Cab-over known as cab over engine, cab forward, or forward control, is a body style of truck, bus, or van that has a vertical front, "flat face" or a semi-hood, with the cab of the truck sitting above the front axle. This contrasts with a conventional truck; this truck configuration is common among European and Asian truck manufacturers. European regulations set restrictions for both the total length and the length of the load area, which allow a cab length of 2.35m in combination with the maximum load area length. This allows a sleeper cab with a narrow bunk, would allow a bonneted day cab. Nonetheless, no manufacturer in Europe produces such day cabs with bonnets; the last manufacturer of a conventional in Europe, stopped production in 2005. Speaking, Asian regulations are stricter, the shorter journey distances allow more heavy trucks to forego sleepers to save more length. Cabover trucks are used in the United States for refuse collection, terminal tractors, other vocational applications requiring a tight turning radius or frequent ingress/egress by the driver.
Autocar, the oldest surviving motor vehicle manufacturer in America, produces cabover trucks. Although cabover trucks were popular among United States heavy truckers and trucking companies during the 1970s because of strict length laws in many states, when those length laws were repealed, most heavy-truck makers moved to other body styles. One of the reasons is the Federal Bridge Formula, unique to the US, encourages spreading out the load. If axle distances are too tight, the maximum load allowance is reduced. For COEs operated at maximum weight in the US, this required an axle directly behind the front bumper; this cab design caused an awkward climb into the cab for the driver, forcing them to climb up behind the front wheel moving to the front and into the cab. European or Chinese or Japanese truckers enter their cab in a straight fashion with handrails left and right. Cabovers are very popular in the USA's light- and medium-duty truck segment where compact size is required for urban mobility without sacrificing payload.
American companies Paccar and Freightliner still manufacture traditional cab over engine designs for the Australian and South African markets where length restrictions still make them advantageous. In Australia both American and European/Japanese/Chinese types, as well as the conventional type are common. Cab over engine types dominate urban and light duty use, with conventional trucks predominating in remote and off-road areas. Both types are common for highway use; the first truck in the United States was built by Autocar in 1899 using a format called "engine-under-the-seat" and was available with optional 5 or 8 horsepower motors. Although early Autocar trucks were not "cab-over", since the truck did not have a cab, per se, they were the fore-runners to COEs; the Sternberg company of Wisconsin produced cab-over trucks as early as 1907, though by 1914 only their seven-ton model was a cab-over. They reintroduced the cab-over layout in 1933 with their "Camel Back" model, which allowed the cab to be tilted to access the engine.
The introduction of the first modern cab-over layout in the United States is credited to industrial designer Viktor Schreckengost, with engineer Ray Spiller, designed a cab-over truck for the White Motor Company in 1932. Schreckengost was joined by other designers such as Raymond Loewy who designed the Metro series of vans and trucks for International Harvester; the bodies for these vehicles were produced by the Metropolitan Body Company. The company produced a wide variety of truck and commercial bodies for several vehicle manufacturers such as Chevrolet, Dodge Bros. and International Harvester until 1948 when they were purchased by the latter. MBC was instrumental in the development of COE route delivery bodies in the 1930s; the laws of the time limited overall truck length to 42 feet on highways. Setting the cab over the engine and front axle shaved several feet off the length of the tractor, feet which could be added to the length of the trailer while keeping the dimensions of the entire truck within the permissible limit.
Schreckengost patented the design in 1934. Autocar reintroduced the engine-under-the-seat format with their Model U in 1933, which became a staple of U. S. roads and the U. S. military through World War II and well into the 1950s. White-Freightliner introduced its first tilting cab-over design in 1958, which allowed the entire cab to tilt forward for access to the engine. In Class 8 tractors, the cab-over design allows the vehicle's wheelbase to be shorter than in the conventional arrangement, wherein the engine is placed in front of the cab, covered by a horizontal or sloping hood that opens to allow engine access, its shorter wheelbase allows cab-over semi trucks to have a shorter overall length, thereby allowing for longer trailers to be used. For light- and medium-duty solid- or rigid-axle trucks, the cab-over design requires less length for the cab and engine, in a given wheelbase, therefore allows a greater length for the truck body or load area. In both class 8 tractors and light- and medium-duty vocational trucks, the cab-over-engine design gives the COE model an advantage in maneuverability over a conventional model.
