click links in text for more info
SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Pope Leo V

Pope Leo V was Pope from July 903 to his death in 904. He was pope during the period known as the Saeculum obscurum, he was thrown into prison in September 903 by the Antipope Christopher, was killed at the start of the pontificate of Pope Sergius III. If his deposition is not considered valid his papacy may be considered to have ended with his death in 904. Leo V was born at a place called Priapi, near Ardea. Although he was a priest when he was elected pope following the death of Pope Benedict IV, he was not a Cardinal priest of Rome. During his brief pontificate, Leo granted the canons of Bologna a special papal bull where he exempted them from the payment of taxes. However, after a reign of a little over two months, Leo was captured by Christopher, the Cardinal-priest of San Lorenzo in Damaso, thrown into prison. Christopher had himself elected pope, although now considered an antipope, he had until been considered a legitimate pope. If Leo never acquiesced to his deposition he can be considered Pope until his death in 904.

Leo died shortly after being deposed. He was either murdered on the orders of Christopher, in turn executed by Pope Sergius III in 904, or both were ordered to be killed at the beginning of Sergius’ pontificate, either on the orders of Sergius himself, or by the direction of the sacri palatii vestararius, Count of Tusculum. However, Horace K. Mann says it is more that Leo died a natural death in prison or in a monastery. List of Catholic saints List of popes This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed.. "Pope Leo V". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton. DeCormenin, Louis Marie. A Complete History of the Popes of Rome, from Saint Peter, the First Bishop to Pius the Ninth Mann, Horace K; the Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. IV: The Popes in the Days of Feudal Anarchy, 891-999 Norwich, John Julius, The Popes: A History

VoltDB

VoltDB is an in-memory database designed by Michael Stonebraker, Sam Madden, Daniel Abadi. It is an ACID-compliant RDBMS, it includes both community editions. The community edition is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License. VoltDB is a NewSQL relational database that supports SQL access from within pre-compiled Java stored procedures; the unit of transaction is the stored procedure, written in Java interspersed with SQL. VoltDB relies on horizontal partitioning down to the individual hardware thread to scale, k-safety to provide high availability, a combination of continuous snapshots and command logging for durability. VoltDB is based on H-Store, it uses a shared-nothing architecture to scale. Data and the processing associated with it are distributed across the CPU cores within the servers composing a single VoltDB cluster. By extending its shared-nothing foundation to the per-core level, VoltDB scales with the increasing core-per-CPU counts on multi-core servers. By making stored procedures the unit of transaction and executing them at the partition containing the necessary data, it is possible to eliminate round trip messaging between SQL statements.

Stored procedures are executed serially and to completion in a single thread without locking or latching, similar to the LMAX architecture. Because data is in memory and local to the partition, a stored procedure can execute in microseconds. VoltDB's stored procedure initiation scheme allows all nodes to initiate stored procedures while avoiding a single serializable global order. VoltDB is ACID compliant. Data is written to durable storage. Durability is ensured by continuous snapshots; this ensures that no transactions are committed that are not logged and that no transactions are lost. Applications must be designed such that all the data altered by a single stored procedure is stored on the same partition. VoltDB v5.0 introduced a database monitoring and management tool, the VoltDB Management Center. VMC provides browser-based one-stop monitoring and configuration management of the VoltDB database, including graphs for cluster throughput and latency as well as CPU and memory usage for the current server.

VoltDB version 5.1, released in March 2015, introduce Database Replication functionality, removing any single point of failure. DR provides simultaneous, parallel replication of multiple partitions and binary logs of transaction results, saving the replica from having to replay the transaction. Comparison of database tools Comparison of relational database management systems Official website VoltDB at Open Hub Curt Monash. "VoltDB launches". DBMS 2. Retrieved 2011-07-09. "VoltDB Announces Version 5.0". VoltDB, Inc. 28 January 2015. Retrieved 2015-03-29. "Michael Stonebraker, VoltDB Co-Founder and Real-time Data Pioneer, Wins ACM 2014 A. M. Turing Award". VoltDB, Inc. 26 March 2015. Retrieved 2015-03-29. "VoltDB Aims for Fast Big Data Development". ADTmag. 29 January 2015. Retrieved 2015-03-29

