The provision extends to the private lives of all natural persons🚨including minors

Case law invoking this provision is divided into two main categories: personal autonomy and disclosure of information.[17]:38 The provision guarantees individual the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment🚨food

On the November 5🚨2000 general election

However🚨in 2004

In the wake of the project's cancellation🚨a private sector express passenger service running across much of the proposed route has been proposed by the Florida East Coast Railway. This project

This article provides a transition between the 1885 and 1968 Constitutions."🚨How long has florida current constitution been in effect?

1 January 1993🚨

July 22, 2016🚨The Star Trek film series is the cinematic branch of the Star Trek media franchise, which began in 1966 as a weekly television series on NBC, running for three seasons until it was canceled in 1969 because of poor ratings. Reruns of the series proved to be wildly successful in syndication during the 1970s, which persuaded the series' then-owner, Paramount Pictures, to expand the franchise. Paramount originally began work on a Star Trek feature film in 1975 after lobbying by the creator of the franchise, Gene Roddenberry. The studio scrapped the project two years later in favor of creating a television series, Star Trek: Phase II, with the original cast. However, following the huge success of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1977, Paramount changed its mind again, halting production on the television series and adapting its pilot episode into a Star Trek feature film, Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). Five more Star Trek feature films featuring the entire original cast followed. The cast of the 1987ÿ1994 Star Trek spin-off series Star Trek: The Next Generation starred in a further four films. Upon the release of Star Trek: Nemesis on December 13, 2002, the film had grossed $67 million, a meager amount compared to the box office of previous installments. Due to the film's poor reception and box office disappointment, the series was put on a hiatus until the franchise was rebooted with a new film, directed by J. J. Abrams and released on May 8, 2009, simply titled Star Trek, serving as a reboot to the franchise with a new cast portraying younger versions of the original series' characters. A sequel to Star Trek (2009), Star Trek Into Darkness, was released in theaters on May 16, 2013. A third film, Star Trek Beyond, was released on July 22, 2016, on the franchise's 50th anniversary. The Star Trek films have received 15 Academy Award nominations. Star Trek (2009) won for Best Makeup in 2010, and four of the previous films were nominated mainly in the areas of makeup, music, set design and sound design. The early Star Trek films, the first to tenth film, were originally released on VHS; competitive pricing of The Wrath of Khan's videocassette helped bolster the adoption of VHS players in households.[1] Later films were also released on LaserDisc as well. For those films that did not receive an initial DVD release, Paramount released simple one-disc versions with no special features. Later, the first ten films were released in two-disc collector's versions, with The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan branded as "director's cuts", followed by later box set releases. All of the films are now available on Blu-ray, digital download, streaming media and video on demand. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry first suggested the idea of a Star Trek feature in 1969.[2] When the original television series was cancelled, he lobbied to continue the franchise through a film. The success of the series in syndication convinced the studio to begin work on a feature film in 1975.[3] A series of writers attempted to craft a suitably epic script, but the attempts did not satisfy Paramount, so the studio scrapped the project in 1977. Paramount instead planned on returning the franchise to its roots with a new television series, Star Trek: Phase II. The massive worldwide box office success of Star Wars in mid-1977 sent Hollywood studios to their vaults in search of similar sci-fi properties that could be adapted or re-launched to the big screen. When Columbia's Close Encounters of the Third Kind had a huge opening in late December 1977, Paramount was convinced that science fiction films other than Star Wars could do well at the box office, and production of Phase II was cancelled in favor of making a Star Trek film. Principal photography for Star Trek: The Motion Picture commenced August 7, 1978[4] with director Robert Wise helming the feature. The production encountered difficulties and slipped behind schedule,[5] with effects team Robert Abel and Associates[6] proving unable to handle the film's large amount of effects work. Douglas Trumbull was hired and given a blank check to complete the effects work in time and location;[7] the final cut of the film was completed just in time for the film's premiere. The film introduced an upgrade to the technology and starship designs, making for a dramatic visual departure from the original series. Many of the set elements created for Phase II were adapted and enhanced for use in the first feature films. It received mixed reviews from critics; while it grossed $139 million the price tag had climbed to about $35 million due to costly effects work and delays. The Motion Picture's gross was considered disappointing, but it was enough for Paramount to back a sequel with a reduced budget. After Roddenberry pitched a film in which the crew of the Enterprise goes back in time to ensure the assassination of John F. Kennedy, he was "kicked upstairs" to a ceremonial role while Paramount brought in television producer Harve Bennett to craft a betterand cheaperfilm than the first.[8] After watching all the television episodes, Bennett decided that the character of Khan Noonien Singh was the perfect villain for the new film. Director Nicholas Meyer finished a complete screenplay in just twelve days, and did everything possible within budget to give The Wrath of Khan a nautical, swashbuckling feel,[9] which he described as "Horatio Hornblower in outer space."[8] Upon release, the reception of The Wrath of Khan was highly positive;[10] Entertainment Weekly's Mark Bernadin called The Wrath of Khan, "the film that, by most accounts, saved Star Trek as we know it".[11] Meyer declined to return for the next film, so directing duties were given to cast member Leonard Nimoy for the third film. Paramount gave Bennett the green light to write Star Trek III the day after The Wrath of Khan opened.[12] The producer penned a resurrection story for Spock that built on threads from the previous film and the original series episode "Amok Time".[citation needed] Nimoy remained director for the next film in the series. Nimoy and Bennett wanted a film with a lighter tone that did not have a classic antagonist. They decided on a time travel story with the Enterprise crew returning to their past to retrieve something to save their presenteventually, humpback whales. After having been dissatisfied with the script written by Daniel Petrie, Jr., Paramount hired Meyer to rewrite the screenplay with Bennett's help. Meyer drew upon his own time travel story Time After Time for elements[which?] of the script.[citation needed] Star William Shatner was promised his turn as director for Star Trek V, and Nicholas Meyer returned as director/co-writer for Star Trek VI. Both the sixth and seventh films acted as transitions between the films featuring the original cast and those with the Next Generation cast, with the sixth focusing on the original cast and the seventh focusing on the TNG cast. The Next Generation cast made four films over a period of eight years, with the last two performing only moderately well (Insurrection) and disappointingly (Nemesis) at the box office. After the poor reception of Star Trek: Nemesis and the cancellation of the television series Star Trek: Enterprise, the franchise's executive producer Rick Berman and screenwriter Erik Jendresen began developing a new film,[13] entitled Star Trek: The Beginning, which would take place after Enterprise but before The Original Series.[14] J. J. Abrams, the producer of Cloverfield and creator of Lost, was a Star Wars fan as a child and confessed that the Star Trek franchise felt "disconnected" for him.[15] In February 2007, Abrams accepted Paramount's offer to direct the new Star Trek film, having been previously attached as producer.[16] Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote a script that impressed Abrams, featuring new actors portraying younger versions of the original series' cast. The Enterprise, its interior, and the original uniforms were redesigned. While the film was ready for a December 2008 release, Paramount chose to move the film's opening to May 8, 2009.[17] The film earned over $350 million worldwide (from a solid $75.2 million opening weekend, higher than Star Trek: First Contact (1996)), and surpassed Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home as the highest-grossing film in the franchise. A sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, was greenlighted even before the first one opened, and Paramount released the film on May 17, 2013.[18] A third film, Star Trek Beyond, was directed by Justin Lin and produced by Abrams. It was released on July 22, 2016, also to critical acclaim. This revival of the franchise is often considered to be, and referred to as, a "reboot", but it is technically a continuation of the franchise (Nimoy reprises his role of Spock from the previous films) that establishes an alternate reality from the previous films. This route was taken, over a traditional reboot, to free the new films from the restrictions of established continuity without completely discarding it, which the writers felt would have been "disrespectful". This new reality was informally referred to by several names, including the "Abramsverse", "JJ Trek", and "NuTrek", before it was named the "Kelvin Timeline" (versus the "Prime Timeline" of the original series and films) by Michael and Denise Okuda for use in official Star Trek reference guides and encyclopedias. The name Kelvin comes from the USS Kelvin, a starship involved in the event that creates the new reality in Star Trek (2009). Abrams named the starship after his grandfather Henry Kelvin, whom he also pays tribute to in Into Darkness with the Kelvin Memorial Archive.