CLU is a programming language created at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Barbara Liskov and her students between 1974 and 1975. While it did not find extensive use, it introduced many features that are used now, is seen as a step in the development of object-oriented programming. Key contributions include abstract data types, call-by-sharing, multiple return values, type-safe parameterized types, type-safe variant types, it is notable for its use of classes with constructors and methods, but without inheritance. The syntax of CLU was based on ALGOL the starting point for most new language designs; the key addition was the concept of a cluster, CLU's type extension system and the root of the language's name. Clusters correspond to the concept of a "class" in an OO language, have similar syntax. For instance, here is the CLU syntax for a cluster that implements complex numbers: complex_number = cluster is add, multiply... rep = record add = proc... end add. These correspond to the public components of a class in recent OO languages.

A cluster defines a type that can be named outside the cluster, but its representation type is hidden from external clients. Cluster names are global, no namespace mechanism was provided to group clusters or allow them to be created "locally" inside other clusters. CLU does not perform implicit type conversions. In a cluster, the explicit type conversions up and down change between the abstract type and the representation. There is a universal type any, a procedure force to check that an object is a certain type. Objects may be mutable or immutable, the latter being base types such as integers, booleans and strings. Another key feature of the CLU type system are iterators, which return objects from a collection serially, one after another. Iterators offer an identical application programming interface no matter what data they are being used with, thus the iterator for a collection of complex_numbers can be used interchangeably with that for an array of integers. A distinctive feature of CLU iterators is that they are implemented as coroutines, with each value being provided to the caller via a yield statement.

Iterators like those in CLU are now a common feature of many modern languages, such as C#, Python, though they are referred to as generators. CLU includes exception handling, based on various attempts in other languages. Unlike most other languages with exception handling, exceptions are not implicitly resignaled up the calling chain. Unlike most other languages that provide exception handling, exceptions in CLU are considered part of ordinary execution flow and are considered a "normal" and efficient typesafe way to break out of loops or return from functions. Exceptions that are neither caught nor resignaled explicitly are converted into a special failure exception that terminates the program. CLU is credited as being the first language with type-safe variant types, called oneofs, before the language ML had them. A final distinctive feature in CLU is parallel assignment, where more than one variable can appear on the left hand side of an assignment operator. For instance, writing x, y: = y, x would exchange values of y.

In the same way, functions could return several values, like x,y,z:= f. Parallel assignment predates CLU, appearing in CPL, named simultaneous assignment, but CLU popularized it and is credited as the direct influence leading to parallel assignment in languages. All objects in a CLU program live in the heap, memory management is automatic. CLU supports type parameterized user-defined data abstractions, it was the first language to offer type-safe bounded parameterized types, using structure where clauses to express constraints on actual type arguments. CLU has influenced many other languages in many ways. In approximate chronological order, these include: CLU and Ada were major inspirations for C++ templates. CLU's exception handling mechanisms influenced languages like C++ and Java. Sather, C# include iterators, which first appeared in CLU. Perl and Lua took multiple assignment and multiple returns from function calls from CLU. Python and Ruby borrowed several concepts from CLU, such as call by sharing, the yield statement, multiple assignment Official website A History of CLU clu2c: a program to compile CLU code to C Dictionary of Programming Languages CLU comparison at'99 bottles of beer' multi-language demo algorithm site

The Swiss Meteorological Society is a union of professional meteorologists and weather enthusiasts in Switzerland. The society aims at: promoting the sciences about the atmosphere and hydrosphere, in particular aeronomy, oceanography, climatology and atmospheric physics and chemistry. Supporting young researchers, by offering a platform for exchange about progress in the atmospheric sciences. Furthermore, the annual meeting of the society favours the build-up of a network of Swiss and other researchers. Establishing and keeping the contact to other national and international scientific societies. Further, the SGM is part of the Swiss national committee of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and is part of the European Meteorological Society since 1999, the founding year of the EMS. Together with the German and Austrian Society of Meteorology, the SGM is co-publisher of the peer-reviewed journal Meteorologische Zeitschrift and is co-organiser of the international DACH-MT conference, which takes place every three years.

