Legal lessons from America

反序列化操作 "Translate" 的响应消息的正文时出现错误。读取 XML 数据时，超出最大字符串内容长度配额 (8192) 。通过更改在创建 XML 读取器时所使用的 XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas MaxStringContentLength 属性，可增加此配额。 对象的 第 1 行，位置为 8848。

America's environmental laws have influenced the development of green legislation abroad: China's Environmental Impact Assessment Law, for example, reflects study of the United States' National Environmental Policy Act, while Beijing's recent laws and regulations on public disclosure of information show an understanding of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Mongolia developed its national environmental laws with the help of American lawyers. There are dozens of other such examples.

Do But what about environmental case law in the United States? Are there lessons to be drawn from the wins and the losses for counterparts in the environmental law profession and their colleagues abroad?

At a recent roundtable with Chinese environmental law professionals in San Francisco, a lively discussion developed on the issue of lawyers' fees and court fees. On first blush, this might seem a minor issue compared to the larger environmental challenges at hand both in China and the United States, but in China, public-interest environmental law is so new that working out who pays for lawsuits is still a critical problem to solve.

In the United States, the rule of thumb (often called the "american rule") is that each side pays its own attorney fees, regardless of whether they win or lose. That's a critical reason some famous cases - such as the suit organised by Erin Brockovich against California's Pacific Gas and Electric Company over contamination of drinking water in the southern Californian town of Hinkley - were able to go ahead. (In contrast in England, the risk to the injured citizen of having to pay defendants attorney fees is simply too great and can target people from pursuing such claims).?Christiansburg Garment Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, though not an environmental case, further ensured that when citizen groups lose to case against big corporations in the United States, they don 't have to pay their opponent's legal fees.

Another key issue for international environmental law in China and elsewhere is "standing" - the legal term for the right to sue. In the United States, Sierra Club v. Morton in 1972 was the crucial Supreme Court case that established standing based on environmental-resource interests. The Sierra Club ultimately lost the case (in which it attempted to fight development in an area near Sequoia National Park, California) but won the war because the Supreme Court decision laid out a clear roadmap for how to successfully establish legal standing-to-sue in future cases. The case established that an environmental organisation could sue not on behalf of the organisation itself, but on the basis of evidence of injury to members whose aesthetic or recreational interests had been damaged.

In 2000, standing issues were further clarified to the advantage of environmental organisations, in particular for pollution cases, as a result of Friends of the Earth v Laidlaw Environmental Services. The case was brought against a company that had formerly been polluting to section of the North Tyger River in South Carolina. The case held that the plaintiffs had the right to sue based on the damage to members who would have used the resources had not been repeatedly and illegally polluted by Laidlaw it recreationally. In other words, the case helped clarify that plaintiffs did not need to produce prohibitively expensive evidence that specific particles of pollution produced by the defendant had specific health impacts on its members.

New laws and regulations on the public right to access environmental information, and efforts to ensure there are legal avenues for making challenges on transparency grounds are at a critical proving point in China, and elsewhere. In the United States, legislation such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Freedom of Information Act, you have provided clear guidelines on how information must be disclosed, and there have been few modifications by the courts.

Prior to the CWA, for example, the United States' rivers and harbours protection laws required plaintiffs to prove injury to the environment directly from the defendant's actions. The CWA put the burden on the defendants by required them to file regular "discharge monitoring reports", detailing whether or not they were meeting their pollution-permit requirements, and creating the right for any citizen or NGO to sue for violations. A company's own reports must show violations of permits, and the CWA citizen suit provisions have allowed citizen groups to hold companies accountable for these violations.

In other areas of natural resource decision-making, however, access to information on US government decisions has been less clear cut. In 2004, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch sued vice president Dick Cheney under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) for holding a series of secret meetings with industry representatives, under the auspices of the "national energy policy development group". The plaintiffs were concerned that Cheney was attempting to steer the United States illegally towards a backward, carbon-intensive energy policy and felt that broader consensus on energy issues would be better for the country.?Ultimately, Cheney was favoured by the Supreme Court on grounds of protecting state secrets. But the order's efforts were hailed as an important tactic for exposing Cheney's back-door manipulations of national energy policy.

Some US environmental lawsuits are useful to reflect upon not necessarily for their outcomes, but for the tactical issues they raised. Since the late 1980s, a long list of lawsuits brought by various environmental interests targeted protection of the northern spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. These suits first appeared at at time when logging was rampant across the north-western United States, and the cases created a train wreck for the regional timber industry. The environmental side won some of the cases, and lost others. But more importantly, the cases did what the plaintiffs wanted them to do: they greatly raised the profile of the destruction of the nation's last remaining ancient forests.

The most successful environmental suits in courts, however, are those that are brought as part of to much broader strategy involving public outreach, research, lobbying and other tactics. Environmental lawyers in the United States almost always work in collaboration with environmental non-profit organisations or other citizen groups. One crucial reason for this is that, as president Abraham Lincoln in 1858 said, "Public sentiment is everything." With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. "Consequently, I who moulds opinion is greater than I who enacts laws." Without public support for a lawsuit, or at least public awareness and concern over the issue it addresses, litigation efforts can backfire. But more importantly, public support is necessary for ensuring that, after a win in court, environmental gains can be sustained over time.

This is perhaps the most important lesson from US environmental case law for new practitioners of green legislation in China and elsewhere, as well as communities and organisations that may seek to bring lawsuits as a means of addressing environmental concerns.

Alex Levinson is the executive director of Pacific Environment. I have previously worked for 20 years in the Sierra Club's legal department and has taught environmental law in China. Kristen McDonald is China programme director at Pacific Environment.

Homepage image from USFWS Pacific shows the northern spotted owl.

View the original article here

Hacker's swatting attacks calls police Langley home

Langley, bc, fake 911 call emergency response team, along with his family around the House after police in the police as their complaint about computer hackers has finally taken seriously.

But it is not the first time the kind of incident. Boat show to be a part of a trend dubbed severe prank call — in disguise the origin of the 911 calls using a technique called spoofing or unsuspecting home emergency response SWAT team tricking the police to transfer.

Louis gray has been constantly harassed by her family and her son by hackers for the half year to Youtube after posting the video. Since then meets all over the Web on their phone numbers, addresses, and email, she says.

Then on Monday, gray claimed that hackers used to call her son's computer account, and that he had killed several people hostage in their home through your computer holding the family's more police.

Police emergency response team when she opened her door, Gray was surrounded by.

