free letterhead templates download letterhead templates for no cost matching envelopes and business cards available color letterhead printing print 1000 letterhead at 10¢ each print letterhead and personalized stationery online today custom letterhead and personalized stationery printing is so easy and psprint has a 100 letterhead logo design 10 letterhead and logo design letterhead logo design 10 letterhead and logo design sussner design on amazon com free shipping on qualifying offers this new in paperback uk letterhead legal requirements a quick guide to help this useful uk letterhead legal requirements guide will help you design your stationery inline with uk law this guide can help you avoid costly re prints free santa letterhead three little monkeys studio ive just used your santa letterhead i loved it so simple to just add your own txt many thanks publishing software label letterhead flyer postcard publishing software business cards label letterhead for windows free trial download envelope distributor the leader in envelopes and letterhead envelope distributor offers all kinds of different envelopes for any and all different occasions impress your recipients by sending them the best create a letterhead template in microsoft word create a letterhead template in microsoft word here we demonstrate how to properly create a letterhead template with this method when you go to the brochuresletterheadenvelopesdirect mailbusiness cards with your busy workload you have more important things to do than folding stuffing labeling sealing and stamping let us handle the small stuff with silkcards plastic business cards plastic cards gift full color printing of plastic business cards plastic cards plastic card printing gift cards gift card printing business cards silkcards postcards New 31 Examples Letterhead Simple
THOMAS A. EDISON GETS LL.D. BY PHONE; President of University of State of N.Y. in Albany Confers Degree on Him in Orange. INVENTOR IN LABORATORY Elihu Root Only Other Living LL.D. of the Institution -- Mrs. Edison Hears Speech. - The New York Times
Archives|THOMAS A. EDISON GETS LL.D. BY PHONE; President of University of State of N.Y. in Albany Confers Degree on Him in Orange. INVENTOR IN LABORATORY Elihu Root Only Other Living LL.D. of the Institution -- Mrs. Edison Hears Speech.
THOMAS A. EDISON GETS LL.D. BY PHONE; President of University of State of N.Y. in Albany Confers Degree on Him in Orange. INVENTOR IN LABORATORY Elihu Root Only Other Living LL.D. of the Institution -- Mrs. Edison Hears Speech.
ALBANY, Oct. 20. -- The honorary degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred over the telephone at 10:20 o'clock tonight on Thomas A. Edison, by the University of the State of New York. It was the twentieth honorary degree given by the university since 1792, and the second one of Doctor of Laws since 1850, the other recipient being Elihu Root, who received the degree a year ago.View Full Article in Timesmachine »
A version of this archives appears in print on October 21, 1916, on Page 7 of the New York edition with the headline: THOMAS A. EDISON GETS LL.D. BY PHONE; President of University of State of N.Y. in Albany Confers Degree on Him in Orange. INVENTOR IN LABORATORY Elihu Root Only Other Living LL.D. of the Institution -- Mrs. Edison Hears Speech. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Your July 21 editorial “Don’t Track Us” got it exactly right — Internet users who don’t want their every move online to be tracked should have the right to prevent it. That’s what Senator John D. Rockefeller IV’s Do-Not-Track Online Act would do.
It will not mean the end of the Internet or of online advertising. It will simply give people what they want, as a recent survey by Consumer Action showed — the ability to decide for themselves what happens with their personal information.
The letter was also signed by representatives of Consumer Action, Consumer Watchdog, the American Civil Liberties Union, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the Center for Digital Democracy and National Consumers League.
Creating an Internet version of the “do not call” list, as you suggest, would require regulation resembling that for the United States’ telecommunications market. That market is dominated by a small number of very large companies. Similarly, only the largest Internet advertising companies would have access to the data needed to cost-effectively compete and comply in the “do not track” environment you recommend. Tilting the vibrant, job-creating Internet ecosystem in the same direction would highly disadvantage consumers.
Also, regulation is unnecessary when many companies already offer consumers tools that are free, easy to use and highly effective. My company’s product, Ghostery, for example, enables consumers to see and even turn off any tracking from more than 1,300 companies.
Privacy is inherently subjective. It’s up to consumers, not the government, to decide what is acceptable, and what isn’t.
The writer, former general manager of nytimes.com, is chief executive of Evidon, a technology company.
The national debate about privacy must be grounded in two fundamentals — individual awareness and freedom to choose.
With respect to advertising, your editorial applauds Web browsers for building privacy protections into their software. This is a “Big Brother,” “we’ll decide for you” approach. To us, there could be nothing worse than robbing individuals of their right to choose in the purported name of privacy.