Further, the SGM supports other scientific conferences. The SGM was founded on 8 August 1916 in Scuol / Schuls as Swiss Society for Geophysics and Astronomy, it was part of the Swiss Society of Natural Sciences; the constituting assembly took place on 28 April 1917 in Bern. The name of the Society was changed to Swiss Meteorological Society on 7 October 1994, after a separate Society for Astronomy and Astrophysics and for Geophysics was established. Saskia Willemse, Markus Furger: From weather observations to atmospheric and climate sciences in Switzerland. Celebrating 100 years of the Swiss Society for Meteorology, vdf Hochschulverlag Zürch, 2016, ISBN 978-3-7281-3745-6. Official website

The C&C 29 is a series of Canadian sailboats, designed by Cuthbertson & Cassian as International Offshore Rule half-ton racers and first built in 1977. The design is now out of production; the boat was built with some built in the US as well. The design was derived from the C&C 1/2 Ton of 1975; the C&C 29 is a small recreational keelboat, built predominantly of fiberglass, with wood trim. It has an internally-mounted spade-type rudder and a fixed fin keel. In a review of the Mark II model, Michael McGoldrick wrote, "This C&C 29, introduced in the early 1980s should not be confused with the much larger 29 foot model of the 1970s; this boat has an overall length of 28" 6", so it would have to be described as a smallish 29 footer. It was marketed as the successor to the C&C 27 of the 1970s. While the C&C 29 has a comfortable and attractive interior which includes a quarter berth, it was conceived as a serious club racer that would have a favourable rating under the MORC measurement rule, it is a good looking 29 footer that comes with a T-shaped cockpit."

C&C 29 This model was introduced in 1977 and is sometimes referred to as the C&C 29-1 or Mark 1. It has a length overall of 29.58 ft, a waterline length of 23.58 ft, displaces 7,500 lb and carries 2,700 lb of ballast. The boat has a draft of 5.25 ft with the standard keel and 4.0 ft with the optional shoal draft keel. The boat is fitted with a Universal Atomic 4 gasoline engine of 30 hp; the fuel tank holds 13 U. S. gallons and the fresh water tank has a capacity of 20 U. S. gallons. The boat has a PHRF racing average handicap of 177 with a high of 191 and low of 172, it has a hull speed of 6.51 kn. C&C 29-2 This model was introduced in 1983 and is an new design and lighter than the original model, it has a length overall of 28.50 ft, a waterline length of 22.33 ft, displaces 6,700 lb and carries 2,700 lb of ballast. The boat has a draft of 5.30 ft with the standard keel and 4.0 ft with the optional shoal draft keel. The boat is fitted with a Japanese Yanmar 2GMF diesel engine; the fuel tank holds 20 U.

S. gallons and the fresh water tank has a capacity of 32 U. S. gallons. The accommodation includes a double "V" berth in the bow, a large single quarter berth, a settee berth and a double berth located where the table folds, all in the main cabin; the boat has a PHRF racing average handicap of 174 with a high of 188 and low of 171. It has a hull speed of 6.33 kn. List of sailing boat typesRelated development C&C 1/2 TonSimilar sailboats Alberg 29 Cal 29 Hunter 290 Island Packet 29 Mirage 29 Northwind 29 Prospect 900 Tanzer 29 Thames Marine Mirage 29 Watkins 29 Media related to C&C 29 at Wikimedia Commons

Big Brother 2017 known as Big Brother 18 and The United Kingdom of Big Brother, was the eighteenth series of the British reality television series Big Brother, hosted by Emma Willis and narrated by Marcus Bentley. The series launched on 5 June 2017 on Channel 5, ended after 54 days on 28 July 2017. Rylan Clark-Neal continues to present the spin-off show Big Brother's Bit on the Side; the series, along with its spin-off, continues to air on 3e in Ireland, as part of a three-year deal between the Irish broadcaster and Endemol Shine Group. It is the seventh regular series and the nineteenth series of Big Brother in total to air on Channel 5 to date; the series received a 1.24 million average. On Day 7, Arthur Fulford left the house for unexplained reasons. Sukhvinder Javeed became the first housemate to voluntarily walk from the house through the front door during her husband Imran's eviction on Day 12. Kayleigh Morris and Lotan Carter were removed from the house on Day 13 and Day 21 for aggressive behaviour.

On 28 July 2017, Isabelle Warburton was announced as the winner of the series, having received 52.71% of the final vote, with Raph Korine as the runner-up after receiving 22.02%. The eye was released on 11 May 2017 and is formed with a multi-coloured Union Jack flag and features a patchwork of eclectic images representing modern Britain. On 12 May 2017, a short 5-second teaser trailer was released on Channel 5. On 20 May 2017 the first full trailer for the series was released; the trailer depicts various locations around Britain and is narrated by several different voices, as well as featuring distorted Union Jack-style graphics first used in the earlier 5-second teaser. It includes clues on the identity of the housemates. On 27 May 2017, a third trailer was released, this time with blurred snippets of possible housemates, teasing that this year Big Brother will be getting "extremely revealing." On 2 June, Channel 5 released images of 6 of the new housemates via Snapchat. House pictures were released on 31 May 2017.