"Tell me to put my hands on a gun pointing at the neighbor's yard and all along was a SWAT team," he said.

Police had seized a computer hacker to find the elusive gray. But gray says she went to the RCMP police harassment started for the first time, she ignores it.

"I'm disappointed, but I am assured that they are looking at it now. It's too bad because we don't want this person seriously this was done for them, "he said.

Cyber crime experts from the boat's second such case in recent days, cold case, actually.

Well known Internet crime specialists to her house after you have created a bogus 911 call someone in New Jersey, was surrounded by SWAT teams on Sunday.

In 2008, in Washington State, California, was sentenced to three years in prison in the men's boat fined $ 14,000 for.

Peter Cassidy, anti-phishing working group, according to a study that is a member of the non-profit has become more common boat Internet crime.

"Call someone they referred to the local police to exploit the target," Cassidy says.

The caller also gives the total number of claims, the hostage taker, all the while the home address to pose hoping Police SWAT raid on the home of the unsuspecting target will respond.

Phone call in order to convince the police that a real, real ID spoofing to hide the origin of the swatters are called simple tricks.

In the case of Langley, the police came calling on the phone with area code in California.

However, Cassidy can just as easily call destination to display says swatters at home, use one of several companies on the Internet, they spoof the caller ID to show at what number comes up, select the allow callers to provide free services

Cassidy held a virtual monopoly, with a handful of major phone companies, says police call through to be able to track the origin of these calls the industry so that but would have been very difficult to keep track of the torn now.

Back to the Accessibility link

View the original article here

Control of errors in KRL

If you followed along, you know that KRL, kinetic language of the rule is an event in the language processing for the processing of events on behalf of an individual entity (usually a person). Think of it as a language of processing of complex events of the people.

For a long time, it has been difficult for developers KRL control errors. The language did not have any mechanism for exceptions and the only hope was to activate debug and fix them. However, all too often, you don't want to correct errors and handle them. Errors are not always problems in the code: errors to correct - but exceptional conditions that a program needs to be ready for and treat appropriately.

Most modern language have some kind of control mechanism of exceptions, some more sophisticated than others. I realized that control of exceptions is usually treated as a small system event within a larger imperative language. KRL, a language event, is perfectly suitable for error handling: If only the system would raise them as events. To date, it does.

The most recent update of the kinetic rules engine provides support in KRL for functions related to errors and mistakes in KRL control:

system errors - errors in the system (how to apply an operator to an operand of an inappropriate type so that the system cannot recover) will cause an event with system of domain events and errors of the type of event. The event may have the following attributes: msg - error message as a text stringlevel - error level, one error, warning, info, debuggenus - categorizing main error according to the hierarchy of events is shown in documentation.species - less categorization of the error with the hierarchy.rid of the event - ID of set of rules that caused the errorrule_name - the name of the rule that caused the error

explicit errors - as we shall see below, developers can explicitly event cause- and -error. These errors event domain user and the type of event error can be msg, level, eliminating and rule_name attributes.

redirection of error - block target now supports the inclusion of the errors for pragma that defines the set of rules which is control of errors for the current set of rules.

target {... a16x88 version "dev" errors...}

The release clause is optional.

Error handling - ErrorStack module admits errors in shipment to ErrorStack online service. Of course, other actions may also be taken as appropriate.

Cause error events is a natural way to treat out-of-bounds conditions in a set of rules KRL already rules to respond to errors in writing is a natural extension of the basic behavior of the system. When the system generates an error event, or a developer makes that one was raised with an explicit statement of error in the postlude of rule, that event is evaluated by the engine in the current implementation cycle and any rule that selects for that mistake with the given attributes, the type and the domain of event will be added to the programming of the evaluation.

The rules in the current set of rules for the selection will be assessed in the absence of errors for pragma in the block of the goal. If the errors to pragma, the rules in the RuleSet identified by this pragma will be the evaluation for the selection. If a set of rules has no rules to control the event of error and mistakes to pragma is not present, the event of error, like any other unhandled event, does not affect the implementation of the set of rules or system.

ErrorStack module is a simple example of how you can report bugs. ErrorStack is a service that provides an API to report errors that are presented to the owner of the error with the support of categorization stack, alerts and viewing. To register for the service of Error stack, you can create any number of batteries from various reports of errors. A developer key uniquely identifies the pile of errors that are reported, the errors.

ErrorStack module has a single definite action, send_error, that takes a message. When you use the module in a set of rules (by using pragma module) is configured with the key to stack the developer receives Error stack. The following code fragment shows a rule that handles errors and reports to an Error by the action of send_error stack:

process_error rule {select when system error or user error pre {genre = event:param("genus"); species = event:param("species");} e:send_error ("(#{genus}:#{species})" + event:param("msg")) with rule_name = event:param("rule_name") and remove = event:param("rid");}

The rule assumes that the following pragma was present at the Bloc's goal of the set of rules and the developer key is stored in keychain from the set of rules:

use the a16x104 module alias is es_key = keys:errorstack

Error stack is not the only way to control errors. More generally, can use the HTTP library to send the notification to some other API such as notifio, the library of Twilio to send an SMS, or even tweet the error. Alternatively, there may be some mitigation to apply.

Developers can raise their own errors using the error in the postlude. Technically, an error is simply an event, developers have been able to do so using the explicit event and it may yet. Instruction error just more convenient. The syntax of an explicit statement of error is:

Where is one of the errors, warning, information or debugging and error is valid KRL expression resulting in a string (or something) that can convert a string as a number. In the following example would be an event with user error and the type of domain with level info and a message with the value of a variable called consultation if the rule fired: fired {info error "query:" + consultation}

Each set of rules must be a rule of error control General as above or send errors to a set of rules that have been created to control errors. Of course, error control rules can be more specific mode with more sophisticated select statements, filtering in the genre of error and species, as well as the error message. Controller error that causes mistakes themselves do not cause an infinite recursion in any case the system you will catch you and break the chain of events.

Posted by windley may 24, 2011, 11: 59 AM

View the original article here

More Ontario fire evacuees return home

A few hundred people in Northwestern Ontario, their society is heading home by wildfire, a provincial official says force.

A local emergency management Ontario E a b e t o m Wednesday, said o n g/port hope to return some 400 people and Sandy Lake.

"About 100 will be returned to the Sandy Lake residents are welcome to prepare over the next few days the inhabitants from the rest of the community," the Agency said in a statement.