[19][20] Fans commonly considered the films to follow a "curse" that even-numbered films were better than the odd-numbered installments.[21][22] The tenth film, Nemesis, was considered the even film that defied the curse.[21][23][24] Its failure and the subsequent success of Star Trek (2009) were considered to have broken the trend.[25][26] The curse has been mentioned often in popular culture. One of the best known examples[27][28] occurred in a 1999 episode of the Channel 4 sitcom Spaced, where it was referenced by Tim Bisley, played by Simon Pegg; Pegg, quite conscious of the irony,[29] played Scotty in the eleventh and subsequent films. A massive energy cloud advances toward Earth, leaving destruction in its wake, and the Enterprise must intercept it to determine what lies within, and what its intent might be. The movie borrows many elements from "The Changeling" of the original series and "One of Our Planets Is Missing" from the animated series. Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalbn), whom Kirk thwarted in his attempt to seize control of the Enterprise fifteen years earlier ("Space Seed"), seeks his revenge and lays a cunning and sinister trap. Both the first and second films have television versions with additional footage and alternate takes that affect the storyline. (Subsequent Trek films tended to have shorter television versions.) Especially notable in The Wrath of Khan is the footage establishing that a young crew member who acts courageously and dies during an attack on the Enterprise is Scotty's nephew. When McCoy begins acting irrationally, Kirk learns that Spock, in his final moments, transferred his katra, his living spirit, to the doctor. To save McCoy from emotional ruin, Kirk and crew steal the Enterprise and violate the quarantine of the Genesis Planet to retrieve Spock, his body regenerated by the rapidly dying planet itself, in the hope that body and soul can be rejoined. However, bent on obtaining the secret of Genesis for themselves, a rogue Klingon (Christopher Lloyd) and his crew interfere, with deadly consequences. The first film to be a direct sequel to the previous Trek film. While returning to stand court-martial for their actions in rescuing Spock, Kirk and crew learn that Earth is under siege by a giant probe that is transmitting a destructive signal, attempting to communicate with the now-extinct species of humpback whales. To save the planet, the crew must time-travel back to the late 20th century to obtain a mating pair of these whales, and a marine biologist (Catherine Hicks) to care for them. The second through fourth films loosely form a trilogy, with the later plots building on elements of the earlier ones. The third film picks up within several days of the conclusion of the second, the fourth three months after the third. (The fifth film takes place a month after the fourth, but is not directly connected to the plots of the preceding three films.) The third and fourth films were both directed by Leonard Nimoy (also co-writer of the fourth), best known as the actor playing Spock. Spock's half-brother (Laurence Luckinbill) believes he is summoned by God, and hijacks the brand-new (and problem-ridden) Enterprise-A to take it through the Great Barrier, at the center of the Milky Way, beyond which he believes his maker waits for him. Meanwhile, a young and vain Klingon captain (Todd Bryant), seeking glory in what he views as an opportunity to avenge his people of the deaths of their crewmen on Genesis, sets his sights on Kirk. This is the only film in the franchise directed by William Shatner. When Qo'noS' moon Praxis (the Klingon Empire's chief energy source) is devastated by an explosion caused by overmining, the Klingons make peace overtures to the Federation. The Klingon Chancellor (David Warner), while en route to Earth for a summit, is assassinated by Enterprise crewmen, and Kirk is held accountable by the Chancellor's Chief of Staff (Christopher Plummer). Spock attempts to prove Kirk's innocence, but, in doing so, uncovers a massive conspiracy against the peace process with participants from both sides. This film is a sendoff to the original crew. One Next Generation cast member, Michael Dorn, appears as the grandfather of the character he plays on the later television series. It is the second and last Trek film directed by Nicholas Meyer and last script co-authored by Leonard Nimoy. Picard enlists the help of Kirk, who is presumed long dead but flourishes in an extradimensional realm, to keep a madman (Malcolm McDowell) from destroying a star and its populated planetary system in an attempt to enter that realm. Following seven seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the next Star Trek film was the first to feature the crew of the Enterprise-D along with a long prologue sequence featuring three members of the original cast. After a failed attempt to assault Earth, the Borg attempt to prevent First Contact between Humans and Vulcans by interfering with Zefram Cochrane's (James Cromwell) warp test in the past. Picard must confront the demons which stem from his assimilation into the Collective ("The Best of Both Worlds") as he leads the Enterprise-E back through time to ensure the test and subsequent meeting with the Vulcans take place. The first of two films directed by series actor Jonathan Frakes. Profoundly disturbed by what he views as a blatant violation of the Prime Directive, Picard deliberately interferes with a Starfleet admiral's (Anthony Zerbe) plan to relocate a relatively small but seemingly immortal population from a planet to gain control of the planet's natural radiation, which has been discovered to have substantial medicinal properties. However, the admiral himself is a pawn in his alien partner's (F. Murray Abraham) mission of vengeance. A clone of Picard (Tom Hardy), created by the Romulans but eventually exiled to hard labor on Remus, assassinates the entire Romulan senate, assumes dictatorship, and lures Picard and the Enterprise to Romulus under the false pretence of a peace overture. This film was a critical and commercial disappointment (released December 13, 2002 in direct competition with the James Bond film Die Another Day and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers) and was the final Star Trek film to feature the Next Generation cast and to be produced by Rick Berman. When Vulcan is destroyed by Romulans from the future, Starfleet cadet Kirk (Chris Pine) and instructor Spock (Zachary Quinto) must set aside their differences to keep Earth from suffering the same fate. This film acts as a reboot to the existing franchise by taking place in an "alternate reality" using the plot device of time travel to depict an altered timeline (known as the Kelvin Timeline), featuring younger versions of the original series' cast. It is the first production to feature an entirely different cast of actors playing roles previously established by other actors, with the exception of an aged Spock played by Leonard Nimoy. It was directed by J. J. Abrams (who produced it with Damon Lindelof) and written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. According to Lindelof, this production was designed to attract a wider audience.[30] It received positive reviews[31] and a number of awards, including the film franchise's only Academy Award, for "makeup and hairstyling". A Starfleet special agent (Benedict Cumberbatch) coerces an officer into blowing up a secret installation in London, shoots up a subsequent meeting of Starfleet brass in San Francisco, and then flees to Qo'noS. The crew of the Enterprise attempt to bring him to justice without provoking war with the Klingon Empire, but find there is much more to the agent's mission, and the man himself, than what the Fleet Admiral (Peter Weller) has told them. The Enterprise is ambushed and destroyed by countless alien microvessels; the crew abandon ship. Stranded on an unknown planet, and with no apparent means of escape or rescue, they find themselves in conflict with a new sociopathic enemy (Idris Elba) who has a well-earned hatred of the Federation and what it stands for. Star Trek Beyond was released on July 22, 2016, in time for the franchise's 50th anniversary celebrations. Roberto Orci had stated that Star Trek Beyond will feel more like the original series than its predecessors in the reboot series while still trying something new with the established material.[32] In December 2014, Justin Lin was confirmed as the director for the upcoming sequel,[33] marking the first reboot film not to be directed by J. J. Abrams, whose commitments to Star Wars: The Force Awakens restricted his role on the Star Trek film to that of producer.[34] In January 2015, it was confirmed that the film would be co-written by Doug Jung and Simon Pegg,[35] who revealed the film's title that May.[36] Idris Elba was cast as the villain Krall,[37][38] while Sofia Boutella was cast as Jaylah.[39] Filming began on June 25, 2015.[40] This is the last film of Anton Yelchin (Chekov), who died in an automobile accident on June 19, 2016. Pine and Quinto have signed contracts to return as Kirk and Spock for a fourth film.[41] In July 2016, Abrams confirmed plans for a fourth film, and stated that Chris Hemsworth would return as Kirk's father, George, whom he played in the prologue of the first film.[42][43] Later that month, Paramount confirmed the return of Hemsworth as well as most of the Beyond cast, producers Abrams and Lindsey Weber, and writers J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay.[44] That same month, Abrams had said that Chekov would not be recast, after Anton Yelchin died in a motor vehicle incident.[45] In December 2017, Deadline.com reported that Quentin Tarantino is currently working on the next Star Trek theatrical installment with Abrams, with the intention being that the former will direct the film.[46] Mark L. Smith, Lindsey Beer, Megan Amram and Drew Pearce took part in the writers room before Paramount finalized a deal with Smith to write the script.[47] The following table shows the cast members who played the primary characters in the film series.