For the first time since Big Brother 11, the living room and the kitchen-dining room were separate. The kitchen was modelled after a bakery accompanied by four dining tables, each with four chairs. For part of the season, the chair at the centre of the Kenny/Shiells altercation was used as the diary room chair. For the first time since Celebrity Big Brother 6, there were two bedrooms; the first bedroom, known as Rose Cottage, was luxurious while the second bedroom, referred to as Thorn Cottage, was grotty and rundown in comparison. The bathroom was pink and featured the decor of a salon, with windows looking out towards the garden. On 2 June 2017, Channel 5 released the identities of the first six housemates; the remaining 10 housemates were confirmed as they entered the house on 5 June 2017. Some housemates has pre-existing relationships, but their relationship had no impact on the format of the game and those with such relationships were still individual housemates - the pre-existing relationship include sisters Deborah and Hannah and wife Imran and Sukhvinder and daughter Mandy and Charlotte, colleagues Kieran and Rebecca.

On 19 June 2017, it was confirmed that three new housemates will enter for a task, that the housemates would get to choose two of them to become official housemates. The three hopefuls were Sam Chaloner and Savannah O'Reilly. Isabelle and Savannah were chosen by Chanelle and Lotan to join the housemates. On 28 June 2017, it was announced; these included the three hopefuls Andrew and Sue from the "People's Housemate" twist from launch night, as well as Sam, who entered during a dating task on Day 16. These four entered the house on Day 25 as "Second Chance" were not eligible to win. Instead they stole £15,000 from the prize fund, which will only be given to the "Second Chance" housemate who goes the furthest in the series. With 22 housemates in total, this series had the largest number of housemates since the show's move to Channel 5; as part of the launch night twist, the viewers were able to vote a final housemate into the house. This housemate would become the People's Housemate and would have great power over the house, including regular contact with the outside world.

Tom was chosen over Andrew and Simone to become the People's Housemate. On Day 1, Tom was told. To help him make this decision he took part in a live Facebook web chat, he chose to exile Arthur, Charlotte, Lotan, Raph and Sukhvinder, therefore made the remaining housemates Citizens. Exiled housemates were forced to live in the grotty Thorn Cottage, had to abide by Citizens rules and all faced the first eviction. On Day 2, the public voted. Out of a selection, Tom narrowed these down to three; these included making the Exiled housemates bow every time a Citizen entered the room, for Exiles to make Citizens food and drinks when requested and for Exiles to disclose all private conversations. On Day 3, after a live link-up on Big Brother's Bit on the Side listening to viewers opinions, Tom made his final decisions on whom to grant citizenship to and whom to exile, he swapped Charlotte with Mandy, Hannah with Imran. The remaining exile housemates faced the first eviction. On Day 5, after it was revealed that Imran and Mandy received the fewest votes during the eviction, Tom had to choose one of them to evict.

He chose Mandy. This was his final decision as "People's Housemate" as afterwards he received regular housemate status. On 12 June 2017, it was confirmed that c

The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 is an act of the US Congress that makes the layouts of integrated circuits protected upon registration, hence illegal to copy without permission. It is an integrated circuit layout design protection law. Prior to 1984, it was not illegal to produce a competing chip with an identical layout; as the legislative history for the SCPA explained and copyright protection for chip layouts, chip topographies, was unavailable. This led to considerable complaint by U. S. chip manufacturers—notably, which, along with the Semiconductor Industry Association, took the lead in seeking remedial legislation—against what they termed "chip piracy." During the hearings that led to enactment of the SCPA, chip industry representatives asserted that a pirate could for $10,000 copy a chip design that had cost its original manufacturer upwards of $100,000 to design. In 1984 the United States enacted the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 to protect the topography of semiconductor chips.