On Tuesday, the first in the country, the road can be accessed by bus more than 150 people Mishkeegogamang returned.

There are still some 3,000 people waiting for the smoke so they can return to their communities, many of which can be accessed by air, canceled.

Ontario's natural resources Ministry in cooler weather helped firefighters contain fire of recent magic they fight.

"Over the past couple of days to keep suppressing fire in precipitation will be an important factor," said the Government pointed out, there are still 114 fire.

At the end of this year, the Government of the affected area of 541883 hectares, the revised scale on Wednesday burned.

Accessibility options in the file links on the Canada press again

View the original article here

Alex Trebek hurt while chasing burglary

"Danger!" host Alex Trebek cash, bracelets and other items stolen from his hotel room in San Francisco who is stolen while you are running after his Achilles tendon snapped he says.

Falling down while he also Chase early Trebek while their other leg injury KGO TV on Wednesday. He is in the Google headquarters in mountain view on crutches Wednesday's later National Geographic World Championship while serving as hosts.

San Francisco Police Lieutenant Troy Dangerfield says the 56-year-old felony theft and receiving stolen property, Moyers old Lou was arrested. Cash and other items recovered but haven't found the bracelet.

6 weeks of surgery on Friday and Trebek cast is expected to be in.

Back to the Accessibility link

View the original article here

East Coast cod recovery found to be

Nova Scotia's Atlantic cod recover from the collapse of their dramatic new evidence show ten years ago — and recovery of ecosystems with them.

Scotian Shelf, with lead times of 8 to 18 percent in the similar species and more than in 1992, 2005, 2006, between their ages have been large for 2010. Ap

Canada says with time, you can return the proposed major changes to the marine ecosystem research published in science journal nature on Wednesday.

It is also "sign" other cod populations in the North has not yet recovered, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Kenneth Frank N led by researchers at S.. research says that along the East Coast

After a trial, Nova Scotia with looting once the East side of the Scotian Shelf millions of cod at sea since 1993 more than 10 years, despite the moratorium on cod fishing capelin and herring and plankton-eating fish such as the many small, dominated by the left. Ecosystems irreversibly led to fear had been changed.

Frank's research has shown that fear, has been partially by uncovering why cod recovery easy for so long.

"This unfolding drama held many surprises," the paper says.

Study on the collapse of the cod eat plankton such as Carnivore "forage fish" is the result of a population explosion. Up to 9 times the mass of these fish in the sea in 1994, 1999, the peak of what is reached before the collapse of the Cod. bumps At the same level as they sought to compete and sometimes cod eggs and cod population recovery ate a baby cod.

But the lack of food resources and plankton eaters and in the end, their population had begun to decline steadily early.

In 2005, where they went to the "recovery" State of the ecosystem around the population began to rise again the sign.

The researchers that the population of the invasive fish predators in the conflict "a window of opportunity" for the recovery of cod is a good idea to provide the same.

Since 2006, the bulk of the Scotian Shelf in the Atlantic Ocean in the early 1990s, cod and haddock reach that level, another Carnivore has grown to a mass of "unprecedented high", the paper says.

In addition, live near the bottom of the sea and the other 8% and 18% more big fish their age in the period 2006-2010 the massive measure between 1992-2005, compared to.

"Change the number of factors, but the current trajectory of positive sustainable ecosystem recovery," the researchers warned.

They make it uncertain that the cod haddock's current dominant ecosystem will return completely before the collapse, whether it is based on the way. They break into slowed collapsed elsewhere jellyfish blooms and fish population recovery while paper effects of climate change, you can add other uncertainties.

The researchers even though they are slower, the number of fishing and the cold sea, keep some of those areas is lower due to their marine species research proposals that could have happened, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, you can recover the other cod population.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the Scientific Committee for 2010, see Grand Bank, Newfoundland in the cod population in the Highlands Southeast of 69% growth since 2007. However, still only 10 percent shares in the 1960s, were what.

Back to the Accessibility link

View the original article here

Johnny Reed, George Canyon leads CCMA nominations

Dean Brody and Johnny Reed, who have dominated the country charts in the year, the race for the country music awards 2011 Canada challenged the veteran singer George Canyon.

Canyon and his backup musicians nominated for twelve Ccmas Tuesday, announcing the leads. Pictou County, N.S., his better living now in the Alberta home soon for competitors is one of the fans and album of the year.

Not with lead far behind, he was a fan for fans choice award voting last year, home to 11 nominations, including: for the love he also A place called "the men of the year and album of the year running for the artist. Scot, Ontario-based Reed, male artist honors won in 2008 and 2009, who had called this year A place for the love of House: Juno

Reed's song today I changed the world's best single, best for the upcoming year CCMA awareness video songs.

Brody was born in Smithers, B.C., now based in Nova Scotia, the fans selected the best album category, newcomer and he and living single for the album's tracks, a total of eight, he was the best for 2009 CCMA nominations: CCMA song, his debut single in 2009, and this year he was on the trail of the brothers four songs on the country charts in the top 10 in life — wildflowersIn the life of the barrel, roll out, and people know you by your first name trail.

Doc Walker, La Prairie, bands like man, carrying an eternal CCMA this week 7 this year, I love you making nominations, for best group and best video for fans choice, up to and including.

Shane Yellowbird's song walk away and you see Aaron's album award at the National Academy of music Sunday afternoon also will run for Canada.

The country's women of the year made a splash in the list of candidates for less.

Terry Clark, was the winner in the 1990s, and many great Patong, the CCMA and the best female artist category to select who the fans this year.

Other contenders for best female artist, Muskoka, Ontario's Victoria banks, Gander, Grand Prairie of Tara Oram L N.., a t a l, Carolyn dawn Johnson, whose love of Tenille rule is running for album of the year.

Deric Ruttan — Gord Bamford, who went to high school — Bank my daughter's father and a veteran of catching the chart time now composers both best male artist for the race.

CCMA expression is set on September 12 in Hamilton.

Back to the Accessibility link

View the original article here

Get good descriptions to share on Google Plus

?Using microdata Schema.org in KRL |? Main | StackExchange Podcast is back at it conversations! ?

Recently I ben playing with Google Plus (G +) long. I noticed when I shared my blog articles, however, that decscription g + grabbed automatically wasn't very good. It is has goal to obtain the description of the item called description in the header. My blog was set up in a static string.