Fortunately, there is a privacy-focused, robust program called the Digital Advertising Alliance privacy self-regulation program that puts the individual first. This program was born from an alliance of advertising interests that allows consumers to decide what to receive. Millions have taken advantage of this initiative.
The White House applauded the advertising industry for a thoughtful, responsible program, which has just been extended to the mobile arena.
Simply put, let’s let the consumers decide for themselves what they want to see — and ask the “Big Brother” Web browsers to step to the side.
A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Turning Off Tracking on the Internet. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
A protest in Diraz, Bahrain, in February 2011. Emails concerning the situation in Bahrain, now declared classified, illustrate how routine emailing sensitive information on unclassified government servers had become.CreditCreditAndrea Bruce for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — On the morning of March 13, 2011, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, Jeffrey D. Feltman, wrote an urgent email to more than two dozen colleagues informing them that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were sending troops into Bahrain to put down antigovernment protests there.
Mr. Feltman’s email prompted a string of 10 replies and forwards over the next 24 hours, including to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the Obama administration debated what was happening and how to respond.
The chain contained information now declared classified, including portions of messages written by Mr. Feltman; the former ambassador in Kuwait, Deborah K. Jones; and the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John O. Brennan.
An email chain that began with a note from Jeffrey D. Feltman, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and ultimately passed through then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private server, illustrates the types of content exchanged and the wide array of administration and government officials who routinely conducted foreign policy on unclassified systems.
The top administration officials discussed the Bahrain situation on unclassified government computer networks, except for Mrs. Clinton, who used a private email server while serving as secretary of state.
Her server is now the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, which is likely to conclude in the next month, about whether classified information was mishandled.
Whatever the disposition of the investigation, the discussion of troops to Bahrain reveals how routinely sensitive information is emailed on unclassified government servers, reflecting what many officials describe as diplomacy in the age of the Internet, especially in urgent, fast-developing situations.
At the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House, among other agencies, officials have two systems for email, one for classified messages and one for more routine business. They are nicknamed the “high side” and the “low side.”
Mrs. Clinton’s private server — set up in her home in Westchester County, N.Y. — was assumed to be even less secure than the State Department’s “low side,” although the unclassified servers at some government agencies have been hacked in recent years.
One result of Mrs. Clinton’s decision to maintain a private server is that it has put State Department officials on the defensive about their use of state.gov for some business that might be considered classified.
An email Hillary Clinton sent to Kurt M. Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, included "foreign government information" that is now considered classified, but was allowed to be sent on an unclassified system, according to the State Department.
Nearly three-quarters of those emails were classified because they contained what is called “foreign government information” — a vast category of information, gathered through conversations and meetings with foreign counterparts that are the fundamentals of diplomacy, but which had to be protected when the emails were released.
Last week, in an apparent attempt to dispel criticism that many of the emails were improperly sent, a top State Department official argued in a letter to three Senate Democrats that the nation’s diplomats and officials were in fact allowed to send “foreign government information” through the government’s unclassified computer systems.
“Department officials of necessity routinely receive such information through unclassified channels,” said the letter, dated May 2 and written by the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, Julia Frifield.
“For example, diplomats engage in meetings with counterparts in open settings, have phone calls with foreign contacts over unsecure lines, and email with and about foreign counterparts via unclassified systems.”
The letter went on to say that using “foreign government information” in unclassified emails “does not amount to mishandling the information.”
The State Department, unlike some other federal agencies, does not have the authority to redact that category of information even if it is required to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Thus, the only way the State Department could withhold “foreign government information” in the emails being released under court order was to classify it, according to the letter.
The letter was a reply to one sent in March to Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Dianne Feinstein of California. A copy was given to The New York Times by a government official who believed the classification of the emails was unfairly implicating diplomats and other officials conducting diplomacy in the modern era.
Of the 30,322 emails, the F.B.I.’s investigation has focused on a smaller number, including 22 that the C.I.A. insisted contained information classified “top secret.”
Hillary Clinton, during a campaign stop in Ashland, Ky., last week. She said on the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday, regarding an investigation of her use of a private server for email while secretary of state, “I hope this is close to being wrapped up.”CreditTy Wright for The New York Times
Those emails have not been released, even with redactions, because they include material classified at the highest levels, known as “top secret/SAP,” according to a letter from the inspector general of the nation’s intelligence agencies, I. Charles McCullough III.