And since COEs are general
The 12th Pan American Games were held in Mar del Plata, Argentina from March 11 to March 26, 1995. Men's Flyweight: Juan Fernández Men's Lightweight: Eine Acevedo Men's Middleweight: Álvaro Velasco Men's 400 m Hurdles: Llimy Rivas Men's High Jump: Gilmar Mayo Women's 4x100 metres: Felipa Palacios, Mirtha Brock, Carmen Rodríguez, Elia Mera Women's 4x400 metres: Carmen Rodríguez, Elia Mera, Mirtha Brock, Felipa Palacios Men's Lightweight: Francisco Osorio Men's Middleweight: Jhon Arroyo Men's Bantamweight: Roger Berrio Men's Light-Heavyweight: Erlyn Mena Colombia at the 1996 Summer Olympics
The Reventazón Dam is a concrete-face rock-fill dam on the Reventazón River about 8 km southwest of Siquirres in Limón Province, Costa Rica. It was inaugurated on 16 September 2016, its primary purpose is the production of hydroelectric power; the US$1.4 billion project and largest power station in the country has an installed capacity of 305.5 MW and is expected to provide power for 525,000 homes. Construction on the dam began in 2009. At a height of 130 metres and with a structural volume of 9,000,000 m3, it is the largest dam in Central America. To produce electricity, water from the reservoir is diverted about 3 km to the northeast where it reaches the power station along the Reventazón River. Due to its environmental features, like offset habitats and migration corridors for jaguars and many other species, the project could be a model for other future hydroelectric power plants. List of power stations in Costa Rica
"Canned Heat" is the second single from British funk/acid jazz band Jamiroquai's fourth studio album, released in 1999. The song was their second number-one on the US Dance Chart and peaked at number 4 on the UK Singles Chart as well as number 2 in Spain; the music video was directed by Jonas Åkerlund. The song is used in the film Napoleon Dynamite, as the music of the title character's famous dance performance before a high school assembly. Over the numerous releases of the "Canned Heat" single, two B-Sides exist. "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing" is a funky instrumental that features an intro of two drum beats that lasts about 1.5 seconds and enters a bass driven repetitive melody. Many keyboard effects are used throughout the song's 4:00 minute duration; the song enters a percussion section at 3:07 and lasts for the remainder of the song fading out from 3:45. The song was released as part of the charity album No Boundaries: A Benefit For The Kosovar Refugees in 1998, before being included on this single.
It is available on some editions of the Synkronized album, the Australian double disc release being an example. "Deeper Underground - Chillington Mix" is featured on the second release of "Canned Heat". Chillington is not the name of an artist or DJ, but the name of the studios at Jay's Home in Buckinghamshire; the Chillington Mix samples from the Jamiroquai song Getinfunky, found on some special releases of Synkronized, such as the Japanese release where it replaced "Deeper Underground" as the bonus track, alongside Wolf In Sheep's Clothing on the Australian double disc. On the High Times: The Singles DVD, Jay comments on a bonus feature that the original Godzilla song was just made of "Ominous noises" which matches the sound of Getinfunky; when the title or the remix and "Ominous noises" evidence is pared it suggests that "Getinfunky" is an early version of the Godzilla song which evolved into "Deeper Underground". In the music video, Jay Kay is in his London apartment awake on his bed, he decides to get up and put his shoes on.
Once he does he talks to one of his walls and phases through the wall into a living room. He does a bit of dancing around, before leaping through another wall into a dining room as he dances on the table messing up the set up as he swings on a chandelier through another wall into a room where a party is going on, as he dances about he has a bit of floating around, he floats off and emerges into a bathroom as he does some dancing and he goes into a couple's room and does a bit of dancing and messing around before going back to the party room and doing more dancing there. He goes to the corridor and jumps through a door into a room of a pair of sweethearts engaging in acts of desire as he keeps dancing and messing about before flying into the TV, he sings as he flies while shifting positions before making it back to the party room, as he goes to a kitchen and messes the room up turning a table over, knocking the chairs over, before leaping back to the party room again, after that he leaps to a room with four women inside having a slumber party as he slides and dances about on the ceiling in the room before going back to the party room and merges outside the room, leaping around a corridor and merging at some stairs before going through a door and going back down another corridor back to his apartment where he collapses back on the bed and falls asleep.
UK CD1"Canned Heat" – 3:46 "Canned Heat" – 3:19 "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing" – 4:00UK CD2"Canned Heat" – 3:46 "Canned Heat" – 5:30 "Deeper Underground" – 6:56 Futureshock Mix"Canned Heat" – 8:03Masters at Work Mix"Canned Heat" – 8:25Shanks & Bigfoot Mix"Canned Heat" – 6:29 The song is featured in Napoleon Dynamite, during the title character's dance performance at the end of a high school assembly. The song is featured in the film Center Stage, released in 2000, in which the dancers perform a piece to this song at the end of the movie; the song was used in the rhythm based Xbox 360 game Dance Dance Revolution Universe 3. A cover of the song was featured in a level of the game Elite Beat Agents. Another cover of the song was featured in the European version of Donkey Konga; the song was featured in the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 tennis game, Top Spin 3. A newer cover of the song, entitled "Kashyyyk", appeared in the game Kinect Star Wars and it was entitled "S-Boogie" in the game Boogie; the song is featured in Lone Survivor, where a rookie jokingly dances in front of a group of unsatisfied Navy SEALS before making a speech to them
Logan Township is a township in Huntingdon County, United States. The population was 678 at the 2010 census. According to the United States Census Bureau, the township has a total area of 22.8 square miles, of which, 22.7 square miles of it is land and 0.2 square miles of it is water. As of the census of 2000, there were 703 people, 273 households, 202 families residing in the township; the population density was 31.0 people per square mile. There were 315 housing units at an average density of 13.9/sq mi. The racial makeup of the township was 97.72% White, 1.56% African American, 0.14% Native American, 0.14% Asian, 0.43% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.14% of the population. There were 273 households, out of which 33.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 64.5% were married couples living together, 8.1% had a female householder with no husband present, 26.0% were non-families. 23.4% of all households were made up of individuals, 12.1% had someone living alone, 65 years of age or older.