1950s🚨

the Rickenbacker company🚨A solid-body musical instrument is a string instrument such as a guitar, bass or violin built without its normal sound box and relying on an electric pickup system to directly receive the vibrations of the strings. Solid-body instruments are preferred in situations where acoustic feedback may otherwise be a problem and are inherently both less expensive to build and more rugged than acoustic electric instruments. The most well-known solid body instruments are the electric guitar and electric bass. These were instrumental in creating new genres of music such as rock and heavy metal. Common woods used in the construction of solid body instruments are ash, alder, maple, mahogany, korina, spruce, rosewood, and ebony. The first two make up the majority of solid body electric guitars. Solid body instruments have some of the same features as acoustic string instruments. Like a typical string instrument they have a neck with tuners for the strings, a bridge and a fingerboard (or fretboard). The fretboard is a piece of wood placed on the top surface of the neck, extending from the head to the body. The strings run above the fingerboard. Some fingerboards have frets or bars which the strings are pressed against. This allows musicians to stop the string in the same place. Ebony, rosewood and maple are commonly used to make the fingerboard. Some electric guitar necks do not have a separate piece of wood for the fingerboard surface. All the solid bodies have variations in scale length or, the length of the strings from the nut to the bridge. The action, or the height of the strings from the fingerboard, is adjustable on solid body instruments. Most solid bodies have controls for volume and tone. Some have an electronic preamplifier with equalization for low, middle, and high frequencies. These are used to shape the sound along with the aid of the main amplifier. Amplifiers allow solid body instruments to be heard at high volumes when desired. Solid-body instruments?: Solid-body instruments do not include?: Electric lap steel guitars without sounding boards are considered to be solid-body instruments by some authorities, and not by others. This has a major effect on some claims of historical priority, as they predate the first models of solid-body electric guitar, which may otherwise be claimed to be the first commercially successful solid-body instruments. While noting this, it will be assumed that electric lap steels without sounding boards are solid-body instruments for the purposes of this article. The first commercially successful solid-body instrument was the Rickenbacker frying pan lap steel guitar, produced from 1931 to 1939. The first commercially available non lap steel guitar was also produced by the Rickenbacker/Electro company, starting in 1931 The model was referred to as the "electric Spanish Guitar" to distinguish it from the "Hawaiian" lap steel. The first commercially successful solid-body electric guitar was the Fender Broadcaster in 1950. A trademark dispute with the Gretsch Corporation who marketed a line of Broadcaster drums led to a name change to the current designation, Fender Telecaster in 1951 (Transition instruments produced between the two model names had no model name on the head stock and are now referred to as 'No Casters"). Fender also produced a one pickup version called the Fender Esquire starting in 1950. These were followed by the Gibson Les Paul in 1952. The solid body electric guitar is one of the most well-known solid body instruments. Instrumental in rock, metal, blues, and country music, the electric guitar has been responsible for creating various sounds. There are some common characteristics of solid body electric guitars. They typically have six strings although there are some seven- and eight-string models. Most have at least a volume and tone control. If they have more than one guitar pickup they have a switch that allows them to switch between the different pickups. There are various types of pickups that can be outfitted to a guitar. They can have single-coils, a P-90, or a humbucker. These pickups can be either passive or active (require batteries). Sometimes guitars are outfitted with pick guards which prevent the guitar from being scratched by a guitar pick. The origins of the solid body electric guitar are confusing. The first commercially available solid body electric Spanish guitar was produced by the Rickenbacker company in 1931. Les Paul, a guitarist, is often erroneously credited with inventing the first solid body, but Fender is often incorrectly credited as the first to commercially market a solid body electric guitar, which itself was based on a design by Merle Travis. Also it is reported that around the same time (1940) a solid body was created by Jamaican musician and inventor, Hedley Jones. In the 1940s, Les Paul created a guitar called the Log, which came from the 4 by 4 solid block of pine which the guitarist had inserted between the sawed halves of the body that hed just dismembered. He then carefully re-joined the neck to the pine log, using some metal brackets. [1] He then put some pickups that he designed on it. He soon went to companies asking if they would buy his guitar. They turned him down. However, after the Fender Telecaster electric guitar became popular, the Gibson company contacted him and had him endorse a model named after him, The Les Paul guitar. It came out in 1952. While Les Paul was looking for a manufacture for his log, Leo Fender was working on the Fender Telecaster. It was released in 1950. The telecaster had a basic, single-cutaway solid slab of ash for a body and separate screwed-on maple neck was geared to mass production. It had a slanted pickup mounted into a steel bridge-plate carrying three adjustable bridge-saddles. [2] Its color was blond. It is considered the worlds first commercially marketed solid body electric guitar. .[2] The Telecaster continues to be manufactured today. The follow-up to the Telecaster, the Stratocaster, appeared in 1954. It had three pickups instead of two. It had a vibrato bar on the bridge. This allowed players to bend notes. The contoured body with its beveled corners reduced the chafing on the players body.[3] It also had cutaway above and below the fretboard to allow players easy access to the top frets. In 1958, Gibson introduced the Explorer and the Flying V. Only about 100 Explorers were produced. Very few of the Flying V were produced either. Both were discontinued shortly after. The Flying V did manage to find a few followers and Gibson reintroduced the guitar in 1967. The Explorer was also reintroduced, in the mid-1970s. Both guitars are still in production today. In 1961, Gibson discontinued the Les Paul model and replaced it with a new design. The result was the Solid Guitar (SG). It weighed less and was less dense than the Les Paul. It had double cutaways to allow easier access to the top frets. Eventually the Les Paul was put back into production in 1968 because Blues and Hard Rock guitarists liked the sound of the Les Pauls. The SG and the Les Paul are still in production today. Fender and Gibson went on to make more well-known models. Gibson made the Melody Maker and the Firebird. Fender later created the Jazzmaster, and Jaguar. Some of the designs that Gibson and Fender created provide the basis for many guitars made by various manufacturers today. A typical solid body bass guitar has specific characteristics. It usually consists of four strings (some have been made with more), a 34 scale neck, at least one pickup, sometimes a pickguard, frets, and a bridge. It also has a volume and tone control. Some solid body basses have a three-band equalizer to stabilize the low frequency of the bass. Woods typically used to make the body of the bass are alder, maple, or mahogany. Rosewood or ebony are used for to make the fingerboard. The pickups are of the same style as used for guitars except they are designed for basses. The double bass guitar was very heavy and not as easy to carry as other string instruments. Paul Tutmarc built an electronic bass that was played the same way as a guitar. This bass was called the Audiovox Model 736 Electronic Bass. About 100 Audiovox 736 basses were made, and their distribution was apparently limited to the Seattle area.[4]:29 The idea did not catch on and the company folded. In the late 1940s when dance bands downsized,[4]:31 guitar players who lost their positions playing guitar were told they could play double bass. However, they did not want to take the time to learn upright technique. They needed a bass they could play like a guitar-a fretted bass.[4]:31 Leo Fender heard these criticisms and took his telecaster model and adopted it to a bass guitar. The result was the Fender Precision Bass. It consisted of an ash bolt-on maple neck. The scale for the bass was 34. It also had cutaways for better balance.[4]:33 Now guitarists could double on bass, and the bass player of the band would not have to carry around a huge upright bass. It entered the market in 1951. Fenders second bass model, the Jazz Bass, was introduced in 1959. It had a slimmer neck at the nut, a different two pickup combination, and an offset body shape. While it did not become extremely popular among jazz players, it was well received in rock music. Many companies today produced models based on the body shapes first started by Fender. Gibson created the Gibson Electric Bass to be introduced in the 1953. The scale, 30 ? was shorter than the Fender basses. Its body was designed to look like a violin. It had a single pickup. It also had an endpin which allowed the bass player to play it vertically. In 1959 Gibson created the EB-0 which was designed to complement the Les Paul Junior. In 1961 it was redesigned to match the SG guitar and the EB-) designation was retained. A two pickup version was later introduced called the EB-3 and a long scale variant was made called the EB-3L. Gibson also created the Thunderbird in 1963, which complemented the Firebird. It had the 34 scale for the neck. This was the same scale as the Fender basses. Other companies have created designs that are different from the Fender and Gibson models. Electric mandolins are similar to electric violins because they traditionally have one pickup. Some manufacturers produce electric violins because they also have a single pickup. Epiphone currently produces an electric mandolin called the Mandobird IV and VIII, IV and VIII standing for four and eight strings respectively.[5][6] They usually have a bolt on neck and a rosewood inlay. Both Mandobird models have a single coil pickup. The solid body electric violin is different from the traditional violin because it does not have a hollow body and has a Piezo Pickup with Passive Volume and Tone Controls. [7] These features allow it to be amplified. The body is made of wood, usually maple. The fingerboard is made out of ebony. The top of the violin might be made out of flame maple or solid spruce. The body of the electric violin compared to an acoustic violin has cutaways that allow for weight reduction and a lighter body. While a regular sitar has 21, 22, or 23 strings an electric sitar is designed similar to a guitar. It first appeared in 1967 when Vinnie Bell invented the Coral electric sitar, a small six-string guitar-like instrument producing a twangy sound that reminded people of its Indian namesake. [8] It is played like a regular guitar. An electric sitars electronics consist of Three pickups with individual volume and tone controls are standard, including one pickup over the sympathetic strings. The bridge of the electric sitar is creates the sound of a sitar. Like electric guitars, made by Fender especially, the neck of a sitar is usually made of bolt-on, hard maple wood with an optional mini-harp. The sitar also has 13 drone strings located above the six strings that reach from the fretboard to the bridge. Electric violas are designed similar to electric violins. They usually have the same features. Electric cellos are similar to regular cellos, but they have a smaller body. Some electric cellos have no body branching out from the middle where the strings are. Some electric cellos have the out line of the traditional body around the middle, creating the feel of a traditional cello. It is played like a traditional cello. The electric cello contains a volume control. Some have eq controls also. The fingerboard is made out of ebony. A piezo pickup is mounted at the bridge for amplification. The body can be made out of alder.