That designation refers to “special access programs,” which are among the nation’s most guarded secrets. The emails are said to include references to, among other things, the C.I.A.’s program to hunt and kill suspected terrorists with armed drones in Pakistan.
An additional 65 emails, which have been released, have had portions redacted because they included information classified at the level of “secret.”
One exchange of emails typical of those now classified because they contain “foreign government information’’ involved Mr. McDonough, Ms. Rice and her deputy at the time, Rosemary A. DiCarlo, and the Palestinian effort in September 2011 to be recognized as a state by the United Nations.
The exchange included eight separate emails, all sent on unclassified networks. Of those, six were redacted almost completely when the State Department released them in January.
According to the subject line and what information does appear, the three discussed deliberations between the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, as well as Ms. Rice’s discussion with the Palestinian representative at the United Nations, Riyad H. Mansour, on the bid for statehood — all instances of “foreign government information.”
The chain of emails eventually encompassed 16 officials, including political appointees and career diplomats, and was ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton’s inbox by Jake Sullivan, her deputy then and now the senior policy adviser for her election campaign.
Philip H. Gordon, an assistant secretary of state under Mrs. Clinton, said, “If all these respected, senior foreign service officers and experienced ambassadors are sending these emails, then this issue is not about how Hillary Clinton managed her email, but how the State Department communicates in the 21st century.”
Mr. Gordon, later a special assistant to the president for the Middle East, wrote more than 40 emails that were redacted on the grounds that they contained classified information.
Mrs. Clinton herself wrote, responded to or forwarded 96 emails that have been classified in part, including one that is classified secret; 46 of those contained the “foreign government information” that the department’s letter addressed.
There are, to be sure, other emails that do not fall into the category of “foreign government information,” and some raise questions about the sort of information senior officials sent in unclassified emails.
Another exchange involving the C.I.A. came the day after David H. Petraeus resigned as the agency’s director in November 2012. Mr. Brennan, then still at the White House, sent an email — detailing the provisions for Mr. Petraeus’s personal security following his surprise resignation — to Thomas E. Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. Mr. Donilon then forwarded it to Mrs. Clinton.
“Madam Secretary — Attached is an update on the security for Dave P.,” he wrote. The entirety of Mr. Brennan’s note has now been redacted and classified as “confidential” on the grounds that it involves “vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security.”
Mr. Petraeus ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for keeping highly classified information in eight black notebooks he kept in his home, including such details as the names of covert officers and programs, and sharing them with his biographer and lover.
A spokesman at the C.I.A., Ryan Trapani, said in a statement that Mr. Brennan had believed that the information he sent in the email was unclassified.
“When operating in a position like he was at the White House, officials often have to make spot judgments about whether information is classified or not,” he wrote.
“In most cases, the determinations are correct, but in some situations, another agency may consider certain information classified that the author does not.”
A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Sensitive Email Routinely Sent as Unclassified. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Every year, people make a point of watching the sun rise on New Year’s Day, and solemnly resolve to live better, greener, more smoke-free lives.
Many are content merely to party through the night and then to climb their local hill in recognition of a half-remembered, older dispensa­tion. A few, driven by competitive ambition or the desire for some sort of personal epiphany, strive to be the first to greet the rising sun, and so journey either to Mt Hikurangi on the East Coast, or, to be one jump ahead of the Mainlanders, to that uttermost end of the earth, the Chatham Islands. For the Chathams—in spite of the deplorable meteoro­logical statistics for those lonely islands—are indeed the first specks of New Zealand to see the new day.
The answer is “None,” for the first day of January has no astronomical significance, and is actually a Johnny­come-lately as the starting line of the year.
Astronomy furnishes two obvious days which may be used to mark the beginning of the year. The first and most easily determined by direct observation is the spring equinox, which is when the Sun rises due east and sets due west. On this day (and its autumn counter­part) the daily differences of the Sun’s position on the horizon at rising and setting are at a maximum. Daily naked eye observations are quite adequate for determin­ing that day, for then the markers for the rise and set directions lie in a straight line with a central sighting mark.
The second significant day is that of the winter solstice, which is when the Sun at noon is at its lowest during the year, so marking the end of its decline and the beginning of its recovelY to the high noons. Although thesolstice is much more difficult than the equinox to determine, as the daily changes in both noon altitude and rise/set positions are very small, its obvious symbolic signficance led many cultures to adopt it as marking the rebirth of the year.
January 1 came into the picture almost by accident, in 153 B.C., when it marked the date at which consuls and magistrates assumed office in response to an emergency created by a revolt in Spain. Prior to 153, the Roman year had begun in March at the vernal equinox.