I don't know if I have a bad set of templates (could be - they are old and I already hacked have much), but mine didn't put anything about the blog entry in the description of the detail page. I use MovableType, so put the following in the HTML header of the template file individual:

EntryExcerpt label, MovableType is smart if you have filled in the "Extract" box to create the entry, it will be used. If the "Extract" box is empty, MT generates one of the first n words of the body of the blog entry. Normally only leave empty, but I'm going to start using it now if the first paragraph is not as friendly as I would like to.

Thus there are now more shareable in G + my blog entries. Who's knows, probably helps them also to be more attached in search results.

Posted by windley on July 11, 2011 2: 24 PMsee related entries: google plus movabletype blogging

View the original article here

Eight cases that mattered

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Chinese people are coming to an ever-graver understanding of the dual changes of economic development and environmental degradation. In some heavily polluted towns and villages, citizens who had only just started to enjoy an improved standard of living have found themselves fighting a lonely battle against death and disease.

With both government action and moral indignation proving ineffective, judicial redress has become the last option for dealing with environmental disputes. But the path to enshrining environmental rights in law is proving thorny and the judicial system is experiencing bumps along the way.

According to the Chinese saying, it takes 10 years to forge a sword. So, what progress has the past decade seen when it comes to using the judicial process to resolve environmental problems? And what challenges remain? Here, with the help of leading academics and lawyers, we have chosen eight representative and influential cases of the period. We hope this retrospective will help improve understanding of the current state of Chinese environmental law.

We would like to express our gratitude for their contributions and advice to: Zhang Jingjing of the Global Network for Public Interest Law; Liu Xiang of the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims; Alex Wang, formerly of the US Natural Resources Defense Council and now based at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Wang Jin, professor at Peking University School of Law; Zhu Xiao, professor at Renmin University School of Law; and Qin Tianbao of Wuhan University School of Law.

1.??The Pinghu Tadpoles

Yu Mingda of Pinghu in Zhejiang versus five factories, including Buyun Dyes and Buyun Chemicals.?

This case took 14 years to play out and involved: four levels of courts, appeals from three levels of procurators, and four occasions on which representatives from the National People’s Congress exercised supervisory duties over the Supreme Court – lawyers say it “exhausted all means of judicial redress” and reflects China’s struggle between environmental protection and local business interests.

Starting in 1989, Yu Mingda of Pinghu in Zhejiang province, east China, leased land from Pinghu Normal College, where he farmed American river frogs. But over a period from late 1993 to early 1994, his stock of 2.7 million tadpoles all died.

Yu contacted Pinghu Environmental Bureau, which confirmed that the water near the farm had been polluted and told him the pollution had come from five factories, including Buyun Dyes Factory and Buyun Chemicals, located further upstream. These were village enterprises run by Buyun village, which neighboured Yu’s farm. The environmental authorities found that the five plants were dumping untreated effluents directly into the river. But the factories denied any link with the dead tadpoles. In December 1995, Yu sued them, demanding 483,000 yuan (US$75,000) in compensation.

In response to a request by the Pinghu Court, the Ministry of Justice’s Institute of Forensic Science carried out an assessment and found that the death of the tadpoles was directly and undeniably linked to water pollution from Buyun Dyes. But the court did not accept the finding. On July 27, 1997, one and a half years after accepting the case, Pinghu Court dismissed Yu’s claim.

When asked about the decision during an interview with a Zhejiang reporter, the deputy head of Pinghu Intermediate Court said: “Maybe the pollution was caused by the factories, but that year virtually all the fish and frogs around here died. If we had found in favour of the plaintiff, then many others would have asked for compensation too. Who’s going to pay for all those losses?”

In 1998, Shaoxing Intermediate Court upheld the original decision and, in 2001, Zhejiang Higher People’s Court did the same. In 2006, the Supreme People’s Court accepted the case for review and eventually overturned these decisions in 2009, ordering the five plants to pay Yu 483,000 yuan (US$75,000) in compensation – plus 100,000 yuan (US$15,500) in interest.

More information about this case is available here.

2.? Shandong reservoir pollution

Ninety-seven farmers from Lianyungang versus Jinyimeng Paper and Linshu Chemical Plant.

This case resulted in a huge compensation payout for losses caused by water pollution. The court that handled it was not in the plaintiffs' hometown, and did not consider the financial conditions of the companies in question when setting the compensation level. As a result, the amount received by the plaintiffs was equivalent to their estimated losses.

In this case, the government paid compensation in advance and then asked for reimbursement from the companies, not only demonstrating its obligation to protect the environment, but also giving a boost to the lawsuit. Whether or not this practice will be followed by other local governments depends on their willingness.

In the year between June 1999 and June 2000, fish in the Shiliang River Reservoir – at the intersection of the counties of Donghai and Ganyu in Jiangsu province and Linshu county in Shandong province, eastern China – were killed off by major pollution incidents, resulting in severe losses for 97 fish-farming families. The reservoir is the biggest artificial reservoir in Jiangsu and a reserve source of water for the city of Lianyungang.

After each case, the farmers complained to the Shandong provincial government and the State Environmental Protection Agency (now the Ministry of Environmental Protection) as well as visiting Linshu county government to demand compensation – but no solution was offered. In 2007, the 97 affected families brought a lawsuit against the two defendants, requesting that they be ordered to pay 5.6 million yuan (US$866,000) in compensation for loss of fish, and 480,000 yuan (US$74,000) in other costs, including those for investigations, and to prevent further occurrences.

The defendants denied any pollution or causal link, but evidence found during the court’s investigation showed that the first defendant was releasing 10,000 tonnes or more of polluted water daily, while the second was releasing about 1,000 tonnes – and that water was flowing into the Shiliang River Reservoir. Lianyungang Intermediate People’s Court found that the defendants had been releasing pollution and that this was the cause of the plaintiff’s losses, and ordered compensation to be paid. An appeal by the defendants to Jiangsu Higher People’s Court was rejected. At the end of 2003, the farmers received 5.6 million yuan in compensation.

More Information on this case is available here.?

3.??The Tasman Sea spill

Tianjin Oceanic Bureau versus Infinity Shipping and the London Protection and Indemnity Club.

This was China’s first international marine ecology civil compensation case. Although the damages awarded were less than hoped for, it was still a landmark case: it made the maritime authorities aware of the possibilities of claiming damages through the courts, laid a foundation for judicial and administrative bodies to better handle these cases, and provided essential experience for public interest environmental compensation lawsuits.