Leonardo Ruiz Pineda

Leonardo Ruiz Pineda, was a Venezuelan lawyer and politician and one of the founders of the party Acción Democrática, of, Secretary General and leader of the clandestine resistance between 1949 and 1952 against the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. Ruiz Pineda was appointed Governor of Táchira in 1946 under Romulo Betancourt, Minister of Communications in February 1948 in the government of Romulo Gallegos. During the 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état he was arrested, imprisoned for six months. After his release he became Secretary General of Democratic Action in September 1949, succeeding Octavio Lepage, leading the clandestine resistance movement against the military dictatorship. On 21 October 1952 he was assassinated by police in Caracas. History of Venezuela Politics of Venezuela Leonardo Ruiz Pineda

All in a Row (play)

All in a Row is a play by Alex Oates about a family with an 11-year-old child on the autism spectrum. The play explores the experiences of the parents of a nonverbal, sometimes violent, autistic boy and the emotions that they experience on the night before he is taken to a residential school for children with disabilities; the play stars Charlie Brooks, Simon Lipkin, Michael Fox, Hugh Purves, was produced by Paul Virides Productions at the Southwark Playhouse. An early draft of All in a Row was long-listed for the Bruntwood Prize for Playwriting, the play was chosen as one of the Bolton Octagon Theatre's Top Five in 2017, it was published by Methuen Drama in 2019. The play has had a polarizing effect on critics and audiences for its use of a puppet to portray an autistic child. All in a Row was inspired by Oates' ten years of experience working with autistic children and adults. Oates workshopped the script and puppetry with director Dominic Shaw, Siân Kidd designed the puppet used for the character of Laurence.

Prior to rehearsal period, the team contacted the National Autistic Society for consultation on their portrayal of autism. NAS arranged for both autistic and non-autistic people to provide advice, minor changes to the script were made as a result of this feedback. Despite these changes, NAS released a statement that they could not support the play overall due to its portrayal of autism. In the development stage, the team decided that the initial design for the Laurence puppet was too stylistically dark to sensitively portray the character, a more childlike, yet still abstract, design should be explored; the play's main characters are: Laurence, an 11-year-old boy on the autism spectrum, unable to speak and is sometimes physically aggressive. Laurence is portrayed by a puppet, operated by puppeteer Hugh Purves. Tamora, his mother, who feels overwhelmed trying to keep Laurence safe and prevent him from harming others. Tamora is played by Charlie Brooks. Martin, his father. Martin is played by Simon Lipkin.

Gary, a worker who helps care for Laurence. Gary is played by Michael Fox; the play opens with Laurence watching Finding Nemo and begins with an intertwined pair of monologues: Tamora is giving a motivational talk at an all-girls technology college about her heartbeat-transmitting product, the Heart to Heart, Martin is describing an incident that occurred in a park in which Laurence attempted to bite a little girl. The rest of the play is presented in real time over the course of an evening. Somebody reported that Laurence has bruises; as a result, there has been a social services enquiry resulting in the decision to move Laurence to a residential school where he can be better cared for. A whodunnit, or who-phoned-it, theme runs throughout the play as Martin tries to discover, responsible for the call that resulted in Laurence's departure; the support worker, acts a conversational go-between for Martin and Tamora as they try to bring themselves to read a social story to Laurence detailing how he will be leaving home.

Martin speaks to Gary about his concerns regarding residential schooling, Tamora confides in Gary her worries and insecurities. As the evening progresses and Tamora's relationship degrades, they begin to argue; this comes to a head when Martin accuses Gary of making the phone call, Tamora reveals that she was the person who called social services, acknowledging her inability to cope and feeling that Laurence would be better cared for by professionals. A furious argument triggers a meltdown from Laurence, he bites his mother. In the aftermath and Tamora call something of a truce, they sit down as a family to read the social story and watch the end of Finding Nemo. During casting and disabled performers were encouraged to apply. Producers stated that two members of the team that they recruited were autistic, but declined to name them in order to respect the requests of those individuals; the character of Laurence is played by a custom-made puppet, rather than a child actor. Oates told the Newcastle Chronicle and the BBC that his decision to use puppetry was based on multiple reasons, including his admiration for puppetry and the idea that Laurence is a metaphorical puppet of the system, which denies him autonomy over his life.