At that time, Rome used a 12-month, 355-day calendar based on the lunar month, the interval between two full moons. To correct the discrepancies which arose from having a year that was nine days short of the solar year, a “floating” month called Mercedinus was added periodically.
As early as the fifth century B.C. the Greek astronomer Meton had developed rules for calculat­ing the length of the extra month required to keep the two types of year, lunar and solar, in reasonable agree­ment. However, the Roman calendar was controlled by the civil and religious authorities rather than by astronomers, and intercala­tion of the extra month became arbitrary and was frequently overlooked altogether.
This hit-and-miss system was replaced by Julius Caesar in 45 B.C. by a calendar based on solar positions, on the advice of the Alexandrian astronomer Sosigenes. Because the Roman calendar had got about three months ahead of the seasons, Julius stipulated that the year we know as 46 B.C. should have 445 days. (The Romans called it—not surprisingly—”the year of confusion.”) In addition, the months January and February were placed at the beginning of the year, which is why the old number names, September to Decem­ber, do not correspond with the Latin number of the month. This anomaly is curious in view of Roman love of order and the readi­ness with which both Julius and Augustus Caesar memorialised themselves with month names.
The Julian calendar, with its mean year length of 365.25 days, and thus a leap year every four years, was used for civil purposes throughout the Roman empire and after its decline, until modified by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. The Gregorian calendar, which we still use, modified the Julian rule for leap years by omitting them in those centurial years which are not divisible by 400, e.g. 1700, 1800 and 1900.
Following the rise of Christianity, the beginning of the year tended to be determined by religious rather than physical factors. Many societies favoured the “Nativity style,” which adopted December 25 as New Year’s Day, but in the fourteenth century the English reverted to the “Annunciation style,” beginning the year on March 25, and did not substitute the “Circumcision style,” January 1, until the (belated) intro­duction of the Gregorian calendar in 1752.
Other, non-Christian cultures observe both the commencement and length of years on other bases, typically lunar as in the case of Muslim and Jewish calendars. In India, the traditional year was adapted to march with the Gregorian calendar in 1957, with the Indian New Year’s Day, 1 Chaitra 1879 Saka, coinciding with 22 March of that
All of which simply go that what we choose to call New Year’s Day has far from universal acceptance, is of relatively recent origin and has no astronomical significance.
A second point to be noted is that our slavish following of Euro/American forms means that in the Southern Hemisphere we are making whoopee at the decline of the Sun, the decay of the year and the inevitability of winter to come. This anachronism is further underscored by the retention of those wholly inappropriate symbols ludi­crously plastered over almost every shop widow—the artificial holly and polystyrene snow—to say nothing of the serried ranks of Santa Clauses sweating on the verge of heatstroke. It is thus, within a week of midsummer’s day, we ape the manners and customs of high latitude societies in the Northern Hemisphere. Who is in need of decolonisation?
If time and relevance may be questioned then what about place? Where are we to stand should we choose to be amongst the first to see sunrise on January 1, or for that matter December 25?
Our calendar and civil time are based on those of Greenwich. Since New Zealand is half way around the world east of Greenwich meridian, our clocks must show 12 hours fast, for we see the Sun over the yardarm half a day ahead of the residents of Greenwich. However, if you travel yet further east you do not gain more time, for you cross the International Date Line and “lose” a whole day, becoming 12 hours behind GMT.
Were we not to observe this convention, then as you travelled eastwards from Greenwich, continu­ously advancing your watch to agree with local time, on arrival back in London you would be 24 hours, or one day, ahead of the stay-at-homes. This was, of course, the twist at the end of Jules Verne’s Around the World in Eighty Days which enabled Phileas Fogg to snatch victory with minutes to spare, for by his diary he had been nearly eighty-one days on his circum­navigation, while the members of his club were still anxiously waiting for the eightieth to close—and their wager to be won.
Now although the International Date Line is set on Longitude 180° East, it deviates from that meridian in a number of places so as to avoid an arbitrary bisection of those societies and states which would otherwise be divided by the line, something which would be both confusing and incon­venient. It is for this reason that the Chathams march to the same drum as the rest of us, and the people of the Kingdom of Tonga are enabled to agree as to the day’s date.
A glaring exception to the rule of national uniformity of date has been, until lately, the Republic of Kiribati, which comprises, in the west, Banaba (Ocean Island), 169° 33′ E, the Gilbert, Phoenix and Line Islands, at the extreme east of which is Caroline Island, 150° 12′ W. This scatter of islands over 40° of longitude was divided by the International Date Line, which ran between the Gilberts and the Phoenix Group.