The SCPA is found in title 17, U. S. Code, sections 901-914. Japan and European Community countries soon followed suit and enacted their own, similar laws protecting the topography of semiconductor chips. Chip topographies are protected by TRIPS, an international treaty. Although the U. S. SCPA is codified in title 17, the SCPA is not a patent law. Rather, it is a sui generis law resembling Gebrauchsmuster, it has some aspects of copyright law, some aspects of patent law, in some ways, it is different from either. From Brooktree, ¶ 23: The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 was an innovative solution to this new problem of technology-based industry. While some copyright principles underlie the law, as do some attributes of patent law, the Act was uniquely adapted to semiconductor mask works, in order to achieve appropriate protection for original designs while meeting the competitive needs of the industry and serving the public interest. In general, the chip topography laws of other nations are sui generis laws.

Copyright and patent case law illuminate many aspects of the SCPA and its interpretation. Chip protection is acquired under the SCPA by filing with the US Copyright Office an application for "mask work" registration under the SCPA, together with a filing fee; the application must be accompanied by identifying material, such as pictorial representations of the IC layers so that in the event of infringement litigation, it can be determined what the registration covers. Protection continues for ten years from the date of registration; the SCPA refers to "mask works." The term is a relic of the original form of the bill that became the SCPA and was passed in the Senate as an amendment to the Copyright Act. The term mask work is parallel to and consistent with the terminology of the 1976 Copyright Act, which introduced the concept of "literary works," "pictorial works," "audiovisual works," and the like and protected physical embodiments of such works, such as books, video game cassettes, the like against unauthorized copying and distribution.

The terminology became unnecessary when the House of Representatives insisted on the substitution of a sui generis bill, but the SCPA as enacted still continued its use. The term "mask work" is not limited to actual masks used in chip manufacture but is defined broadly in the SCPA to include the topographic creation embodied in the masks and chips. Moreover, the SCPA protects any physical embodiment of a mask work; the owner of mask work rights may pursue an alleged infringer by bringing an action for mask work infringement in federal district court. The remedies available correspond to those of copyright law and patent law; the SCPA does not protect functional aspects of chip designs, reserved to patent law. Although EPROM and other memory chips topographies are protectable under the SCPA, such protection does not extend to the information stored in chips, such as computer programs; such information is protected, only by copyright law. The SCPA permits competitive emulation of a chip by means of reverse engineering.

The ordinary test for illegal copying is the "substantial similarity" test of copyright law, but when the defense of reverse engineering is involved and supported by probative evidence, the similarity must be greater. The accused chip topography must be identical rather than just similar for the defendant to be liable for infringement. Most world chip topography protection laws provide for a reverse engineering privilege. Integrated circuit layout design protection Richard H. Stern, Semiconductor Chip Protection, Harcourt Brace/Aspen Law & Business, ISBN 978-0-317-29413-2. Symposium: The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 and Its Lessons, 70 Minn. L. Rev. 263 - six law review articles on SCPA. The first chip-layout copying case, IEEE Micro, v. 11, no. 4. Aug 1991. Available at this link. Technical article on proof of chip copying. Steven P. Kasch. "The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Past and Future". Berkley Technology Law Journal. 7

The Kameido incident took place in 1923 in the aftermath of the Great Kantō earthquake. On September 1, 1923, the Great Kantō earthquake struck Tokyo and Yokohama and martial law was imposed in the aftermath of the earthquake. On the evening of September 3, the Kameido police in Tokyo began arresting known social activists, suspecting that they would "spread disorder or forment revolution amid the confusion". During the mass arrests, police arrested union leader Hirasawa Keishichi, Nakatsuji Uhachi, a member of the Pure Laborers' Union; the Special Higher Police arrest seven members of the Nankatsu Labor Association. Army troops detained an eighth member of Sato Kinji. Between late at night on September 3 and September 5, troops of the 13th Cavalry Regiment on emergency duty in Kameido shot and decapitated Hirasawa and nine others, they disposed of the bodies, together with those of Korean and Chinese massacre victims, along the banks of the Arakawa drainage canal. The police issued an official notice on October 14, claiming that troops had shot the men because they were agitating prisoners.

The following year, the Liberal Lawyers' Association and union leaders worked to bring the facts to light and establish responsibility, with partial success. Police claimed to have cremated the remains of the victims. With no remains to bury, a memorial service was held in February 1924. Hirasawa Keishichi Kawai Yoshitora Kato Koju Kitashima Kichizo Kondo Kozo Nakatsuji Uhachi Sato Kinji Suzuki Naoichi Yamagishi Jitsuji Yoshimura Koji Amakasu Incident Richard H. Mitchell. Janus-Faced Justice: Political Criminals in Imperial Japan. University of Hawaii Press