Just like the puppet used to portray him on stage, Laurence is treated like an object, manipulated by neurotypical people. Oates said he thought that using a puppet as a "creative medium" was a more sensitive decision than asking an actor to mimic the condition. Puppetry director Siân Kidd built the puppet out of natural materials intended to give Laurence a soft quality and chose the colour grey in response to the set design, to make Laurence feel like part of his surroundings. Love; the exploration of "love" as a concept is a recurring theme of All in a Row. This is evident in the character of Tamora, named after the Shakespearean mother in Titus Andronicus, as she tries to determine how to best keep her son safe, her husband, Martin, is portrayed as a perpetual child, hung up on the notion of love. In addition, the product that Tamora invents was born from her belief that love transforms during parenthood. Family; the play juxtaposes the movie Finding Nemo with its main story to draw parallels between the characters in each.

It explores pressures and insecurities that can come with parenting a child with special needs, including comparing oneself to other parents and dealing with the guilt of contemplating whether life without their child would be easier. Disability. Laurence's abilities and needs as an autistic child are a central theme, the

Check kiting

Check kiting or cheque kiting is a form of check fraud, involving taking advantage of the float to make use of non-existent funds in a checking or other bank account. In this way, instead of being used as a negotiable instrument, checks are misused as a form of unauthorized credit. Kiting is defined as intentionally writing a check for a value greater than the account balance from an account in one bank writing a check from another account in another bank with non-sufficient funds, with the second check serving to cover the non-existent funds from the first account; the purpose of check kiting is to falsely inflate the balance of a checking account in order to allow written checks to clear that would otherwise bounce. If the account is not planned to be replenished the fraud is colloquially known as paper hanging. If writing a check with insufficient funds is done with the expectation they will be covered by payday – in effect a payday loan – it is called playing the float; some forms of check fraud involve the use of a second bank or a third party a place of retail, in order to delay the absence of funds in a transactional account on the day the check is due to clear at the bank.

Such acts are committed by bankrupt or temporarily unemployed individuals or small businesses seeking emergency loans, by start-up businesses or other struggling businesses seeking interest-free financing while intending to make good on their balances, or by pathological gamblers who have the expectation of depositing funds upon winning. It has been used by those who have some genuine funds in interest-bearing accounts, but who artificially inflate their balances in order to increase the interest paid by their banks. In recent years, criminals have started taking advantage of the check float to pass fraudulent checks through solicited users of online auctions; the term "check kiting" first came into use in the 1920s. It stemmed from a 19th-century practice of issuing bonds with zero collateral; that practice became known as flying a kite. Circular kiting describes forms of kiting in which one or more additional banks serve as the location of float, involve the use of multiple accounts at different banks.

In its simplest form, the kiter, who has two or more accounts at different banks, writes a check on day one to themself from Bank A to Bank B, so funds become available that day at Bank B sufficient for all checks due to clear. On the following business day, the kiter writes a check on their Bank B account to themself and deposits it into his account at Bank A to provide artificial funds allowing the check they wrote a day earlier to clear; this cycle repeats until the offender is caught, or until the offender deposits genuine funds, thereby eliminating the need to kite, going unnoticed. Complex versions of this scheme have occurred involving two separate people, each with an account at a different bank writing checks to one another, or a group of individuals writing checks in a circular fashion, thereby making detection more difficult; some kiting rings involve offenders posing as large businesses, thereby masking their activity as normal business transactions and making banks inclined to waive the limit of funds made available.