Amado Carrillo Fuentes🚨Amado Carrillo Fuentes (/fu??nt?s/; December 17, 1956 ÿ July 4, 1997) was a Mexican drug lord who seized control of the Jurez Cartel after assassinating his boss Rafael Aguilar Guajardo.[1][2] Amado Carrillo became known as "El Se?or de Los Cielos" ("The Lord of the Skies"), because of the large fleet of jets he used to transport drugs. He was also known for laundering money via Colombia to finance his large fleet of airplanes. He died in July 1997, in a Mexican hospital, after undergoing extensive plastic surgery to change his appearance.[3][4][5] In his final days Carrillo was being tracked by Mexican and U.S. authorities. Carrillo was born to Walter Vicente Carrillo Vega and Aurora Fuentes in Guamuchilito, Navolato, Sinaloa, Mexico. He was the first of seven sons; the others were: Cipriano, Enrique B., Vicente, Jos Cruz, Enrique C., and Jorge. He also had five sisters: Mara Luisa, Berthila, Flor, Alicia, and Aurora. These children were the nieces and nephews of Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo, a/k/a "Don Neto", the Guadalajara Cartel leader. Amado got his start in the drug business under the tutelage of his uncle Ernesto and later brought in his brothers, and eventually his son Vicente Jos Carrillo Leyva. Carrillo's father died in April 1986. Carillo's brother, Cipriano Carrillo Fuentes, died in 1989 under mysterious circumstances.[citation needed] Initially, Carrillo was part of the Guadalajara Cartel, sent to Ojinaga, Chihuahua to oversee the cocaine shipments of his uncle, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo ("Don Neto"), and to learn about border operations from Pablo Acosta Villarreal ("El Zorro de Ojinaga"; "The Ojinaga Fox") and Rafael Aguilar Guajardo. Later Carrillo worked with Pablo Escobar and the Cali Cartel smuggling drugs from Colombia to Mexico and the United States. He worked with El Chapo Joaquin Guzman Loera, The Arellano Felix family and The Beltran Leyva Organization.[6][7] During his tenure, Carrillo reportedly built a multibillion-dollar drug empire. It was estimated that he may have made over US$25 billion in revenue in his career.[8] The pressure to capture Carrillo intensified among U.S. and Mexican authorities,[when?][why?] and perhaps for this reason, Carrillo underwent facial plastic surgery and abdominal liposuction to change his appearance on July 4, 1997, at Santa M܇nica Hospital in Mexico City. However, during the operation, he died of complications apparently caused either by a medication or a malfunctioning respirator. Two of Carrillo's bodyguards were in the operating room during the procedure. On November 7, 1997, the two physicians who performed the surgery on Fuentes were found dead, encased in concrete inside steel drums, with their bodies showing signs of torture.[9] On the night of August 3, 1997, at around 9:30?p.m., four drug traffickers walked into a restaurant in Ciudad Jurez, pulled out their guns, and opened fire on five diners, killing them instantly.[10] Police estimated that more than 100 bullet casings were found at the crime scene. According to a report issued by the Los Angeles Times, four men went to the restaurant carrying at least two AK-47 assault rifles while others stood at the doorstep.[10][11] On their way out, the gunmen claimed another victim:[12] Armando Olague, a prison official and off-duty law enforcement officer, who was gunned down outside the restaurant after he had walked from a nearby bar to investigate the shooting. Reportedly, Olague had run into the restaurant from across the street with a gun in his hand to check out the commotion. It was later determined that Olague was also a known lieutenant of the Juarez cartel.[12] Mexican authorities declined to comment on the motives behind the killing, stating the shootout was not linked to the death of Amado Carrillo Fuentes. Nonetheless, it was later stated that the perpetrators were gunmen of the Tijuana Cartel.[10][13] Although confrontations between narcotraficantes were commonplace in Ciudad Jurez, they rarely occurred in public places. What happened in the restaurant threatened to usher in a new era of border crime in the city.[12] In Ciudad Jurez, the PGR seized warehouses they believed the cartel used to store weapons and cocaine; they also seized over 60 properties all over Mexico belonging to Carrillo, and began an investigation into his dealings with police and government officials. Officials also froze bank accounts amounting to $10 billion belonging to Carrillo.[14] In April 2009, Mexican authorities arrested Carillo's son, Vicente Carrillo Leyva.[15] Carrillo was given a large and expensive funeral in Guamuchilito, Sinaloa. In 2006, Governor Eduardo Bours asked the federal government to tear down Carrillo's mansion in Hermosillo, Sonora.[16] The mansion, dubbed "The Palace of a Thousand and One Nights", although still standing, remains unoccupied.[citation needed]

Samuel Slater🚨Samuel Slater (June 9, 1768 ÿ April 21, 1835) was an early English-American industrialist known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution" (a phrase coined by Andrew Jackson) and the "Father of the American Factory System". In the UK, he was called "Slater the Traitor"[2] because he brought British textile technology to America, modifying it for United States use. He memorized the designs of textile factory machinery as an apprentice to a pioneer in the British industry before migrating to the United States at the age of 21. He designed the first textile mills in the US and later went into business for himself, developing a family business with his sons. A wealthy man, he eventually owned thirteen spinning mills and had developed tenant farms and company towns around his textile mills, such as Slatersville, Rhode Island. Samuel Slater was born in Belper, Derbyshire, England, on June 9, 1768, the fifth son of a farming family of eight children. He received a basic education at a school run by a Mrs. Martinez Jr.[2] At age ten, he began work at the cotton mill opened that year by Jedediah Strutt using the water frame pioneered by Richard Arkwright at nearby Cromford Mill. In 1782, his father died and his family indentured Samuel as an apprentice to Strutt.[3] Slater was well trained by Strutt and, by age 21, he had gained a thorough knowledge of the organisation and practice of cotton spinning. He learned of the American interest in developing similar machines, and he was also aware of British laws against exporting the designs. He therefore memorized as much as he could and departed for New York in 1789. Some people of Belper called him "Slater the Traitor", as they considered his move a betrayal of the town where many earned their living at Strutt's mills.[4] In 1789, leading Rhode Island industrialist Moses Brown moved to Pawtucket, Rhode Island to operate a mill in partnership with his son-in-law William Almy and cousin Smith Brown.[2] Almy & Brown, as the company was to be called, was housed in a former fulling mill near the Pawtucket Falls of the Blackstone River. They planned to manufacture cloth for sale, with yarn to be spun on spinning wheels, jennies, and frames, using water power. In August, they acquired a 32-spindle frame "after the Arkwright pattern," but could not operate it. At this point, Slater wrote to them offering his services. Slater realized that nothing could be done with the machinery as it stood, and convinced Brown of his knowledge. He promised: "If I do not make as good yarn, as they do in England, I will have nothing for my services, but will throw the whole of what I have attempted over the bridge."[5] In 1790, he signed a contract with Brown to replicate the British designs. Their deal provided Slater the funds to build the water frames and associated machinery, with a half share in their capital value and the profits derived from them. By December, the shop was operational with ten to twelve workers. By 1791, Slater had some machinery in operation, despite shortages of tools and skilled mechanics. In 1793, Slater and Brown opened their first factory in Pawtucket. Slater knew the secret of Arkwright's successnamely, that account had to be taken of varying fibre lengthsbut he also understood Arkwright's carding, drawing, and roving machines. He also had the experience of working with all the elements as a continuous production system. During construction, Slater made some adjustments to the designs to fit local needs. The result was the first successful water-powered roller spinning textile mill in America. After developing this mill, Slater instituted principles of management which he had learned from Strutt and Arkwright to teach workers to be skilled mechanics. In 1812, Slater built the Old Green Mill, later known as Cranston Print Works, in East Village in Webster, Massachusetts. He moved to Webster due in part to an available workforce, but also due to abundant water power from Webster Lake.[6] Slater created the "Rhode Island System," factory practices based upon the patterns of family life in New England villages. Children aged 7 to 12 were the first employees of the mill; Slater personally supervised them closely. The first child workers were hired in 1790.[7] From his experience in Milford, it is highly unlikely that Slater resorted to physical punishment of the children, relying instead on a system of fines. Slater tried to recruit workers from other villages, but that fell through due to the close-knit framework of the New England family.[citation needed] He brought in whole families, developing entire villages.[8] He provided company-owned housing nearby, along with company stores; he sponsored a Sunday School where college students taught the children reading and writing.[citation needed] Slater constructed a new mill in 1793 for the sole purpose of textile manufacture under the name Almy, Brown & Slater, as he was now partners with Almy and Brown. It was a 72-spindle mill; the patenting of Eli Whitney's cotton gin in 1794 reduced the labor in processing cotton. It also enabled profitable cultivation of short-staple cotton, which could be grown in the interior uplands, resulting in a dramatic expansion of cotton cultivation throughout the Deep South in the antebellum years. The New England mills and their labor force of free men depended on southern cotton, which was based on slave labor. Slater also brought the Sunday School system from his native England to his textile factory at Pawtucket.[citation needed] In 1798, Samuel Slater split from Almy and Brown, forming Samuel Slater & Company in partnership with his father-in-law Oziel Wilkinson. They developed other mills in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire.[9] In 1799, he was joined by his brother John Slater from England. John was a wheelwright who had spent time studying the latest English developments and might well have gained experience of the spinning mule.[2] Samuel put John Slater in charge of a large mill which he called the White Mill.[10] By 1810, Slater held part ownership in three factories in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In 1823, he bought a mill in Connecticut. He also built factories to make the textile manufacturing machinery used by many of the region's mills, and formed a partnership with his brother-in-law to produce iron for use in machinery construction. But Slater spread himself too thin, and was unable to coordinate or integrate his many different business interests. He refused to go outside his family to hire managers and, after 1829, he made his sons partners in the new umbrella firm of Samuel Slater and Sons. His son Horatio Nelson Slater completely reorganized the family business, introduced cost-cutting measures and giving up old-fashioned procedures. Slater & Company became one of the leading manufacturing companies in the United States.[citation needed] Slater also hired recruiters to search for families willing to work at the mill. He advertised to attract more families for the mills.[citation needed] By 1800, the success of the Slater mill had been duplicated by other entrepreneurs. By 1810, Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin reported that the U.S. had some 50 cotton-yarn mills, many of them started in response to the Embargo of 1807 that cut off imports from Britain prior to the War of 1812. That war resulted in speeding up the process of industrialization in New England. By war's end in 1815, there were 140 cotton manufacturers within 30 miles of Providence, employing 26,000 hands and operating 130,000 spindles. The American textile industry was launched. In 1791, Samuel Slater married Hannah Wilkinson; she invented two-ply thread, becoming in 1793 the first American woman to be granted a patent.[11] Samuel and Hannah had ten children together, although four died during infancy. Hannah Slater died in 1812 from complications of childbirth, leaving Samuel Slater with six young children to raise.[12] Along with his brothers, Samuel started the Slater family in America. Slater married for a second time in 1817, to a widow, Esther Parkinson. As his business was extremely successful by this time, and as Parkinson also owned property prior to their marriage, the couple had a pre-nuptial agreement prepared.[12] Slater died on April 21, 1835, in Webster, Massachusetts, a town which he had founded in 1832 and named for his friend Senator Daniel Webster. At the time of his death, he owned thirteen mills and was worth one million dollars. Slater's original mill still stands, known today as Slater Mill and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is operated as a museum dedicated to preserving the history of Samuel Slater and his contribution to American industry. Slater's original mill in Pawtucket and the town of Slatersville are both part of the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park, which was created to preserve and interpret the history of the industrial development of the region. His papers are held at the Harvard Business School's Baker Library.[13]

