click links in text for more info
SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Widener, Arkansas

Widener is a town in St. Francis County, United States; the population was 273 at the 2010 census, a decline from 335 in 2000. Widener is located at 35°1′25″N 90°41′2″W. According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of all land; as of the census of 2000, there were 335 people, 111 households, 81 families residing in the town. The population density was 258.7/km². There were 129 housing units at an average density of 99.6/km². The racial makeup of the town was 31.94% White, 67.16% Black or African American, 0.30% Asian, 0.60% from other races. 2.39 % of the population were Latino of any race. There were 111 households out of which 39.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 42.3% were married couples living together, 22.5% had a female householder with no husband present, 27.0% were non-families. 20.7% of all households were made up of individuals and 6.3% had someone living alone, 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.02 and the average family size was 3.65.

In the town, the population was spread out with 36.7% under the age of 18, 9.3% from 18 to 24, 26.9% from 25 to 44, 16.1% from 45 to 64, 11.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 28 years. For every 100 females, there were 92.5 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 91.0 males. The median income for a household in the town was $20,833, the median income for a family was $24,375. Males had a median income of $23,929 versus $20,625 for females; the per capita income for the town was $12,135. About 34.2% of families and 38.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 41.1% of those under age 18 and 34.1% of those age 65 or over. Forrest City School District operates public schools serving the community. Forrest City High School is the local high school

Palazzo San Giacomo, Naples

The Palazzo San Giacomo, known as the Municipio is a Neoclassical style palace in central Naples, Italy. It stands before the fortress of the Maschio Angioino, stradling the zones of Porto and San Ferdinando, it houses the offices of the municipality of Naples. The entire office complex spans from largo de Castello to Via Toledo, along via di San Giacomo. In 1816, King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies commissions the construction of a centralized building to house the various ministries of the government; the area for this palace was chosen, the buildings therein were either demolished or incorporated including the monastery and church of the Concezione, the Hospital of San Giacomo, the offices of the Bank of San Giacomo. The church of San Giacomo degli Spagnoli was incorporated into the palace; the architects were Vincenzo Buonocore, Antonio De Simone, Stefano Gasse. Work was only completed in 1825. In the atrium are two statues of Kings Ruggiero the Norman and Frederick of Swabia; the statues of the Bourbon Kings, Ferdinand I and Francesco I of the Two Sicilies, that once stood in niches here, were substituted by allegorical figures.

The entry way has a head from a bust, assigned to the mythical representative of Naples, the siren Parthenope

HCS Mahi (1834)

HCS Mahi was a schooner that the Bombay Dockyard launched in 1834 for the British East India Company. Mahi participated in the 1839 Aden Expedition along with the frigate HMS Volage, the sloop HCS Coote, the brig HMS Cruizer; the British attack began on 19 February and Mahé, under the command of Lieutenant Daniels, provided fire support. She sustained the only naval casualty of the expedition. After her release from official service, Mahé became a country ship trading on the Malabar Coast, she was still trading in 1870. Charles Rathbone Low, the author of the history in the references below, was a midshipman on Mahi in 1855. Citations References Clowes, William; the Royal Navy: A history from the earlierst times to the present Volume VI. London, England: William Clowes & Sons Hackman, Rowan Ships of the East India Company.. ISBN 0-905617-96-7 Low, Charles Rathbone. History of the Indian Navy:. R. Bentley and son

5th Armored Division (United States)

The 5th Armored Division was an armored formation of the United States Army active from 1941 to 1945 and from 1950 to 1956. The 5th Armored "Victory" Division was activated on 10 October 1941, reached the United Kingdom in February 1944; the division landed at Utah Beach on 24 July 1944 under the command of Major General Lunsford E. Oliver, moved into combat on 2 August, driving south through Coutances and Vitré, across the Mayenne River to seize the city of Le Mans, 8 August. Turning north, the division surrounded the Germans in Normandy by advancing, through Le Mêle-sur-Sarthe liberated on 11 August, to the edge of the city of Argentan on 12 August—8 days before the Argentan-Falaise Gap was closed. Turning Argentan over to the 90th Infantry Division, the 5th Armored advanced 80 miles to capture the Eure River Line at Dreux on 16 August. Bitter fighting was encountered in clearing the second big trap in France; the 5th passed through Paris 30 August to spearhead V Corps drive through the Compiègne Forest, across the Oise and Somme Rivers, reached the Belgian border at Condé, 2 September.