At 4am on November 23, 2002, the Maltese-registered tanker Tasman Sea collided with the Chinese Shunkai No. 1, 23 nautical miles east of the Tianjin Dagu Anchorage, triggering an oil spill. Investigations by the North China Sea Monitoring Centre found that 359.6 square kilometres of ocean were affected, with oil content in sediment, reaching 8.1 times normal values. The spill badly damaged the ecology of the Bohai Gulf, an important spawning and feeding ground for ocean fisheries.

After the incident, various parties brought claims in the Tianjin Maritime Court against Infinity Shipping, the tanker’s owner, and the London Protection and Indemnity Club (a mutual insurer in the shipping industry). The State Oceanic Administration authorised its Tianjin branch to sue for marine ecological damages of over 98.3 million yuan (US$15 million) on behalf of the state; Tianjin Fisheries and Harbours Office sued for losses to the fishing industry of 18.3 million yuan (US$2.8 million); while Tianjin Tanggu District Dagu Fishing Association, Hebei Luannan County Fishing Association, Tianjin Tanggu District Beitang Fishing Association and Dagu Fishing Association sued for 62.28 million yuan (US$9.6 million) in fishing and fish-farming losses to thousands of fishermen and fish farmers.

On December 24, 2004, decisions were made on the eight separate cases brought against the two defendants in Tianjin Maritime Court. Damages of more than 17 million yuan (US$2.6 million) were awarded to 1,490 fishermen and fish farmers in Luannan, Hangu, Beitang and Dagu for to the impact on catches and equipment. On December 30, the court awarded around 10 million yuan (US$1.5 million) in compensation to Tianjin Oceanic Bureau for losses to marine environmental capacity and costs incurred in investigation and assessment; and 15 million yuan (US$2.3 million) to Tianjin Fisheries and Harbours Office for loss of fishery resources and investigation costs.

This case involved 10 different legal parties, affected more than 1,500 people, and included requests for compensation of 170 million yuan (US$26.3 million). This was also the first time China had sued an overseas shipping insurer for losses under the terms of the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage since becoming party to the convention. ?

More information about this case is available here.?

4. The Panjiayuan animal-testing laboratory

Residents of Buildings 4 and 6 at Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing versus the Beijing Planning Commission. ? ? ??

In this case – one of very few successful challenges to the Beijing Planning Commission – one reason given by the court for cancelling the project’s planning permission was that an environmental impact assessment should have been carried out but was not, rendering the decision unsound.

Lawsuits over impacts of urban planning on people’s lives are actually not uncommon; this particular case is significant because the court accepted it, and the challenge was ultimately successful. Attempts to take planning commissions to court in China frequently collapse because residents fail to secure recognition as valid plaintiffs. In this case, having considered the public interest, the court decided to accept the Panjiayuan residents as plaintiffs. Their success was mainly because the project design violated certain rules set by the state, while media attention was also a contributing factor.

Residents of Panjiayuan Nanli in Beijing say that, in 1984, an animal-testing laboratory was built across the road from their homes and, although measures were taken to reduce the odours from the facility, bad smells have affected their quality of life since. In May 2002, the residents learned that another, even bigger animal laboratory in the same location had received planning permission.

The residents believed the approval process for the facility was illegal and requested that Beijing Planning Commission re-examine its decision – but the commission maintained that its actions were above board. Finally, 182 residents took the commission to court, requesting that the planning permission certificate awarded to the new project be withdrawn.

Wang Canfa, director of the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims and professor at China University of Political Science and Law, represented the residents. He found that the design of the project fell short of national standards: the laboratories were only 19.6 metres away from residential buildings – well below the required distance of 50 metres – and there was no 20 metre isolation zone, as required by health regulations. Wang also believed the laboratories would affect the local environment – and that, therefore, an environmental impact assessment was needed.?

In June 2003, Beijing Xicheng District People’s Court issued the first judgement on the case, ordering the Beijing Planning Commission to cancel approval of the new laboratory. The commission did so, but also appealed against the judgement. Finally, the initial judgement was upheld and the Planning Commission dropped the appeal. This case was included in the 2003 Bulletin of the Supreme People’s Court.

More information on this case is available here.????????

5. The Xiping chemical plant

More than 1,700 villagers from Pingnan in Fujian versus Fujian Rongping Chemicals.

This case involved more plaintiffs than any other reported in the Chinese media to date and is representative of group lawsuits in China. While the main factor determining the outcome of a case is not the number of plaintiffs but the evidence, when a lawsuit involves so many claimants, the judge may be more careful in making the final decision, on the basis that an unfair judgment could bring adverse impacts to society.

In 1992, the south-east coastal province of Fujian implemented a “Mountain-Coast Cooperation” policy, with the aim that richer coastal regions would help boost the development of poor mountainous areas. In March that year, Asia’s biggest chlorate producer, Rongping United Chemicals – now Fujian (Pingnan) Rongping Chemicals – started construction of a plant in the village of Xiping.

The Rongping factory grew to account for one third of county government income, but along with economic development came environmental degradation and rising cancer rates. In the nine years from 1995 (the second year the plant was in operation) to 2004, not a single Xiping youth who signed up for military service passed the medical inspection.

In 1995, the factory owners made a one-off payment for loss of crops. But no further compensation was awarded. Then, in 1998, the second phase of the facility went into operation, further damaging local vegetation.

On November 7, 2002, a civil suit was brought against the factory at Ningde Intermediate People’s Court, by the residents of Xiping, Houlong and Xiadi villages, led by Zhang Changjian. The villagers asked that the company be ordered to close its facility, clean up the site and nearby mountainside, and pay compensation of 13.5 million yuan (US$2.1 million) for damages to crops and emotional health. The number of villagers participating in the lawsuit reached a new record – 1,721.

The court found that the company had caused losses through environmental pollution and ordered it immediately to stop infringing the plaintiffs’ rights, to pay compensation of 250,000 yuan (US$39,000) for damage to timber, fruit trees, bamboo and fields and to clean up industrial waste on site and nearby. Both parties appealed against this judgement. In 2005 the Higher Court’s final judgement rejected the defendant’s appeal, and ordered the factory to pay compensation of about 680,000 yuan (US$105,000).

The plaintiffs’ lawyer described this decision as the court’s “balancing trick”: “More than ten million yuan would have been considered a heavy fine, while tens of thousands would have been light. The court didn’t verify the actual losses sustained, and just gave the villagers a token amount.”?

More information on this case is available here.

