The 2014 Categoría Primera B season is the 25th season since its founding and is called the 2014 Torneo Postobón for sponsorship reasons. The season consisted of two tournaments: the'Torneo Apertura' and the'Torneo Finalización'; the Apertura tournament will be divided into three stages. The First Stage will be contested on a home-and-away basis, with each team playing the other teams once and playing a regional rival once more; the top eight teams after eighteen rounds will advance to a knockout round, where they will be pitted into four ties to be played on a home-and-away basis, with the four winners advancing to the semifinals and the winner of each semifinal advancing to the final of the tournament, which will be played on a home-and-away basis as well. The winner of this final qualifies for the season final. Meanwhile, the Finalizacion tournament will have a format of eighteen rounds with a round of regional derbies in the ninth round. At the end of the first eighteen rounds, the eight best-placed team will advance to the Semifinal round where teams will be sorted into groups and play a short double Round-robin tournament group stage.

The winner of each group will advance to the Final round. The winner will advance to the season final at the end of the Torneo Finalización, with its winner being promoted to the Categoría Primera A. Source: Torneo Postobón The Semifinal stage began on November 2 and will end on November 26; the eight teams that advanced were sorted into two groups of four teams. The winner of each group will advance to the finals. Source: Torneo Postobón Quindío, the 2014 Categoría Primera B runner-up, played the second worst team in the Categoría Primera A relegation table, Uniautónoma for a berth in the 2015 Categoría Primera A season; as the Primera A team, Uniautónoma played the second leg at home. The winner was determined by points, followed by goal difference a penalty shootout. Uniautónoma defeated Quindío 2-0 on aggregate score and will remain in the top tier for the 2015 season

Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold was a British policeman of the Victorian era best known for his involvement in the hunt for Jack the Ripper in 1888. It was his opinion; the son of Thomas and Elizabeth Arnold, Arnold was born at Weald in Essex and joined the Metropolitan Police's B Division on 19 March 1855 and resigned on 20 September 1855 to fight in the Crimean War. At the end of hostilities he rejoined the Police on 29 September 1856, being attached to K Division with the warrant number 35059, he served most of his career in London's East End. He was promoted to Inspector on 14 March 1866, was transferred to B Division. In 1887 Arnold was involved in the Lipski Case, by 1888 he was Police Superintendent of H Division at the time of the Whitechapel murders in that district. After the "double event" of the early morning of 30 September 1888, police searched the areas near Mitre Square and Berner Street in an effort to locate a suspect, witnesses or evidence to the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

At about 3:00 a.m. Constable Alfred Long discovered a bloodstained piece of cloth near a tenement building on Goulston Street; the cloth was confirmed as having been cut from Eddowes' apron. On the wall above where the apron was found was discovered graffito written in chalk. P. C. Long reported the message as "The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing." Other police officers recalled the message differently, as "The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing." Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold saw the graffito. Believing that with daylight the message would be seen and increase the anti-Semitic feelings of the populace, Arnold ordered the graffito to be wiped off the wall. Since the murder of Mary Ann Nichols rumours had been current in the East End that the murders were the work of a Jew nicknamed "Leather Apron". Although the Goulston Street graffito was found in Metropolitan Police territory, the apron was from a victim killed in the City of London, which had its own police force, the City of London Police.

Some officers disagreed with Arnold's order those from the City of London Police, who regarded the message as part of a crime scene which should at least be photographed before being erased. However, Arnold's order was upheld by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren, the graffito was wiped from the wall at about 5:30 a.m. In his report of 6 November to the Home Office, Arnold claimed, that with the strong feeling against the Jews that existed, the message might have become the means of causing a riot: I beg to report that on the morning of the 30 September last my attention was called to some writing on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings No. 108 Goulston Street, Whitechapel which consisted of the following words: "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing", knowing in consequence of suspicion having fallen upon a Jew named'John Pizer' alias'Leather Apron' having committed a murder in Hanbury Street a short time a strong feeling existed against the Jews and as the Building upon which the writing was found was situated in the midst of a locality inhabited principally by that Sect, I was apprehensive that if the writing were left it would be the means of causing a riot and therefore considered it desirable that it should be removed having in view the fact that it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by persons passing in & out of the Building."