The division turned east, advancing 100 miles in 8 hours, crossed the Meuse at Charleville-Mézières, 4 September. Racing past Sedan, it deployed along the German border; the reconnaissance squadron of the division sent a patrol across the German border on the afternoon of 11 September to be the first of the Allies to cross the enemy frontier. On 14 September, the 5th penetrated the Siegfried Line at Wallendorf, remaining until the 20th, to draw off enemy reserves from Aachen. In October it held defensive positions in the Monschau-Hofen sector; the division entered the Hurtgen Forest area in late November and pushed the enemy back to the banks of the Roer River in heavy fighting. On 22 December it was placed in 12th Army Group reserve. Crossing the Roer on 25 February 1945 the 5th spearheaded the XIII Corps drive to the Rhine, crossing the Rhine at Wesel, 30 March; the Division reached the banks of the Elbe at 12 April -- 45 miles from Berlin. On 16 April, the 5th moved to Klotze to wipe out the Von Clausewitz Panzer Division and again drove to the Elbe, this time in the vicinity of Dannenberg.

The division mopped up in the Ninth Army sector until VE-day. Total battle casualties: 3,075 Killed in action: 833 Wounded in action: 2,442 Missing in action: 41 Prisoner of war: 22 Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 5th Armored Division Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Combat Command A Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Combat Command B Headquarters, Reserve Command 10th Tank Battalion 34th Tank Battalion 81st Tank Battalion 15th Armored Infantry Battalion 46th Armored Infantry Battalion 47th Armored Infantry Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 5th Armored Division Artillery 47th Armored Field Artillery Battalion 71st Armored Field Artillery Battalion 95th Armored Field Artillery Battalion 85th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron 22nd Armored Engineer Battalion 145th Armored Signal Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 9th Armored Division Trains 127th Armored Maintenance Battalion 75th Armored Medical Battalion Military Police Platoon Band 505th Counterintelligence Corps Detachment 628th Tank Destroyer Battalion 629th Tank Destroyer Battalion 771st Tank Destroyer Battalion 387th AAA Automatic Weapons Battalion 202d Field Artillery Battalion The division's losses included 570 killed in action, 2,442 wounded in action, 140 who died of wounds.

The division was inactivated on 11 October 1945, reactivated in 1950 at Fort Chaffee, AR, inactivated for the final time in 1956. MG Jack W. Heard BG Sereno E. Brett MG Lunsford E. Oliver Richard S. Gardner Paths of Armor, Battery Press, 4300 Dale Ave, Nashville TN 37204, 615-298-1401 Fact Sheet of the 5th Armored Division from http://www.battleofthebulge.org La libération de Quierzy The Road to Germany: The Story of the 5th Armored Division

Conestoga Wood Specialties

Conestoga Wood Specialties is a manufacturer of wood doors and components for kitchen and furniture, based in East Earl, Pennsylvania. They have five factories, located in Washington, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, employing about 1,200 people; the company was founded in 1964 by brothers Norman and Samuel Hahn and several others, working from a garage in East Earl, Pennsylvania. The company is still owned by other members of the Hahn family. Anthony Hahn is the CEO. One of their plants is across the road at 245 Reading Road, they added plants in Beavertown, Pennsylvania. Although the company deals both with manufacturers ordering thousands of pieces at a time, custom shops needing one-off orders, they deal only with the trade, declining retail orders, they are one of the largest employers of all manufacturing companies in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The Affordable Care Act, enacted on March 23, 2010, includes a provision that mandates health insurance cover “additional preventive care and screenings” for women.

The Health Resources and Services Administration issued a set of guidelines in the mandate, which concludes access to contraception is medically necessary to “ensure women’s health and well-being.”Norman Hahn, owner of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. objected to the new provisions set forth, claimed it would be "sinful and immoral" to pay for or support certain forms of contraception, such as Plan B, as required by compliance with the Affordable Care Act. Although Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. complied with the mandate to avoid fines of up to $95,000 per day, it filed suit for an exemption. In July 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. did not qualify for an exemption from providing coverage based on religious beliefs. In September 2013, Conestoga Wood Specialties appealed the ruling to the U. S. Supreme Court, which consolidated the case with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Two dozen amicus briefs were filed in support of the government, five dozen in support of the companies.