6. Pollution of the Shiliugang River

Guangzhou Haizhu District Procuratorate versus Xinzhongxing textile treatment plant.

This was the first example of a procuratorate bringing an environmental public interest case in China and established a significant model for the rest of the province: in its wake, further instances have occurred in Guangdong, though a similar case is yet to be seen elsewhere in the country. ?

The Shiliugang River in Guangdong province, south China, once ran clear, but after September 2007, its clean waters turned dark and foul – to the distress of local residents. As a result of complaints, Haizhu Environmental Bureau inspected local companies and found that the Xinzhongxing textile-treatment plant was in severe breach of pollution regulations. Washing powder, enzymes and oxalic acid, mixed up with dyes from clothes, were being dumped untreated into the river. In the eight months after the facility opened, it discharged an average of 40 tonnes of waste each day – a total of 9,600 tonnes over the period.

In July 2008, Haizhu Procuratorate sued factory boss Chen Zhongming at Guangzhou Maritime Court for causing water pollution and demanded compensation for losses and costs. In November, the court formed a panel of judges to hear the case and, in December, ruled that Chen was liable for the environmental losses caused by the pollution. Chen was ordered to pay 117,289.20 yuan (US$18,200) in compensation.

This was the first environmental public interest case brought by a Chinese procuratorate. Haizhu People’s Court found that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Water Law, and the Article 73 of the General Principles of Civil Law, Shiliugang River is a national resource, and as the state’s organ of legal supervision, the procuratorate had the right to sue over losses caused within its jurisdiction.?

More information on this case is available here.

7. Public interests in Jiangyin

The All-China Environment Federation versus Jiangyin Port Container Company.

This was China’s first environmental public interest case brought by a mass organisation and came to determine the conditions that need to be met to bring a claim of this sort. The All-China Environment Federation has gone on to file several public-interest lawsuits in local environmental courts in Yunnan, Guizhou and other regions. However, it has not resulted in any visible impact on other community organisations. Regional environmental groups are not eligible to bring lawsuits in other parts of the country.

In May 2009, the All-China Environment Federation received a complaint from residents of Jiangyin in Jiangsu, on China’s east coast, that Jiangyin Port Container Company was creating air, water and noise pollution during the process of unloading, washing and transporting iron ore, severely impacting their quality of life. After on-site investigations and evidence-gathering, the federation brought an environmental public interest case in Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court, requesting that the company be ordered to stop encroaching on public environmental interests, and remove the risks to sources of drinking water for Jiangyin and Wuxi cities. The court accepted the case.

On September 22, 2009, the case was resolved through mediation and the defendant was required to correct its environmental violations.

More information on this case is available here.

8. The Dingpa paper mill

The All-China Environment Federation and Guiyang Public Environmental Education Centre versus Dingpa paper mill.

This was the first public interest case where a non-profit foundation helped to cover litigation costs. This financial support had a remarkable effect, as it allows us to rethink the role of foundations in environmental protection.

But there are two problems: first, as mentioned above, there are regional restrictions when it comes to green NGOs acting as plaintiffs. Second, it is up to the foundation in question to decide whether or not to support lawsuits financially.

The All-China Environment Federation and the Guiyang Public Environmental Education Centre sued the Dingpa paper mill in Wudang district, Guiyang, over the discharge of effluent into the Nanming River and Wu River, an important Yangtze tributary. In 2010, Qingzhen Environmental Court held a public hearing in Wudang district and ordered the Dingpa facility to stop the release of effluent, remove any risks to the Nanming River, and pay reasonable costs to the plaintiffs to cover evidence-gathering, analysis and litigation.

The case was heard by Guiyang Qingzhen People’s Environmental Court – the court’s fourth public interest case since it was established. The defendant was ordered to halt pollution immediately and take prompt measures to reduce environmental risks.

With the permission of the court, the plaintiffs applied to the “Two Lakes and A Reservoir” protection fund – an organisation that campaigns for the conservation of water resources in Guiyang, funded by the Guiyang government – to pay the costs of preparing the case.

The case also used expert testimony. The experts stated that the defendant’s factory included effluent storage and settling ponds and, without comprehensive water treatment, it would be unable to avoid pollution. The only way to enforce the court’s order that the defendant immediately halt pollution would be to close the plant, they said. This expert testimony became court evidence, and will be an important basis for enforcement of the judgement.?

More information on this case is available here.?

Homepage image from?352300.net?shows a demonstration against the Fujian Rongping Chemicals plant in Xiping village.

View the original article here

When 20th century meets 21st day: health information exchange

Utah announced yesterday, a network of State health called the exchange of clinical health information information. The system is running for UHIN, a quasi-judicial body whose long-term a health information network in the State that has been used to link to the taxpayers and beneficiaries. Expanding its reach in the information clinic is something natural and will be a great thing if it comes to pass. In your "about us" page:

The objective of her cHIE is to improve the quality of care received by increasing the efficiency and the maintenance of the safety of the patient. This is achieved by allowing that health professionals be better informed and reducing the time and costs associated with the lack of information and requests for duplicate tests.

Her cHIE is a Utah effort to improve the quality of care received by providing its participating physicians see critical medical information about you, no matter where receives health care in Utah. It simply provides the means to locate and view information from entities of health are involved in this effort by the community.

The information shared may include laboratory and results of Radiology, transcript of reports, stories of medication and immunization, allergies and other medical reports.

My first thought was "great, want sign!" Je.

Patients have to fill in a form of consent (PDF) and bring it to each provider. The signature of the form has to be witnessed by an "authorized agent". Basically, you have a form to fill. (I think it has for each supplier.) It is not clear from the site. (If not, then once consent to one, it would consent to all).

If you are a supplier is even worse: three forms that must be faxed or mailed in. And suppliers of software and electronic health record that we all have to do the same.

Difficult to imagine how can be a network of health information based on paper forms by fax online, but I guess that it is normal in the field of health. But it is actually much worse than only paper forms. There is no way for to me to "join" as an individual, only give my consent to suppliers to get my information in the system, presumably do not have access to it, you can not review it and may not be used anywhere else.

A missed opportunity. Imagine if they settled as a personal data store, where I participate as an individual and really control my health information. Rather than some blanket consent could authorize and deauthorize provider access to specific information more easily.

To be fair, there are legal restrictions on what can be done. And some patients would not be comfortable with a subscription account and online. Even so, the structure of this system reinforces the vision of the "all medical knowledge" and further weakens the ability of patients to participate in their own care.