In an interview with the Eastern Post in February 1893 Arnold said that "...not more than four of these murders were committed by the same hand. They were the murders of Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street, Mrs Nichols in Buck's Row, Elizabeth Stride in Berner Street and Mary Jane Kelly in Mitre Square." His confusion between Catherine Eddowes and Kelly means that it is not certain who Arnold is discounting but in reducing the number of Jack the Ripper victims to four he is contradicting Melville Macnaghten. However, it must be remembered that Arnold was serving with Whitechapel's H Division during the Ripper murders, while Macnaghten did not join the Metropolitan Police until June 1889. Historian Andrew Cook wrote in his book Jack the Ripper: Case Closed that at his retirement dinner address in 1893 Arnold said that he never believed that Mary Jane Kelly was a Ripper victim. On 1 February 1893 Arnold retired from the Police, he died in Leytonstone in January 1907

Pandori is a village in Phagwara Tehsil in Kapurthala district of Punjab State, India. It is located 46 kilometres from 6 kilometres from Phagwara; the village is administrated by a Sarpanch, an elected representative of village as per the constitution of India and Panchayati raj. Kartarpur Railway Station, Hamira Railway Station are the nearby railway stations to Pandori however, Jalandhar City Rail Way station is 25 km away from the village; the village is 76 km away from Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport in Amritsar and the another nearest airport is Sahnewal Airport in Ludhiana, located 86 km away from the village. Kapurthala, Urmar Tanda, Kartarpur are the nearby Cities to Pandori village. Villages in Kapurthala Kapurthala Villages List

Polymeric materials have widespread application due to their versatile characteristics, cost-effectiveness, tailored production. The science of polymer synthesis allows for excellent control over the properties of a bulk polymer sample. However, surface interactions of polymer substrates are an essential area of study in biotechnology, in all forms of coating applications. In these cases, the surface characteristics of the polymer and material, the resulting forces between them determine its utility and reliability. In biomedical applications for example, the bodily response to foreign material, thus biocompatibility, is governed by surface interactions. In addition, surface science is integral part of the formulation and application of coatings. A polymeric material can be functionalized by the addition of small moieties and other polymers onto the surface or interface. Grafting, in the context of polymer chemistry, refers to the addition of polymer chains onto a surface. In the so-called'grafting onto' mechanism, a polymer chain adsorbs onto a surface out of solution.

In the more extensive'grafting from' mechanism, a polymer chain is initiated and propagated at the surface. Because pre-polymerized chains used in the'grafting onto' method have a thermodynamically favored conformation in solution, their adsorption density is self-limiting; the radius of gyration of the polymer therefore is the limiting factor in the number of polymer chains that can reach the surface and adhere. The ` grafting from' technique allows for greater grafting densities; the processes of grafting "onto", "from", "through" are all different ways to alter the chemical reactivity of the surface they attach with. Grafting onto allows a preformed polymer in a "mushroom regime", to adhere to the surface of either a droplet or bead in solution. Due to the larger volume of the coiled polymer and the steric hindrance this causes, the grafting density is lower for'onto' in comparison to'grafting from'; the surface of the bead is wetted by the polymer and the interaction in the solution caused the polymer to become more flexible.

The'extended conformation' of the polymer grafted, or polymerized, from the surface of the bead means that the monomer must be in the solution and there for lyophilic. This results with a polymer that has favorable interactions with the solution, allowing the polymer to form more linearly. Grafting from therefore has a higher grafting density since there are more access to chain ends. Peptide synthesis can provide one example of a'grafting from' synthetic process. In this process, an amio acid chain is grown by a series of condensation reaction from a polymer bead surface; this grafting technique allows for excellent control over the peptide composition as the bonded chain can be washed without desorption from the polymer. Polymeric coatings are another area of applied grafting techniques. In the formulation of water-borne paint, latex particles are surface modified to control particle dispersion and thus coating characteristics such as viscosity, film formation, environmental stability. Plasma processing, corona treatment, flame treatment can all be classified as surface oxidation mechanisms.