A friend-of-the-court brief filed in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell, argued that corporations do not have religions, for-profit corporations cannot claim exemptions from the law based on the religions of their stockholders. On June 30, 2014, Associate Justice Samuel Alito delivered the judgment of the court; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, finding that held for-profit corporations have free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court responded by saying, "Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that'the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests'. Official website

Semiorder

In order theory, a branch of mathematics, a semiorder is a type of ordering for items with numerical scores, where items with differing scores are compared by their scores and where scores within a given margin of error are deemed incomparable. Semiorders were introduced and applied in mathematical psychology by Duncan Luce as a model of human preference, they generalize strict weak orderings, in which items with equal scores may be tied but there is no margin of error. They are a special case of partial orders and of interval orders, can be characterized among the partial orders by additional axioms, or by two forbidden four-item suborders. Let X be a set of items, let < be a binary relation on X. Items x and y are said to be incomparable, written here as x ~ y, if neither x < y nor y < x is true. The pair is a semiorder if it satisfies the following three axioms: For all x and y, it is not possible for both x < y and y < x to be true. That is, < must be an asymmetric relation For all x, y, z, w, if x < y, y ~ z, z < w x < w.

For all x, y, z, w, if x < y and y < z either x < w or w < z. Equivalently, with the same assumptions on x, y, z, every other item w must be comparable to at least one of x, y, or z, it follows from the first axiom that x ~ x, therefore the second axiom implies that < is a transitive relation. One may define a partial order from a semiorder by declaring that x ≤ y whenever either x < y or x = y. Of the axioms that a partial order is required to obey, reflexivity follows automatically from this definition, antisymmetry follows from the first semiorder axiom, transitivity follows from the second semiorder axiom. Conversely, from a partial order defined in this way, the semiorder may be recovered by declaring that x < y whenever x ≤ y and x ≠ y. The first of the semiorder axioms listed above follows automatically from the axioms defining a partial order, but the others do not; the second and third semiorder axioms forbid partial orders of four items forming two disjoint chains: the second axiom forbids two chains of two items each, while the third item forbids a three-item chain with one unrelated item.

Every strict weak ordering < is a semi-order. More transitivity of < and transitivity of incomparability with respect to < together imply the above axiom 2, while transitivity of incomparability alone implies axiom 3. The semiorder shown in the top image is not a strict weak ordering, since the rightmost vertice is incomparable to its two closest left neighbors, but they are comparable. A relation is a semiorder if, only if, it can be obtained as an interval order of unit length intervals. According to Amartya K. Sen, semi-orders were examined by Dean T. Jamison and Lawrence J. Lau and found to be a special case of quasitransitive relations. In fact, every semiorder is a quasitransitive relation. Moreover, adding to a given semiorder all its pairs of incomparable items keeps the resulting relation a quasitransitive one; the original motivation for introducing semiorders was to model human preferences without assuming that incomparability is a transitive relation. For instance, if x, y, z represent three quantities of the same material, x and z differ by the smallest amount, perceptible as a difference, while y is halfway between the two of them it is reasonable for a preference to exist between x and z but not between the other two pairs, violating transitivity.

Thus, suppose that X is a set of items, u is a utility function that maps the members of X to real numbers. A strict weak ordering can be defined on x by declaring two items to be incomparable when they have equal utilities, otherwise using the numerical comparison, but this leads to a transitive incomparability relation. Instead, if one sets a numerical threshold such that utilities within that threshold of each other are declared incomparable a semiorder arises. Define a binary relation < from X and u by setting x < y whenever u ≤ u − 1. Is a semiorder, it may equivalently be defined as the interval order defined by the intervals. In the other direction, not every semiorder can be defined from numerical utilities in this way. For instance, if a semiorder includes an uncountable ordered subset there do not exist sufficiently many sufficiently well-spaced real-numbers to represent this subset numerically. However, every finite semiorder can be defined from a utility function. Fishburn supplies a precise characterization of the semiorders.

If a semiorder is given only in terms of the order relation between its pairs of elements it is possible to construct a utility function that represents the order in time O, where n is the number of elements in the semiorder. The number of distinct semiorders on n unlabeled items is given by the Catalan numbers 1 n + 1, while the number of semiorders on n labeled items is given by the sequence 1, 1, 3, 19, 183, 2371, 38703, 763099, 17648823.... Any finite semiorder has order dimension at most three. Among all partial orders with a fixed number of elements and a fixed number of comparable pairs, the partial orders that have the largest number of linear extensions are semior