In 1994, the Republic of Kiribati made the decision that all of its territories should keep the same date, for all that they continue to observe the appropriate zone times. Thus, as of January 1, 1995, the date line was deemed to be redrawn so as to include all the islands of Kiribati in the eastern hemisphere. From that date the zone time of Caroline Island became +14 hours rather than -10 hours, so now, when it is Tuesday noon at Bairiki, it is Tuesday 2 P.M. on Caroline rather than, as it has been, Monday 2 P.M.
Thus Caroline Island is now in pole position in the race for “first light,” even though January 1 falls near the southern summer solstice.
To determine the time of sunrise, one needs to plot the dawn terminator, the line between night and day. At the equinoxes (March 21 and September 23) the dawn terminator coincides with a meridian (a line of longi­tude), for it is on those two dates that the great circle of the terminator can coincide with a great circle through the poles, as shown in the diagram. On these days, observers standing anywhere on the meridian will see dawn break at the same time. At all other times, because of the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the plane of its orbit about the Sun (the “obliquity of the ecliptic”), the terminator makes an angle with the meridians.
At the solstices, places north and south of latitude ± 66° 34′, (90° minus 23° 26’—the angle of the Earth’s tilt) will have either a 24-hour night or a 24-hour day. In January, the Sun does not dip below the Antarctic horizon, while in the Arctic the infamous Polar Night foreshadows the death of the Cosmos.
So, where to stand to see the Sun first, either in 1996 or on the first day of the new millennium? Caroline Island wins by a clear 16 minutes over the Chathams, but it is not an easy place to visit. Only occasionally inhabited, and difficult of access, it may require a protracted stay. The Pacific Pilot Vol. III notes that there is only a single narrow passage through the reef, and some slick seamanship is needed, as at the landward end the channel is obstructed by a large coral head, and is impassable in adverse winds.
At the other extreme is Cape Goodenough, on the Antarctic coast, longitude 124° 20′ E, where, in the absence of cloud cover and abnormal refraction, you will be able to see the upper limb of the Sun just peep above the sea horizon on January 1 at 00h.
Clearly, for devotees of the first light, Caroline Island is the location of choice, for it has a cast iron claim to greet the Sun first on January 1, or indeed any other day of the year. However, for those whose interest is more social than phenomenological, then maybe the summit of Pipitawarai on the Chathams—complete with napery, the superb local kaimoana and that most politically incorrect of drinks in its specially shaped glass—is to be preferred.
But surely all this is beside the point; for us, January 1 remains an observance of forms and superstitions of an alien culture, an attention to appearances rather than the underlying reality. The fact is that on June 21, 1996, at NZST 14h 23m 45s, our winter solstice occurs—falling nicely within the span of a protracted celebratory lunch which, with care, can usefully be extended into a convivial evening.
What excuse will it be that calls you away from the workplace? A sudden bereavement? An acute migraine? Or urgent atten­tion at your friend Bunbury’s sickbed?
A New Zealand film has been submitted as a contender for best foreign language film at the Academy Awards for the very first time.
The Orator (O le Tulafale) is written and directed by Wellington man Tusi Tamasese, and will be put forward in the best foreign language film category at the 84th Academy Awards in Hollywood.
Filmed entirely in Samoan, the movie was funded by the New Zealand Film Commission and was chosen by a special selection committee that included award-winning director Sir Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and actress Keisha Castle-Hughes.
A shortlist will be released just before the awards date - February 28, 2012 - before public votes will decide whether it is put up fornomination.
Film commission chief executive Graeme Mason said the fact that it was the first time a film from New Zealand had been put up for this category was an achievement in itself.
"It's fantastic for the film and fantastic for New Zealand also, as it keeps the world looking at us in terms of what we put out on film."
Set in Samoa, the story follows a man named Saili - meaning "in search of" - who is a little person. He is forced to overcome his fears, in a society that literally looks down at him, in order to defend his land and family.
A Kiwi film crew travelled to the islands and called on locals with no acting experience to be part of the cast, which also includes a number of Kiwi actors such as Tausili Pushparaj, who plays wife Vaaiga.
The film has already had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival and premiered in New Zealand and Samoa at the weekend.
The Panasonic Jaguar Racing driver had DNFs in both races across the weekend at the penultimate round of his and the team's rookie season in the Formula E category.
Evans' Jaguar teammate Adam Carroll bagged a solitary point in yesterday's race by finishing 10th but was outside the points today.