Posted by windley on June 17, 2011 9: 22 AM

View the original article here

Air Canada jet to return to Sydney after smoke detection.

The smell of smoke in the Air Canada flight to Sydney, Australia, and then returns a measure has been found in the galley.

Shortly after the plane took off from Sydney, but there is no airline spokesman fire smoke detection has been reported in the media, Canada.

Return flight as a precaution, the airline said in a statement on Twitter only "."

Sydney Airport spokesman Michael Samaras flight landed safely at Sydney Airport early AC34 Thursday afternoon said.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand Air Ginny foster's General Manager captain did not declare an emergency but did dump fuel before landing in Sydney, the Sydney Morning Herald said.

Boeing 777 was destined for Vancouver and Toronto.

The Accessibility link in the file again, the Ap Canada press

View the original article here

Strict constitutionalism

?The value of the browser plug-ins |? Main | ?Someone track Delta in envelope transactional integrity?

Yesterday I had an interaction on Twitter with some friends on strict constitutionalism. The context was the Utah County organize Republican Convention happening today. In response to a tweet I made about being suspicious of strict constitutionalists, Connor Boyack said:

Oppose to adhere strictly to the Constitution of the party? It seems strange. :)

The point is not that I am opposed to adhere strictly to the Constitution. The point is that I am suspicious of the motives of those who make strict constitutionalism a point of its Office platform (in the party or otherwise).

I have no doubt that there are many sincere people who are seriously distraught at what they see as deviations from the standards that have been clearly established. No doubt there is a danger in these outputs. However, I am afraid that many people use the argument of strict constitutionalism as a way to gain power without clearly stating why they want to be able to.

There is nothing human obtain more worked up about that when someone is not following the rules. We see it all the time in the animation at the behest of fury. People hate when someone seems to be getting away with something. I am sure that there is some theory of social sciences on how that instinct is essential for social cohesion or something. Even so, we don't need to understand what the question is a powerful force.

Since that case: valid or otherwise - that someone in power is not following the rules is an easy way to get support for "throw the bum." Not only is it an easy game, but it has the advantage of not requiring the person who makes the burden of being for something else to follow the rules.

I am suspicious of the motives of the people who want to be elected because "they follow the rules". I want to know what to do and what they represent. I am not interested in the politics of children's games and constant arguments about the rules. Such arguments that I tired of political parties. Today in the Convention, be voting for the people who run the party to get things, not to make its platform on strictly follow the rules.

Posted by windley on April 30, 2011, 10: 36 AMsee related entries: utah gop policy

View the original article here

Search for damage

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

Compensation paid to victims of major environmental incidents in China in recent years has failed to meet public expectations. The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) has published a document outlining its views on the issue – which it hopes will start a process that leads ultimately to legislation and a fairer compensation system. Here Zhang Kunmin, former deputy director of the State Environmental Protection Agency (now the MEP) tells Meng Si why change is needed.

Meng Si: Why did environmental compensation concern you initially? Why do you think it’s important?

Zhang Kunmin: In 1985, I was transferred from Tsinghua University into the state environmental protection system and, for 10 years, held the post of deputy director of the State Environmental Protection Agency, where I had responsibility for regulations and policy.

Conditions were tough then. The state had made it clear that environmental protection was a fundamental policy, but our actual powers and funding were out of sync with the seriousness of the task. Even so, we were committed and really hoped our efforts would see China avoid the “pollute first, clean up later” path that developed nations had taken. Looking now at how environmental protection has evolved in China, it seems we still failed to avoid that route. It’s worth thinking hard about why.

After retiring, I taught in Japan for three years, and I visited Minamata city, where Minamata disease occurred, and talked this over with a number of Japanese academics. There are three main lessons to take from Japan. First, an economy that doesn’t care about the environment is uneconomic. For example, prior to the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, Japan reviewed the economic costs of three major public incidents, including the problems at Minamata, and calculated that compensation and restoration costs in this case were 103 times higher than what it would have cost to prevent it in the first place.

Second, once an environmental problem arises, it takes a huge amount of time to deal with it fully. Minamata disease was first identified in 1956, but it took 48 years for the process of local court judgements and appeals to lead to a Supreme Court decision in 2004. And then it wasn’t until 2009 – 53 years after the problem emerged – that a law on assisting the victims was passed.

Third, Japanese scholars repeatedly emphasise that the environment cannot truly be protected until people’s legal rights are guaranteed.

China is undergoing accelerated industrialisation and explosive urbanisation, and facing grave environmental challenges. We need to examine Japan’s experience and learn from it.

MS: What is the state of environmental compensation in China today? What problems are there?

ZK: In some of China’s pollution cases, those hit first are the factory workers and their relatives and other nearby residents. Workers generally won’t complain about pollution from their own factory, and some types of pollution are initially hard to detect. The problem isn’t exposed until it gets really bad or the company takes too many liberties. But even then, confirming and quantifying the damage caused is a real challenge. The damage caused by environmental pollution is hidden, it’s accumulative and it’s delayed. Also, due to China’s stage of development and financial and technological considerations, national standards can’t be fixed too high. This makes identifying and compensating for environmental losses extremely difficult.

China already has a fairly complete set of environmental laws and regulations. On paper, the means are there to resolve just about any issue. But in actual practice, that doesn’t happen – we lack the necessary personnel, standards and mechanisms, and so in many cases justice doesn’t get done.

The environmental authorities are administrative bodies and can only investigate and then impose fines as provided for in legislation. Often those fines are very limited, while compensation relies on negotiation between the polluter and the victim – there’s still no law to rely on for that [an obligation to pay compensation for environmental damage is recognised in, for example, China's Environmental Protection Law, but no law explicitly sets forth how environmental damages are to be calculated]. With limited fines and low compensation, breaking the law is often cheaper than following it, and that further emboldens some irresponsible firms.

The level of fines that can be imposed are set out in the applicable laws or regulations, but the amounts are very low – and even lower when you take inflation into account. We felt they were low when the legislation was being formulated, but the industry bodies have their own considerations. So the outcome was that the fines were, in our opinion, set at a low level. There are no state laws or regulations on compensation. In the Zijin Mining pollution case last year, neither the public nor the media were happy with the level of compensation set.

When environmental protection officials inspect factories, it’s akin to guerrilla warfare. To save electricity and money the companies only run equipment meant to reduce pollution in the day time, or only when someone is coming to check up on them – when they leave, it gets switched off again. It’s a game of cat and mouse. That’s what happens when polluters don’t pay an appropriate price for the damage they cause and neither criminal or civil punishments follow. The costs of breaking the law are too low.