The average household size was 2.58 and the average family size was 3.06. In the township the population was spread out, with 24.3% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 26.7% from 25 to 44, 27.3% from 45 to 64, 13.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 40 years. For every 100 females there were 100.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 101.5 males. The median income for a household in the township was $36,083, the median income for a family was $39,531. Males had a median income of $26,667 versus $23,438 for females; the per capita income for the township was $15,051. About 8.0% of families and 8.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 8.4% of those under age 18 and 9.5% of those age 65 or over
Offsets can be defined as provisions to an import agreement, between an exporting foreign company, or a government acting as intermediary, an importing public entity. The incentive for the exporter results from the conditioning of the core transaction to the acceptance of the offset obligation. Offset agreements involve trade in military goods and services and are alternatively called: industrial compensations, industrial cooperation, offsets and regional benefits, juste retour or equilibrium, to define mechanisms more complex than counter-trade. Counter-trade can be considered one of the many forms of defense offset, to compensate a purchasing country; the main difference between a generic offset and counter-trade, both common practices in the international defense trade, is the involvement of money. In counter-trade, goods are paid through barters or other mechanisms without the exchange of money, while in other generic offsets money is the main medium of exchange. Offsets can be defined as provisions to an import agreement, between an exporting foreign company, or a government acting as intermediary, an importing public entity, that oblige the exporter to undertake activities in order to satisfy a second objective of the importing entity, distinct from the acquisition of the goods and/or services that form the core transaction.
The incentive for the exporter results from the conditioning of the core transaction to the acceptance of the offset obligation. The proclaimed aim of this process is to even-up a country's balance of trade. However, some forms of offsets transactions do not represent trade flows going from the initial importer towards the initial exporter. Offsets are an integral part of international defense contracts; the U. S. government's definition of offset agreement is the most crucial, since the U. S. aerospace and defense industry is the biggest exporter of aerospace and defence products, therefore engaged in the majority of the world’s offsets. The U. S. has a Commerce Department Division, the Bureau of Industry and Security, that deals with U. S. defense offset agreements with foreign nations as a main subset of U. S. industrial security. BIS - whose main task is protecting U. S. security from the point of view of export of high technology, fostering commercially acceptable U. S. foreign policy, protecting U.
S. economic interests - deals with U. S. aerospace and defense companies that export defense products, systems or services, involving “offset agreements,” that is, those sales' collateral or additional agreements requested by purchasers. BIS defines offsets as “mandatory compensations required by foreign governments when purchasing weapon systems and services.”The U. S. government underlines the compulsory aspect of this trade practice, since the United States, with other weapons exporting countries, such as Germany and France, opposes offsets as forms of protectionism and harmful transgressions of free market rules. These governments frown on offset agreements, consider them to be both market distorting and inefficient. In 2008 the Brazilian Minister of Strategic Affairs, speaking of a major defense purchase by his country, highlighted this key point: “We will not be buyers or clients, but partners.” The competition by different companies “in offering comparable weapons to a country" is on the level of “sharing” or “partnership” with the purchaser, Roberto Mangabeira Unger added.
In weapons trade, defense contractors are aware that offsets are powerful marketing tools to motivate the purchase, by showing and giving additional advantages for the purchasing country besides investing in military equipment. The U. S. defense industry position seems to be more practical, somewhat nonaligned with U. S. government economic or political assessment of defense offsets. Speaking, one can understand offsets as a widespread sales technique; as such, they are not restricted to weapons sale, they belong to commerce itself, in the same way that rebates, price-pack deals, or loyalty rewards programs do. Understanding “defense offsets” to be part of a sales technique helps to curb the justified yet excessive emphasis on their mandatory nature. Defense offsets are more motivating than the primary defense acquisition, for personal or political reasons; this may seem irrational. If one adds the prevalent political aspect of spending huge public funds on modern weapons the motivating significance of defense offsets could not be underestimated in contemporary decision processes of democracies.
Prime defense contractors are well aware of offsets' power in the psychologies of democracies. As anyone can understand, the seller will include the cost of the “Envelope B,” that is, of the offset and its added value for the purchaser, in its total cost. In other words, the client will pay for the offset, but the key question is: to what extent is the offset proposal a factor in the consideration of defense contractor’s tender during the evaluation and the decision procedures? Transparency International summarizes that using offsets as marketing tools makes offsets "the ideal playground for corruption": There are three main categories of corruption risk from offsets:1. Improperly influencing the need for a particular defence acquisition in the first place 2. Influencing the competitive decision for the main contract in non-transparent ways 3. Allowing favours to be repaid to corrupt government officials via the offset contracts The universe of this military niche of offsets trade is sophisticated and less innocuous than believed.