Clearing habitats for agriculture🚨Habitat destruction is the process in which natural habitat is rendered unable to support the species present. In this process, the organisms that previously used the site are displaced or destroyed, reducing biodiversity.[1] Habitat destruction by human activity is mainly for the purpose of harvesting natural resources for industrial production and urbanization. Clearing habitats for agriculture is the principal cause of habitat destruction. Other important causes of habitat destruction include mining, logging, trawling and urban sprawl. Habitat destruction is currently ranked as the primary cause of species extinction worldwide.[2] It is a process of natural environmental change that may be caused by habitat fragmentation, geological processes, climate change[1] or by human activities such as the introduction of invasive species, ecosystem nutrient depletion, and other human activities. The terms habitat loss and habitat reduction are also used in a wider sense, including loss of habitat from other factors, such as water and noise pollution. In the simplest term, when a habitat is destroyed, the plants, animals, and other organisms that occupied the habitat have a reduced carrying capacity so that populations decline and extinction becomes more likely.[3] Perhaps the greatest threat to organisms and biodiversity is the process of habitat loss.[4] Temple (1986) found that 82% of endangered bird species were significantly threatened by habitat loss. Most amphibian species are also threatened by habitat loss[5], and some species are now only breeding in modified habitat[6]. Endemic organisms with limited ranges are most affected by habitat destruction, mainly because these organisms are not found anywhere else within the world and thus, have less chance of recovering. Many endemic organisms have very specific requirements for their survival that can only be found within a certain ecosystem, resulting in their extinction. Extinction may also take place very long after the destruction of habitat, a phenomenon known as extinction debt. Habitat destruction can also decrease the range of certain organism populations. This can result in the reduction of genetic diversity and perhaps the production of infertile youths, as these organisms would have a higher possibility of mating with related organisms within their population, or different species. One of the most famous examples is the impact upon China's giant panda, once found across the nation. Now it is only found in fragmented and isolated regions in the southwest of the country, as a result of widespread deforestation in the 20th century.[7] Biodiversity hotspots are chiefly tropical regions that feature high concentrations of endemic species and, when all hotspots are combined, may contain over half of the worlds terrestrial species.[9] These hotspots are suffering from habitat loss and destruction. Most of the natural habitat on islands and in areas of high human population density has already been destroyed (WRI, 2003). Islands suffering extreme habitat destruction include New Zealand, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Japan.[10] South and East Asia especially China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Japan and many areas in West Africa have extremely dense human populations that allow little room for natural habitat. Marine areas close to highly populated coastal cities also face degradation of their coral reefs or other marine habitat. These areas include the eastern coasts of Asia and Africa, northern coasts of South America, and the Caribbean Sea and its associated islands.[10] Regions of unsustainable agriculture or unstable governments, which may go hand-in-hand, typically experience high rates of habitat destruction. Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Amazonian tropical rainforest areas of South America are the main regions with unsustainable agricultural practices and/or government mismanagement.[10] Areas of high agricultural output tend to have the highest extent of habitat destruction. In the U.S., less than 25% of native vegetation remains in many parts of the East and Midwest.[11] Only 15% of land area remains unmodified by human activities in all of Europe.[10] Tropical rainforests have received most of the attention concerning the destruction of habitat. From the approximately 16 million square kilometers of tropical rainforest habitat that originally existed worldwide, less than 9 million square kilometers remain today.[10] The current rate of deforestation is 160,000 square kilometers per year, which equates to a loss of approximately 1% of original forest habitat each year.[12] Other forest ecosystems have suffered as much or more destruction as tropical rainforests. Farming and logging have severely disturbed at least 94% of temperate broadleaf forests; many old growth forest stands have lost more than 98% of their previous area because of human activities.[10] Tropical deciduous dry forests are easier to clear and burn and are more suitable for agriculture and cattle ranching than tropical rainforests; consequently, less than 0.1% of dry forests in Central America's Pacific Coast and less than 8% in Madagascar remain from their original extents.[12] Plains and desert areas have been degraded to a lesser extent. Only 10-20% of the world's drylands, which include temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands, scrub, and deciduous forests, have been somewhat degraded.[13] But included in that 10-20% of land is the approximately 9 million square kilometers of seasonally dry-lands that humans have converted to deserts through the process of desertification.[10] The tallgrass prairies of North America, on the other hand, have less than 3% of natural habitat remaining that has not been converted to farmland.[14] Wetlands and marine areas have endured high levels of habitat destruction. More than 50% of wetlands in the U.S. have been destroyed in just the last 200 years.[11] Between 60% and 70% of European wetlands have been completely destroyed.[15] In the United Kingdom, there has been an increase in demand for coastal housing and tourism which has caused a decline in marine habitats over the last 60 years. The rising sea levels and temperatures has caused soil erosion, coastal flooding, and loss of quality in the UK marine ecosystem[16]. About one-fifth (20%) of marine coastal areas have been highly modified by humans.[17] One-fifth of coral reefs have also been destroyed, and another fifth has been severely degraded by overfishing, pollution, and invasive species; 90% of the Philippines coral reefs alone have been destroyed.[18] Finally, over 35% mangrove ecosystems worldwide have been destroyed.[18] Habitat destruction through natural processes such as volcanism, fire, and climate change is well documented in the fossil record.[1] One study shows that habitat fragmentation of tropical rainforests in Euramerica 300 million years ago led to a great loss of amphibian diversity, but simultaneously the drier climate spurred on a burst of diversity among reptiles.[1] Habitat destruction caused by humans includes land conversion from forests, etc. to arable land, urban sprawl, infrastructure development, and other anthropogenic changes to the characteristics of land. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and pollution are aspects of habitat destruction caused by humans that do not necessarily involve over destruction of habitat, yet result in habitat collapse. Desertification, deforestation, and coral reef degradation are specific types of habitat destruction for those areas (deserts, forests, coral reefs). Geist and Lambin (2002) assessed 152 case studies of net losses of tropical forest cover to determine any patterns in the proximate and underlying causes of tropical deforestation. Their results, yielded as percentages of the case studies in which each parameter was a significant factor, provide a quantitative prioritization of which proximate and underlying causes were the most significant. The proximate causes were clustered into broad categories of agricultural expansion (96%), infrastructure expansion (72%), and wood extraction (67%). Therefore, according to this study, forest conversion to agriculture is the main land use change responsible for tropical deforestation. The specific categories reveal further insight into the specific causes of tropical deforestation: transport extension (64%), commercial wood extraction (52%), permanent cultivation (48%), cattle ranching (46%), shifting (slash and burn) cultivation (41%), subsistence agriculture (40%), and fuel wood extraction for domestic use (28%). One result is that shifting cultivation is not the primary cause of deforestation in all world regions, while transport extension (including the construction of new roads) is the largest single proximate factor responsible for deforestation.[19] Rising global temperatures, caused by the greenhouse effect, contribute to habitat destruction, endangering various species, such as the polar bear.[20] Melting ice caps promote rising sea levels and floods which threaten natural habitats and species globally.[21][22] While the above-mentioned activities are the proximal or direct causes of habitat destruction in that they actually destroy habitat, this still does not identify why humans destroy habitat. The forces that cause humans to destroy habitat are known as drivers of habitat destruction. Demographic, economic, sociopolitical, scientific and technological, and cultural drivers all contribute to habitat destruction.[18] Demographic drivers include the expanding human population; rate of population increase over time; spatial distribution of people in a given area (urban versus rural), ecosystem type, and country; and the combined effects of poverty, age, family planning, gender, and education status of people in certain areas.[18] Most of the exponential human population growth worldwide is occurring in or close to biodiversity hotspots.[9] This may explain why human population density accounts for 87.9% of the variation in numbers of threatened species across 114 countries, providing indisputable evidence that people play the largest role in decreasing biodiversity.[23] The boom in human population and migration of people into such species-rich regions are making conservation efforts not only more urgent but also more likely to conflict with local human interests.[9] The high local population density in such areas is directly correlated to the poverty status of the local people, most of whom lacking an education and family planning.[19] From the Geist and Lambin (2002) study described in the previous section, the underlying driving forces were prioritized as follows (with the percent of the 152 cases the factor played a significant role in): economic factors (81%), institutional or policy factors (78%), technological factors (70%), cultural or socio-political factors (66%), and demographic factors (61%). The main economic factors included commercialization and growth of timber markets (68%), which are driven by national and international demands; urban industrial growth (38%); low domestic costs for land, labor, fuel, and timber (32%); and increases in product prices mainly for cash crops (25%). Institutional and policy factors included formal pro-deforestation policies on land development (40%), economic growth including colonization and infrastructure improvement (34%), and subsidies for land-based activities (26%); property rights and land-tenure insecurity (44%); and policy failures such as corruption, lawlessness, or mismanagement (42%). The main technological factor was the poor application of technology in the wood industry (45%), which leads to wasteful logging practices. Within the broad category of cultural and sociopolitical factors are public attitudes and values (63%), individual/household behavior (53%), public unconcern toward forest environments (43%), missing basic values (36%), and unconcern by individuals (32%). Demographic factors were the in-migration of colonizing settlers into sparsely populated forest areas (38%) and growing population density a result of the first factor in those areas (25%). There are also feedbacks and interactions among the proximate and underlying causes of deforestation that can amplify the process. Road construction has the largest feedback effect, because it interacts withand leads tothe establishment of new settlements and more people, which causes a growth in wood (logging) and food markets.[19] Growth in these markets, in turn, progresses the commercialization of agriculture and logging industries. When these industries become commercialized, they must become more efficient by utilizing larger or more modern machinery that often are worse on the habitat than traditional farming and logging methods. Either way, more land is cleared more rapidly for commercial markets. This common feedback example manifests just how closely related the proximate and underlying causes are to each other. Habitat destruction vastly increases an area's vulnerability to natural disasters like flood and drought, crop failure, spread of disease, and water contamination.[18] On the other hand, a healthy ecosystem with good management practices will reduce the chance of these events happening, or will at least mitigate adverse impacts. Agricultural land can actually suffer from the destruction of the surrounding landscape. Over the past 50 years, the destruction of habitat surrounding agricultural land has degraded approximately 40% of agricultural land worldwide via erosion, salinization, compaction, nutrient depletion, pollution, and urbanization.[18] Humans also lose direct uses of natural habitat when habitat is destroyed. Aesthetic uses such as birdwatching, recreational uses like hunting and fishing, and ecotourism usually rely upon virtually undisturbed habitat. Many people value the complexity of the natural world and are disturbed by the loss of natural habitats and animal or plant species worldwide. Probably the most profound impact that habitat destruction has on people is the loss of many valuable ecosystem services. Habitat destruction has altered nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and carbon cycles, which has increased the frequency and severity of acid rain, algal blooms, and fish kills in rivers and oceans and contributed tremendously to global climate change.[18] One ecosystem service whose significance is becoming more realized is climate regulation. On a local scale, trees provide windbreaks and shade; on a regional scale, plant transpiration recycles rainwater and maintains constant annual rainfall; on a global scale, plants (especially trees from tropical rainforests) from around the world counter the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon dioxide through photosynthesis.[10] Other ecosystem services that are diminished or lost altogether as a result of habitat destruction include watershed management, nitrogen fixation, oxygen production, pollination (see pollinator decline),[25] waste treatment (i.e., the breaking down and immobilization of toxic pollutants), and nutrient recycling of sewage or agricultural runoff.[10] The loss of trees from the tropical rainforests alone represents a substantial diminishing of the earths ability to produce oxygen and use up carbon dioxide. These services are becoming even more important as increasing carbon dioxide levels is one of the main contributors to global climate change. The loss of biodiversity may not directly affect humans, but the indirect effects of losing many species as well as the diversity of ecosystems in general are enormous. When biodiversity is lost, the environment loses many species that provide valuable and unique roles to the ecosystem. The environment and all its inhabitants rely on biodiversity to recover from extreme environmental conditions. When too much biodiversity is lost, a catastrophic event such as an earthquake, flood, or volcanic eruption could cause an ecosystem to crash, and humans would obviously suffer from that. Loss of biodiversity also means that humans are losing animals that could have served as biological control agents and plants that could potentially provide higher-yielding crop varieties, pharmaceutical drugs to cure existing or future diseases or cancer, and new resistant crop varieties for agricultural species susceptible to pesticide-resistant insects or virulent strains of fungi, viruses, and bacteria.[10] The negative effects of habitat destruction usually impact rural populations more directly than urban populations.[18] Across the globe, poor people suffer the most when natural habitat is destroyed, because less natural habitat means less natural resources per capita, yet wealthier people and countries simply have to pay more to continue to receive more than their per capita share of natural resources. Another way to view the negative effects of habitat destruction is to look at the opportunity cost of keeping an area undisturbed. In other words, what are people losing out on by taking away a given habitat? A country may increase its food supply by converting forest land to row-crop agriculture, but the value of the same land may be much larger when it can supply natural resources or services such as clean water, timber, ecotourism, or flood regulation and drought control.[18] The rapid expansion of the global human population is increasing the worlds food requirement substantially. Simple logic instructs that more people will require more food. In fact, as the worlds population increases dramatically, agricultural output will need to increase by at least 50%, over the next 30 years.[26] In the past, continually moving to new land and soils provided a boost in food production to appease the global food demand. That easy fix will no longer be available, however, as more than 98% of all land suitable for agriculture is already in use or degraded beyond repair.[27] The impending global food crisis will be a major source of habitat destruction. Commercial farmers are going to become desperate to produce more food from the same amount of land, so they will use more fertilizers and less concern for the environment to meet the market demand. Others will seek out new land or will convert other land-uses to agriculture. Agricultural intensification will become widespread at the cost of the environment and its inhabitants. Species will be pushed out of their habitat either directly by habitat destruction or indirectly by fragmentation, degradation, or pollution. Any efforts to protect the worlds remaining natural habitat and biodiversity will compete directly with humans growing demand for natural resources, especially new agricultural lands.[26] In most cases of tropical deforestation, three to four underlying causes are driving two to three proximate causes.[19] This means that a universal policy for controlling tropical deforestation would not be able to address the unique combination of proximate and underlying causes of deforestation in each country.[19] Before any local, national, or international deforestation policies are written and enforced, governmental leaders must acquire a detailed understanding of the complex combination of proximate causes and underlying driving forces of deforestation in a given area or country.[19] This concept, along with many other results about tropical deforestation from the Geist and Lambin study, can easily be applied to habitat destruction in general. Governmental leaders need to take action by addressing the underlying driving forces, rather than merely regulating the proximate causes. In a broader sense, governmental bodies at a local, national, and international scale need to emphasize the following:

"Paraguayans, Republic or Death"🚨The "Paraguayan National Anthem" (Spanish: Himno Nacional Paraguayo), also known alternatively as "Paraguayans, Republic or Death" (English: Paraguayos, Rep~blica o Muerte), is the national anthem of Paraguay. The lyrics were written by Francisco Acu?a de Figueroa (who also wrote Orientales, la Patria o la tumba, the national anthem of Uruguay) under the presidency of Carlos Antonio L܇pez, who at the time delegated Bernardo Jovellanos and Anastasio Gonzlez to ask Figueroa to write the anthem (Jovellanos and Gonzlez were commissioners of the Paraguayan government in Uruguay). The lyrics to the song were officially finished by Francisco Acu?a de Figueroa on May 20, 1846. It still remains unclear who was responsible for the music. Some sources claim that Frenchman Francisco Sauvageot de Dupuis was the composer, while others claim it to be the work of the Hungarian-born Francisco Jos Debali (Debly Ferenc J܇zsef), who composed the melody of the Uruguayan national anthem.[1] What it is known for sure is that it was the Paraguayan composer Remberto Gimnez who in 1933 arranged and developed the version of the national anthem which remains in use by Paraguay today. Though the national anthem has many verses, usually only the first verse followed by the chorus are sung on most occasions. Due to the song's length, the introductory section and the latter half of the first verse are often omitted for brevity when the national anthem is played before a sporting event such as a soccer game.[2]