Yet another variation called the'endless kite' involves checks imprinted with the logo and name of Bank A but the routing number of Bank B. Bank A does not recognize the routing number and returns the check to the clearing house, where it is sent to Bank B, which does not recognize the account and bank name, again returning the instrument to the clearing house, where the check cycles endlessly. Retail-based kiting involves the use of a party other than a bank to unknowingly provide temporary funds to an account holder lacking funds needed for check to clear. In these cases, the kiter writes check to one or more places of retail that offer cash back in addition to the amount of a purchase as a courtesy to their patrons. Following the transaction, the kiter deposits the cash received back into his/her bank on the same day in order to provide sufficient funds for other check to clear, while the check written that day will clear one or more business days later; this action is repeated as necessary.

Concretely, suppose an individual has $10 in their bank account and no cash, but wishes to purchase an item costing $100. Here is how the fraud is accomplished: First, the individual writes a bad check for $100, uses it to purchase the item – the individual is now insolvent, as they owe $100, but only have $10 in the bank. However, the check has not yet cleared. Second, they go to a retail establishment and write another check for $100 and cash it, say check #2 on day T+0 – this is the kiting, they take the cash and deposit it in their account, which now has $110, sufficient for the first check to clear, but after this there are non-sufficient funds for check #2 to clear. This process can be repeated, with the amount increasing. If the kiter gets $100 in cash on day T+1 and deposits it in their account, check #2 clears and the victims do not in fact lose money, are none the wiser. If, on the other hand, the kiter does not get enough cash and does not continue kiting check #2 bounces, the retail establishment has been defrauded – they have lost $100 cash in exchange for a bad check.

The principle of retail kiting is that by giving cash (which is ava

Nashville Convention

The Nashville Convention was a political meeting held in Nashville, Tennessee, on June 3–11, 1850. Delegates from nine slave holding states met to consider a possible course of action if the United States Congress decided to ban slavery in the new territories being added to the country as a result of Westward Expansion and the Mexican–American War; the compromises worked out in Nashville paved the way for the Compromise of 1850, for a time, averted the dissolution of the United States. The previous year, firebrand states rights advocate John C. Calhoun had urged that a preliminary bipartisan Southern convention be held in Mississippi to address the growing issue of the Federal government placing limits on the growth of slavery; the delegates to the October 1, 1849, Mississippi Convention denounced the controversial Wilmot Proviso, the slaveholding states agreed to send delegates to Nashville to define a resistance strategy in the face of perceived Northern aggression. Mississippi's legislature appropriated $20,000 for the expenses of their Nashville delegates and $200,000 for any "necessary measures for protecting the state... in the event of the passage of the Wilmot Proviso."

One hundred seventy-six delegates from Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee convened at the McKendree United Methodist Church in Nashville for nine days in June 1850. All but 75 of these delegates were from Tennessee, where each county had been allowed to send whomever it wished. In the other cases, the delegates were selected by the state legislatures. A small delegation from Louisiana had been blocked from attending by that state's moderate legislature. After heated debate, the Southerners who urged secession if slavery were restricted in any of the new territories were overruled by the moderates. Speaking for the moderate position, the presiding officer, Judge William L. Sharkey of Mississippi, declared that the convention had not been "called to prevent but to perpetuate the Union." Thus, the Nashville delegates, while they denounced Henry Clay's omnibus bill and reaffirmed the constitutionality of slavery in a series of 28 resolutions passed on June 10, agreed to a "concession" whereby the geographic dividing line designated by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 would be extended to the Pacific Coast.

The convention adjourned without taking any action against the Union, the issue of secession was temporarily tabled. In September, the U. S. Congress enacted the Compromise of 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed it into law; as a result, in November a smaller group of Southern delegates met in Nashville in a second session of the Nashville Convention, this time dominated by the extremists. They affirmed the right of individual states to secede from the Union; this second session had little national impact, but the seeds continued to be sown for the American Civil War. Among the prominent pro-secession delegates at the Nashville Convention was Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, who would a decade become President of the Confederate States. One delegate who supported the compromise was famed adventurer Sam Houston of Texas; the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture Mark J. Stegmaier, New Mexico, the Compromise of 1850: Boundary Dispute and Sectional Crisis, Kent State University Press, 1996.

George L. Sioussat, "Tennessee, the Compromise of 1850, the Nashville Convention." Mississippi Valley Historical Review 2#3 pp: 313-347 in JSTOR Nashville Convention