These methods all involve cleavage of polymer chains in the material and the incorporation of carbonyl, hydroxyl functional groups. The incorporation of oxygen into the surface creates a higher surface energy allowing the substrate to be coated. Corona treatment is a surface modification method using a low temperature corona discharge to increase the surface energy of a material polymers and natural fibers. Most a thin polymer sheet is rolled through an array of high-voltage electrodes, using the plasma created to functionalize the surface; the limited penetration depth of such treatment provides vastly improved adhesion while preserving bulk mechanical properties. Commercially, corona treatment has been used for improved dye adhesion before printing text and images on plastic packaging materials; the hazardous nature of remnant ozone after corona treatment stipulates careful filtration and ventilation during processing, restricting its implementation to applications with strict catalytic filtered systems.

This limitation prevents widespread use within open-line manufacturing processes Several factors influence the efficiency of the flame treatment such as air-to-gas ratio, thermal output, surface distance, oxidation zone dwell time. Upon conception of the process, a corona treatment followed film extrusions, but the development of careful transportation techniques allows treatment at an optimized location. Conversely, in-line corona treatments have been implemented into full-scale production lines such as those in the newspaper industry; these in-line solutions are developed to counteract the decrease in wetting characteristics caused by excessive solvent use. Plasma processing provides interfacial energies and injected monomer fragments larger than comparable processes. However, limited fluxes prevent high process rates. In addition, plasmas are thermodynamically unfavorable and therefore plasma-processed surfaces lack uniformity and permanence; these obstacles with plasma processing preclude it from being a competitive surface modification method within industry.

The process begins with production of plasma via ionization either by deposition on monomer mixtures or gaseous carrier ions. The power required to produce the necessary plasma flux can be derived from the active volume mass/energy balance: ∫ V o l I

The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was first adopted in 1929, but revised at the 1949 conference, it defines humanitarian protections for prisoners of war. There are 196 state parties to the Convention; this part sets out the overall parameters for GCIII: Articles 1 and 2 cover which parties are bound by GCIII Article 2 specifies when the parties are bound by GCIII That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered by GCIII. "... Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations, they shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions.

It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character: Non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, combatants who are hors de combat due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must be pronounced by a constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples. Article 3's protections exist if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII. Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include: 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognised by the Detaining Power. 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support. 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms and respect the laws and customs of war. 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy. Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation, it specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

This part of the convention covers the status of prisoners of war. Article 12 states that prisoners of war are the responsibility of the state, not the persons who capture them, that they may not be transferred to a state, not party to the Convention. Articles 13 to 16 state that prisoners of war must be treated humanely without any adverse discrimination and that their medical needs must be met; this part is divided into several sections: Section 1 covers the beginning of captivity. It dictates what information a prisoner must give and interrogation methods that the detaining power may use: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion", it dictates what private property a prisoner of war may keep and that the prisoner of war must be evacuated from the combat zone as soon as possible. Section 2 covers the internment of prisoners of war and is broken down into 8 chapters which cover: General observations Quarters and clothing Hygiene and medical attention The treatment of enemy medical personnel and chaplains retained to assist prisoners of war Religious and physical activities Discipline Military rank Transfer of prisoners of war after their arrival in a camp Section 3 covers the type of labour that a prisoner of war may be compelled to do, taking such factors as rank and sex into consideration, that which because it is unhealthy or dangerous can only be done by prisoners of war who volunteer for such work.

It goes into details about such things as the accommodation, medical facilities, that if the prisoner of war work