roughly 15% of the population🚨In sociology, the upper middle class of the United States is the social group constituted by higher-status members of the middle class. This is in contrast to the term lower middle class, which refers to the group at the opposite end of the middle class scale. There is considerable debate as to how the upper middle class might be defined. According to Max Weber, the upper middle class consists of well-educated professionals with graduate degrees and comfortable incomes. The American upper middle class is defined using income, education, occupation and the associated values as main indicators.[1] In the United States, the upper middle class is defined as consisting of white-collar professionals who have above-average personal incomes, advanced educational degrees[1] and a high degree of autonomy in their work, leading to higher job satisfaction.[2] The main occupational tasks of upper middle class individuals tend to center on conceptualizing, consulting, and instruction.[3] Certain professions can be categorized as "upper middle class," though any such measurement must be considered subjective because of people's differing perception of class. Most people in the upper-middle class strata are highly educated white collar professionals such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, accountants, engineers, military officers, economists, urban planners, university professors, architects, stockbrokers, psychologists, scientists, actuaries, optometrists, pharmacists, high-level civil servants and the intelligentsia. Other common professions include corporate executives and CEOs, and successful business owners. Generally, people in these professions have an advanced post-secondary education and a comfortable standard of living.[1] Education is probably the most important part of middle-class childrearing as they prepare their children to be successful in school. Upper middle-class parents expect their children to attend college. Along with hard work, these parents view educational performance and attainment as necessary components of financial success. Consequently, the majority of upper middle-class children assume they will attend college. For these children, college is not optionalit's essential. This thought can be seen even more so from parents with higher education, whose greater appreciation for autonomy leads them to want the same for their children. Most people encompassing this station in life have a high regard for higher education, particularly towards Ivy League colleges and other top tier schools throughout the United States. They probably, more than any other socio-economic class, strive for themselves and their children to obtain graduate or at least four-year undergraduate degrees, further reflecting the importance placed on education by middle-class families.[4] Members of the upper middle class tend to place a high value on foreign travel, the arts, and high culture in general. This value is in line with the emphasis placed on education, as foreign travel increases one's understanding of other cultures and helps create a global perspective. Most mass affluent households and college-educated professionals tend to be center-right or conservative on fiscal issues.[5] A slight majority of college-educated professionals, who compose 15% of the population and 20% of the electorate, favor the Democratic Party.[6] Among those with six figure household incomes,[7] a slight majority favor the Republican Party. Per exit polls conducted by the television network CNN following the 2004 and 2006 U.S. elections, academia and those with postgraduate degrees (e.g., to include Ph.D. and J.D.) especially favor the Democratic Party.[8][9] In 2005, 72% of full-time faculty members at four-year institutions, the majority of whom are upper middle class,[1] identified as liberal.[10] The upper middle class is often the dominant group to shape society and bring social movements to the forefront. Movements such as the Peace Movement, The Anti-Nuclear Movement, Environmentalism, the Anti-Smoking movement, and even in the past with Blue laws and the Temperance movement have been in large part (although not solely) products of the upper middle class. Some claim this is because this is the largest class (and the lowest class) with any true political power for positive change, while others claim some of the more restrictive social movements (such as with smoking and drinking) are based upon "saving people from themselves."[3] In the United States the term middle class and its subdivisions are an extremely vague concept as neither economists nor sociologists have precisely defined the term.[11] There are several perceptions of the upper middle class and what the term means. In academic models the term applies to highly educated salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have graduate degrees with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income earners household having incomes in the high 5-figure range.[1][7] "The upper middle class has grown...and its composition has changed. Increasingly salaried managers and professionals have replaced individual business owners and independent professionals. The key to the success of the upper middle class is the growing importance of educational certification...its lifestyles and opinions are becoming increasingly normative for the whole society. It is in fact a porous class, open to people...who earn the right credentials. "- Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure, 1998.[7] In addition to having autonomy in their work, above-average incomes, and advanced educations, the upper middle class also tends to be influential, setting trends and largely shaping public opinion.[3][7] Overall, members of this class are also secure from economic down-turns and, unlike their counterparts in the statistical middle class, do not need to fear downsizing, corporate cost-cutting, or outsourcingan economic benefit largely attributable to their graduate degrees and comfortable incomes, likely in the top income quintile or top third.[1] Typical professions for this class include professors, accountants, architects, urban planners, engineers, economists, pharmacists, executive assistants, physicians, optometrists, dentists, and lawyers.[3][12] While many Americans see income as the prime determinant of class, occupational status, educational attainment, and value systems are equally important. Income is in part determined by the scarcity of certain skill sets.[1] As a result an occupation that requires a scarce skill, the attainment of which is often achieved through an educational degree, and entrusts its occupant with a high degree of influence will usually offer high economic compensation.[13] There are also differences between household and individual income. In 2005, 42% of US households (76% among the top quintile) had two or more income earners; as a result, 18% of households but only 5% of individuals had six figure incomes.[14] To illustrate, two nurses each making $55,000 per year can out-earn, in a household sense, a single attorney who makes a median of $95,000 annually.[15][16] Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. Using the 15% figure one may conclude that the American upper middle class consists, strictly in an income sense, of professionals with personal incomes in excess of $62,500, who commonly reside in households with six figure incomes.[1][7][14][17] The difference between personal and household income can be explained by considering that 76% of households with incomes exceeding $90,000 (the top 20%) had two or more income earners.[14] SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2006[18][19]

Richard Cho🚨Richard Cho (born August 10, 1965) is an American basketball executive who most recently served as the general manager of the Charlotte Hornets of the National Basketball Association. Prior to the Hornets, Cho was the general manager of the Portland Trail Blazers and the assistant general manager of the Oklahoma City Thunder.[1] Cho is the first Asian American general manager in NBA history.[2][3] Born in Rangoon, Burma to Alan (Aung Aung Cho) and Shirley Cho (Nwe Nwe Yi), Cho immigrated with his family to the United States in 1968.[4][2] They were sponsored by a family in Fort Wayne, Indiana before moving to Federal Way, Washington. Cho's father worked the night shift at a convenience store to support the family.[5] Cho graduated from Decatur High School and went on to Washington State University, where he earned a degree in mechanical engineering. He worked as an engineer at Boeing from 1990 to 1995.[1] In 1995, he was hired as an intern for the Seattle SuperSonics while finishing a law degree from Pepperdine University School of Law. In 1997, he earned the degree and was hired as the SuperSonics' director of basketball affairs.[6] In 2000, he was promoted to assistant general manager.[1] Between 2000 and 2008 the Sonics made the playoffs twice. The high point was the 2004-05 season when the team advanced to the second round of the playoffs for the only time since 1997-98. However it was followed by several more down seasons culminating in a record of 20-62 during the 2007-08 season, the worst in franchise history. In 2008, Cho relocated to Oklahoma City when the league allowed the team under new ownership to leave Seattle. The team was renamed the Oklahoma City Thunder. The Thunder utilized Cho's background in both law and mathematics when negotiating trades, free agent signings, and interpreting the NBA's complex collective bargaining agreement.[3] The Thunder entered the playoffs in 2009-10 with a record of 50-32. In July 2010, Cho returned to the Pacific Northwest, hired as the ninth general manager of the Portland Trail Blazers, replacing Kevin Pritchard, who was fired the previous month.[1] Cho himself was fired less than a year after being hired.[7] On June 14, 2011, the Charlotte Hornets hired Cho as their new general manager, promoting previous GM Rod Higgins to president of basketball operations. The Hornets fired Cho on February 20, 2018.[8][9] Cho and his wife Julie Heintz-Cho have two young daughters.[10] Cho met his future wife while studying law at Pepperdine University School of Law.[11] Cho's father, Alan, is a former journalist.[4] His paternal grandfather, U Cho, was the Burma's first education minister, while his maternal grandfather, Thant Gyi, was a former deputy education minister.[4] Cho is the first cousin of Alex Wagner, television anchor and host of Now with Alex Wagner on MSNBC.

Christianity🚨This is a list of religious populations by number of adherents and countries. Adherents.com says "Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number".[2] Countries with the greatest proportion of Christians from Christianity by country (as of 2010[update]): Countries with the greatest proportion of Muslims from Islam by country (as of 2010[update]) (figures excluding foreign workers in parenthesis): Remarks: Saudi Arabia does not include other religious beliefs in their census, the figures for these other religious groups could be higher than reported in the nation. While conversion to Islam is among its most supported tenets, conversion from Islam to another religion is considered to be the sin of apostasy[49] and could be subject to the penalty of death in the country. Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including agnostics and atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007[update]): Remarks: Ranked by mean estimate which is in brackets. Irreligious includes agnostic, atheist, secular believer, and people having no formal religious adherence. It does not necessarily mean that members of this group dont belong to any religion. Some religions have harmonized with local cultures and can be seen as a cultural background rather than a formal religion. Additionally, the practice of officially associating a family or household with a religious institute while not formally practicing the affiliated religion is common in many countries. Thus, over half of this group is theistic and/or influenced by religious principles, but nonreligious/non-practicing and not true atheists or agnostics.[2] See Spiritual but not religious. Countries with the greatest proportion of Hindus from Hinduism by country (as of 2010[update]): Countries with the greatest proportion of Buddhists from Buddhism by country (as of 2010[update]):[82] As a spiritual practice, Taoism has made fewer inroads in the West than Buddhism and Hinduism. Despite the popularity of its great classics the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching, the specific practices of Taoism have not been promulgated in America with much success;[83] these religions are not ubiquitous worldwide in the way that adherents of bigger world religions are, and they remain primarily an ethnic religion. Nonetheless, Taoist ideas and symbols such as Taijitu have become popular throughout the world through Tai Chi Chuan, Qigong, and various martial arts.[84] The Chinese traditional religion has 184,000 believers in Latin America, 250,000 believers in Europe, and 839,000 believers in North America as of 1998[update].[90][91] All of the below come from the U.S Department of State 2009 International Religious Freedom Report,[92] based on the highest estimate of people identified as indigenous or followers of indigenous religions that have been well-defined. Due to the syncretic nature of these religions, the following numbers may not reflect the actual number of practitioners. Countries with the greatest proportion of Sikhs: The Sikh homeland is the Punjab state, in India, where today Sikhs make up approximately 61% of the population. This is the only place where Sikhs are in the majority. Sikhs have emigrated to countries all over the world ÿ especially to English-speaking and East Asian nations. In doing so they have retained, to an unusually high degree, their distinctive cultural and religious identity. Sikhs are not ubiquitous worldwide in the way that adherents of larger world religions are, and they remain primarily an ethnic religion. But they can be found in many international cities and have become an especially strong religious presence in the United Kingdom and Canada.[114] Countries with the greatest proportion of Jews (as of 2010[update]): Source: http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_50.asp Note that all these estimates come from a single source. However, this source gives a relative indication of the size of the Spiritist communities within each country. Countries with the greatest proportion of Bah's (as of 2010[update]) with a national population 200,000: Largest Christian populations (as of 2011[update]): Largest Muslim populations (as of 2013): Largest Buddhist populations Largest Hindu populations (as of 2010): Largest Jewish populations (as of 2011[update]): Largest Sikh populations Largest Bah' populations (as of 2010[update]) in countries with a national population 200,000:[144] As of 2005[update]:[147] Religions:

