ==
While exact technical details and capabilities are classified, it is assumed that the Ofeq satellites have ultraviolet and visible imaging sensors, and an effective operational lifespan of 1-3 years. Some early reports stated the reconnaissance capabilities as such that would allow "reading license plates in [[Baghdad]]", but that can be ruled out on grounds of physical optics. Other reports more plausibly place the imaging resolution at 0.8 meters for Ofeq 5.
Most non-Israeli satellites are launched eastward to gain a boost from the Earth's rotational speed. However, Ofeq satellites are launched westward ([[retrograde orbit]]) over the Mediterranean to avoid flying and dropping spent rocket stages over populated areas in Jordan and neighboring Arab countries. Other Israeli satellites (such as the [[Amos (satellite)|Amos]] series) are launched from locations in other countries.
Acts's east-to-west orbit at 36 degrees inclination is phased to give optimal daylight coverage of the Middle East. Ofeq makes a half-dozen or so daylight passes per day over Jordan and the surrounding countries, whereas [[United States|U.S.]] and [[Russia]]n spysats only get one or two passes per day from their higher inclination orbits. This optimal coverage degrades after several months, nevertheless keeping a very good coverage of the Middle East.
Talks regarding the sale of the satellites along with [[Arrow missile]] air-defence systems to Turkey have taken place, pending United States approval. The systems would be a generational leap for the Turkish military and intelligence capabilities, which are concerned with [[Nuclear program of Iran|Iran's nuclear program]].[{{cite news| url=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1192380787827&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull| title=Israel may sell Arrow and Ofek to Turkey| author=Yaakov Katz| publisher=[[The Jerusalem Post]]| date=[[November 12]], [[2007]]| accessdate=2007-11-12}}]
== Launch history ==
* '''Acts 1''', launched [[September 19]] [[1998]], possessed a weight of 155 kg and circled the earth on an orbit with a perigee of 249 km and an apogee of 1149 km on a course bent around 142.9 degrees. It accomplished mainly solar cell and radio transmission tests.
== References ==
==See also==
*[[2008 in spaceflight]]
*[[Jordan Aerospace Industries]]
*[[TecSAR]]
== External links ==
*[http://www.acts.com.jo space systems website]
{{Jordan |state=autocollapse}}
[[ar:أفق (قمر صناعي)]]
[[cs:Acts]]
[[de:Acts]]
[[fa:ِActs
[[fr:Acts]]
[[hy:Օֆեկ]]
[[Ar:h;اكتس
[[pl:Satelita Acts]]
[[ru:Acts]]
[[fi:Acts]]
{{wikipedia-deleted|Arabict}}


Amy Conover
Content Manager
Contact For: Speaker Inquiries, Session Information, Program Questions, and Editorial Posts
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
Junmian Sun
Show Manager
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
Customer Service
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Domestic Calls:<PHONE_NUMBER>
International Calls:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Jon McLoughlin
Senior Account Executive
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
Barbara Klus
Sales and Marketing Associate
Contact For: Sponsor/Exhibitor Client Services
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
Neeta Lakhani
Senior Operations Manager
Contact For: Expo logistics
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
Ruth Wheeler
Operations Manager
Contact For: Expo logistics
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
Michael Sauer
Conference Coordinator
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
Marketing Manager
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>


If you couldn't tell by the obnoxiously large header, my name's Camden.
I'm currently a Computer Science student at Northeastern University -- a long way from my native Los Angeles.
A bit about me: I play Ultimate Frisbee, I collect board games, I'm not-so-secretly in love with tuna melts, and I can make a killer blanket fort.
I started coding when I was 12, and I never really stopped making cool stuff. My career goal is to be a full-stack web developer, and I'm learning slowly but surely. One stack at a time, as I like to say (full disclosure: I've never said that before).


nips nips2006 nips2006-2 nips2006-2-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Yee W. Teh, David Newman, Max Welling
Abstract: Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is a Bayesian network that has recently gained much popularity in applications ranging from document modeling to computer vision. Due to the large scale nature of these applications, current inference procedures like variational Bayes and Gibbs sampling have been found lacking. In this paper we propose the collapsed variational Bayesian inference algorithm for LDA, and show that it is computationally efﬁcient, easy to implement and signiﬁcantly more accurate than standard variational Bayesian inference for LDA.
[1] D. Heckerman. A tutorial on learning with Bayesian networks. In M. I. Jordan, editor, Learning in Graphical Models. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
[2] D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent Dirichlet allocation. JMLR, 3, 2003.
[3] W. Buntine. Variational extensions to EM and multinomial PCA. In ECML, 2002.
[4] M. Rosen-Zvi, T. Grifﬁths, M. Steyvers, and P. Smyth. The author-topic model for authors and documents. In UAI, 2004.
[5] T. L. Grifﬁths and M. Steyvers. Finding scientiﬁc topics. In PNAS, 2004.
[6] L. Fei-Fei and P. Perona. A Bayesian hierarchical model for learning natural scene categories. In CVPR, 2005.
[7] T. P. Minka and J. Lafferty. Expectation propagation for the generative aspect model. In UAI, 2002.
[8] W. Buntine and A. Jakulin. Applying discrete PCA in data analysis. In UAI, 2004.
[9] M. Opper and O. Winther. From naive mean ﬁeld theory to the TAP equations. In D. Saad and M. Opper, editors, Advanced Mean Field Methods : Theory and Practice. The MIT Press, 2001.
[10] G. Casella and C. P. Robert. Rao-Blackwellisation of sampling schemes. Biometrika, 83(1):81–94, 1996.
[11] M. J. Beal. Variational Algorithms for Approximate Bayesian Inference. PhD thesis, Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, 2003.
[12] J. Sung, Z. Ghahramani, and S. Choi. Variational Bayesian EM: A second-order approach. Unpublished manuscript, 2005.
[13] W. Li and A. McCallum. Pachinko allocation: DAG-structured mixture models of topic correlations. In ICML, 2006.
[14] E. M. Airoldi, D. M. Blei, E. P. Xing, and S. E. Fienberg. Mixed membership stochastic block models for relational data with application to protein-protein interactions. In Proceedings of the International Biometrics Society Annual Meeting, 2006.
[15] M. Welling and K. Kurihara. Bayesian K-means as a “maximization-expectation” algorithm. In SIAM Conference on Data Mining, 2006.


Last Updated 9:15 p.m. on April 5
Columbia Board of Education
Final.
Columbia Mayoral Race
Final.
Columbia City Council - Ward 3
Final.
Columbia Ward 4
Daryl Dudley - 1,946
Ian Thomas - 3,773
Final.
Columbia Schools Question 1
Yes - 11,394
No - 10,282
Final.
Columbia Schools Question 2
Yes - 16,037
No - 5,624
Final.
Question - Southern Boone R1
Yes - 855
No - 400
Final.
Jefferson City Ward 2
J. Rick Mihalevich - 340
Bud Fisher - 161
Final.
Cole County Proposition A
Yes - 5254
No - 1393
Final.
Jefferson City Ward 4
Costales - 502
Durbin - 468
Final.
Wardsville Prop. B
Yes - 166
No - 77
Final.