Although the criminal law recognises certain environmental breaches as crimes and sets out penalties accordingly, the courts still need sufficient evidence to proceed with arrests. But it’s often very hard to evaluate the evidence of environmental damage, and there are no dedicated personnel or standards for doing so. Even if the laws are in place, it’s rare that they get applied effectively.

MS: Academics have long called for legislation on environmental compensation. Why are we only now seeing movement on this from the environmental authorities?

ZK: As a developing nation, we are still building our legal system and there are a huge number of laws that need to be written – so there’s a queue. And, according to state procedures, they must be considered one by one, so getting a law onto the statute books is often very difficult. The law on prevention of solid-waste pollution took a whole decade.

In fact, some legal experts have been discussing an environmental compensation law for years. It’s true that China has plenty of laws directly relevant to management of the environment (nine, not including the Natural Resources Law). Some other government departments want to know why we’ve got so many laws. But look at Japan: in 1970 they made 14 environmental laws in just one year. We need to do as much as possible to make sure leaders and other departments understand the special nature of the environment, and the urgency of legislation.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection has recently published its “Opinions on Assessment of Losses to Environmental Pollution”. Being ministerial opinions, these will be submitted to the State Council, but do not then need to be considered by every ministry, so that avoids difficulties at the first stage. I think it is an appropriate thing to do. We’ve already recognised the importance and urgency of this, so let’s first have a go ourselves, then push that forward step by step, and ultimately there’s bound to be legislation. My estimate would be that it’ll take 10 years before we see a law on environmental compensation. That’s quite fast by current standards.

MS: What are the challenges of turning an environmental-compensation system into a judicial process?

ZK: One challenge is working out what level to set compensation at: it can’t be too high, or too low. So this requires analysis of the system and its participants, and fair treatment of both the polluter and the victim. Also, the legislation can’t rely just on the environmental authorities – they also need to get the full support of the judicial authorities.

The “Opinions on Assessment of Losses to Environmental Pollution” say that that assessment should gradually be brought into the judicial appraisal system. Bringing in judicial and financial methods will greatly increase the force of environmental-compensation decisions. In the past, those have been lacking and we’ve relied just on administrative measures.

But I’m confident that the public want to see this law – it reflects international experience and fits with the overall trend. It will succeed.

MS: What about public participation in formulating environmental compensation law? How do you ensure that the public has as much of a say in the process as the often powerful polluters?

ZK: To do anything well, you need active participation from all parties. That requires consultation mechanisms so that the system constrains interested parties, but can also be revised – through certain legal processes – be revised in accordance with the will of those concerned, as circumstances change.

The system-participant analysis I mentioned just now requires that, when you establish a system, you consider the opinions and needs of all concerned parties – including businesses and the authorities that supervise them.

Currently we describe polluters and victims as the strong and weak parties, as the victims have almost no backing, while the polluters enjoy fairly clear-cut support. But once there’s a law and a system, then all government departments and the media can support the victims. I’m not worried about that. Public opinion is gradually strengthening. You could say that the environmental authorities are, of all government bodies, the most enthusiastic about environmental NGOs and public participation.?

Zhang Kunmin is former deputy director of the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) – now the Ministry of Environmental Protection – and deputy chair of the China Society for Sustainable Development.?

Meng Si is managing editor in chinadialogue’s Beijing office.?

Homepage image from Webfee shows a Jiangsu villager complaining about the health impacts of a local chemicals factory.

View the original article here

Someone track Delta in envelope transactional integrity

?In strict constitutionalism |? Main | ?On JSONP in KRL: using the Flickr API?

The Delta airline ticket kiosks were apparently designed and built by students from year 1 CS using Visual Basic. I guess that it is the case, based on the fact that apparently never heard when someone sells something, is bad form to take their money and not deliver the product. They do not know that such transaction processes must adjust to ensure that they are atomic. Someone should give them a clue.

Last Friday on our way home from San Jose, Steve and I had the opportunity to get on a previous flight for $50. I was checking both us in so it came to me in my credit card for the fee of $100. The kiosk says "sorry, we cannot read your card." "Please try again." I did so. Card error the second time, by which try to Steve card. The machine not as Steve card well and after displaying the same message, print our original tickets and sent us in the form. We went to the counter and bought the upgrade.

This morning, Steve was looking on the Bill of credit card and, surprise!, three failed upgrade purchases were charged to our cards, although the team said that the letters were unreadable and not deliver the previous flight.

I could forgive a small startup to do transactions on right, but Delta must have some people who have heard of them, understand their importance and can be obtained right kiosk software. Perhaps I am too much credit. I can not imagine a large company in 2011 which has problems with transactional integrity in simple purchases. I've always assumed they would get this far right. It should perhaps begin to question his ability to fly safely as well as a plane.

Posted by windley on May 10, 2011 9: 23 AMsee related entries: transactions delta flight # FAIL of e-commerce programming

View the original article here

Modules in the cloud

?I - placed a panel of Social communication media |? Main | ?When the 20th century meets 21st day: health information exchange?

After I wrote my last blog entry "Hover Me – A Social Media Dashboard" that I got to thinking about the power of the modules and realized that there is a special power that is available in modules that operate in the cloud.

First of all, makes a little debate on Empire Avenue module of what Ed API current Empire Avenue does not seek information from Twitter, only by the Avenida Empire ID identifier. Ed discovered that I could use the site to do so, he used Kynetx essentially do escape a little screen to obtain the data and return it. KRL, kinetic language of rule, has built-in tools that make that pretty easy. ED was essentially built an API from a Web site.

The problem is, of course, anytime is scraping the Web site, is subject to the vagaries of HTML on the page. If the structure changes substantially, it is already in trouble. ED has two weapons in its arsenal to protect that: (a) a query language such as jQuery to select parts of the page that allows you to get the data you need without over-specifying and (b) the cloud.

Nature based on modules in KRL cloud is important so it makes it Ed If the Empire Avenue changes the structure of the page beyond the selector of Ed wrote it can handle, you can upgrade the module and everything that depends on it will start working again. Now, of course, this is what all we love the cloud, but I didn't think about how it applies to the development - and especially modules - so far. There is great power in the creation of modules that operate in the cloud.

Posted by windley on June 9, 2011 1: 16 PMsee related entries: modules cloud kynetx krl

View the original article here