in 1816🚨Congress Hall is a historic hotel in Cape May, Cape May County, New Jersey, United States, occupying a city block bordered on the south by Beach Avenue and on the east by Washington Street Mall. It is a contributing building in the Cape May National Historic District.[1] Congress Hall was first constructed in 1816 as a wooden boarding house for guests to the new seaside resort of Cape May; and the proprietor, Thomas H. Hughes, called it "The Big House." Locals, thinking it too big to be successful, called it "Tommy's Folly."[2] In 1828, when Hughes was elected to the House of Representatives, he changed the name of the hotel to Congress Hall. It burned to the ground in Cape May's Great Fire of 1878, but within a year, its owners had rebuilt the hotel in brick. While serving as President of the United States, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant and Benjamin Harrison vacationed at Congress Hall, and Harrison made Congress Hall his official Summer White House. It thus became the center of state business for several months each year. John Philip Sousa regularly visited Congress Hall with the U.S. Marine Band and composed the "Congress Hall March", which he conducted on its lawn in the summer of 1882. During the 20th century the Cape May seafront deteriorated. In 1968 Congress Hall was purchased by the Rev. Carl McIntire and became part of his Cape May Bible Conference. McIntire's possession of the property preserved the hotel during a period in which many Victorian-era beachfront hotels were demolished for the value of their land. With the decline of the Bible Conference, Congress Hall fell into a state of disrepair. The property was partially restored under the guidance of Curtis Bashaw, McIntire's grandson, a restoration begun in 1995 and completed in 2002. Today, Congress Hall is a fully functioning, high-end resort hotel. Congress Hotel from the sea Congress Hall in 1870 Coordinates: 385553N 745527W? / ?38.9314N 74.9243W? / 38.9314; -74.9243

pointed arch🚨

April 2, 2009🚨"And in the End..." is the 331st and final episode of the American television series ER. The two-hour episode aired on April 2, 2009 and was preceded by a one-hour retrospective special. Dr. Tony Gates (John Stamos) treats a teenage girl in a coma with alcohol poisoning after she played drinking games with her friends. Gates calls the police when he discovers that the parents of the girl's friend supplied the alcohol, and has the friend's father arrested. Later, the girl's parents arrive and request she be transferred to Mercy Hospital. Before she can be transferred, the girl finally awakens but just thrashes around and is sent for a new CT to diagnose possible brain damage. Dr. Julia Wise (Alexis Bledel), new to County General, treats a homosexual HIV-positive patient who has severe breathing difficulties. It is discovered he has terminal cancer. With the support of his partner, he decides not to seek treatment, as he has already outlived most of his friends who died at the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. An elderly patient named Beverly (Jeanette Miller) is brought in by a fire engine with a broken wrist, and comments on Dr. Archie Morris' (Scott Grimes) "soft and strong" hands. She is later claimed by her daughter, as she had wandered off before her accident. She returns later, having wandered off again but otherwise not further injured. A married couple comes in with the woman going into labor with twins, and John Carter (Noah Wyle) and Simon Brenner (David Lyons) handle the delivery. During the delivery of the second baby, complications set in. It is discovered that the mother has an inverted uterus, and requires an emergency caesarean section. The second baby requires intensive care, and the mother ultimately dies as surgeons attempt to fix the complications. Mark Greene's daughter Rachel (Hallee Hirsh) is visiting the hospital as a prospective medical student, and is interviewing for a spot in the teaching program. She is interviewed primarily by Catherine Banfield (Angela Bassett), who confides to Carter afterward that she made it through the first cut. Carter shows her around after her interview, giving her a few pointers she will need when she is accepted into medical school. Carter opens his clinic for the underprivileged, with Peter Benton (Eriq La Salle) and his son Reese (Matthew Watkins), Kerry Weaver (Laura Innes) and Susan Lewis (Sherry Stringfield) among the guests. He named the facility after his late son, Joshua. After the event, he has an awkward reunion with Joshua's mother Kem (Thandie Newton), who is briefly in town; she isn't particularly happy to see Carter and coldly rebuffs his efforts to re-connect with her, but does reluctantly agree with his plan to join her at the airport for her flight back to Paris. He also has drinks with his old friends plus Elizabeth Corday (Alex Kingston), who brought Rachel to Chicago for her med school interview. Benton and Corday linger together after everyone else go their separate ways. Marjorie Manning (Beverly Polcyn), a previous elderly multiple sclerosis patient suffering sepsis and pulmonary edema, comes in with her husband (Ernest Borgnine). Mr. Manning is initially unwilling to let Marjorie go, but with guidance from Dr. Gates, he finally accepts the inevitable. Before Marjorie dies, her daughter arrives, and confides in Samantha Taggart (Linda Cardellini) that her mother was an incredibly difficult person who picked fights with and alienated everyone in her life, but she loved her mom anyway and was inspired by how her father was saint-like in putting up with her miserable behavior. Sam looks saddened and ashamed as she clearly sees the parallel between Marjorie and herself, and she ends up calling her own estranged mother after Marjorie has passed away. It turns out it is Samantha's birthday. Her son Alex (Dominic Janes) reveals her present: a vintage Ford Mustang restored by Alex and Tony, who both decided upon bright red as its color over cobalt blue. Later on, while they are walking back towards the ER, Sam surprises Tony by taking his hand in hers, symbolizing that she has gotten over her previous anger at him, and he smiles and locks his fingers with hers. A young bride and her new mother-in-law (Marilu Henner) both come in, in separate ambulances, with minor injuries sustained in a drunken brawl at their wedding reception, and continue arguing all the way into the treatment rooms. The groom later arrives, and is promptly torn between tending to his mother and his new wife. The episode ends with the beginning of a disaster protocol: an industrial explosion, with a minimum of eight casualties. Dr. Carter is again pressed into service to assist, and he gives up on Kem once and for all by nixing his plans to meet her at the airport. Dr. Morris is ordered by Dr. Banfield to triage patients as they arrive. The first patient was thrown 20 feet, and is diagnosed as a possible lacerated spleen or liver, to be sent straight to the OR. The second patient has a compound leg fracture with no circulatory impairment, which Dr. Banfield takes herself for an orthopedic consult. The third patient was electrocuted, and fell into asystole on the way in, declared DOA. The fourth patient has smoke inhalation, relatively minor burns and a pneumothorax, and is set up for a chest tube. The fifth patient had his left arm blown off below the elbow, with nothing left to save; Dr. Gates takes him in to repair the damage. Dr. Morris gives the sixth patient to Dr. Carter: third-degree burns over 90% coverage. As he runs the patient in, Dr. Carter asks Rachel to tag along saying "Dr. Greene, you comin'?", which she does enthusiastically. As Morris continues to triage patients, the original theme music plays and the point of view pulls back, revealing the entire hospital for the first and only time. The episode was structured "very much like the show's pilot. Like that first episode, it took place over the course of 24 hours, featured a dizzying number of cases some comical, and some that were dead serious and showed the life of the ER through eyes both inexperienced ... and jaded."[1] It featured several direct references to the pilot and other early episodes, including: Dr. Archie Morris is woken by veteran nurse Lydia Wright, who had done the same to Dr. Mark Greene in the pilot (the shot is used in several early episodes); Dr. John Carter demonstrating how to start an IV to Rachel Greene exactly as Dr. Peter Benton showed him in the pilot; a comedic scene dealing with a child who had swallowed a rosary, as in the pilot, when a child swallowed a key; and the day marked by cutscenes showing the time at the start of each act as was done in the series' fifth episode, "Into That Good Night", with both episodes starting and ending at 4:00?AM. A portion of the storyline was inspired by the death of producer John Wells' 17-year-old niece, who died of alcohol poisoning in December 2008.[2] The episode featured full-length opening credits from the first season (albeit with shots and credits added for both the final regular cast, and five of the past stars that appeared) with music by James Newton Howard, the show's original composer.[1] That theme music also played as the camera pulled out and faded at the end of the last scene of the episode, which showed the entire exterior of County General Hospital for the only time in the history of the series, except in high tone and fully in 1080i HD. Doctors Nurses Staff Paramedics In his review in the then-St. Petersburg Times, Eric Deggans called the final episode "a welcome reminder of why the show has lasted 15 years on network television and proof of why it's now time for the show to go." He continued, "Thanks to cameo appearances by most key actors whose characters remain alive... the episode had the feel of a friendly class reunion... Once upon a time, the cases that filled Thursday's episode would have felt groundbreaking and fresh... But on Thursday, these contrivances felt like shadows echoing other, better episodes long past... Wells echoed the series most consistent theme by showing old and new doctors uniting to handle yet another emergency at the finale's end. But Thursday's episode also proved that NBC's ER called it quits at just the right time, because TV series unlike medical institutions should never go on forever."[3] Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly said he "liked the fact that the surprises were small but effective," while Alan Sepinwall of the Star-Ledger stated, "It wasn't an all-time great finale, but it did what it set out to do." In the Baltimore Sun, David Zurawik said, "I especially liked the final scene with the ER team suiting up and standing ready to respond in the courtyard to the arriving fleet of emergency vehicles loaded with victims of an industrial explosion. Perhaps, it was one last tweak at the critics who said the pilot looked more like a feature film and would never make it as a TV series because it was definitely a movie ending."[4] The episode received an A- from The A.V. Club.[5] In 2010, Time magazine ranked the episode as #10 on its list of the most anticipated TV finales.[6] According to Nielsen ratings, the finale gave NBC "its best ratings on the night in a long time." The first hour received a 9.6 rating and a 15 share, numbers which improved to an 11.1 rating and 19 share in the final hour.[7] Overall the finale attracted an average of 16.2 million viewers.[8][9] The series finale of ER scored the highest 18-49 rating for a drama series finale since The X-Files wrapped with a 6.3 on May 19, 2002. In total viewers, ER assembled the biggest overall audience for a drama series finale since Murder, She Wrote concluded with 16.5 million on May 19, 1996. In Canada, the finale fared even better on a percentage basis with 2.768 million viewers. With ten times less the population, this equates to roughly 27.68 million American viewers.[10] Timeslot 18ÿ49/share 18ÿ34/share viewers (millions) 8PM[7] 9PM[7] 10PM[7] At the 2009 Primetime Emmy Awards Rod Holcomb won the Emmy for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series for his work on this episode, while Ernest Borgnine was nominated for the Emmy for Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series.[11]