text:
Nova Luzitânia

Nova Luzitânia (Portuguese for "New Lusitania") is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 4,160 (2020 est.) in an area of 73.82 km2. The elevation is 420 m.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Companhia de Telecomunicações do Estado de São Paulo until 1975, when it began to be served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012.

The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Nova Luzitânia


text:
Nova Odessa

Nova Odessa (literally "New Odesa") is a Brazilian municipality in the state of São Paulo. It is part of the Metropolitan Region of Campinas. The population is 60,956 (2020 est.) in an area of 73.79 km2. Nova Odessa was founded on May 24, 1905, by Carlos José de Arruda Botelho, Secretary of Agriculture of the state of São Paulo, and then settled by Ukrainians and Latvians.

Its name is due to a visit Carlos Botelho made to the city of Odesa, Ukraine, from where he brought the style of its streets, and not because the first settlers were from there (as they were not).

History
In the early 20th century, the area of present-day Nova Odessa was classified as an uninhabited land suitable for farming. On May 24, 1905, the Brazilian government founded Nova Odessa as a "Núcleo Colonial" (the "Colonial Nuclei" were agricultural areas to where the Brazilian government wished to attract European immigrants in large-scale).

The first settlers to arrive in the area were immigrants from Ukraine, but, not adapting to agriculture (one of the pointed reasons for this is that they were not farmers originally), most of them soon abandoned the colony and moved to larger Brazilian cities. In late 1905, only a few Ukrainian families had remained in the nucleus. Determined to consolidate the colony, the Brazilian government sent João Gutmann to Riga, capital of Latvia, with the goal of attracting farmers to the colony. In 1906, the place received the first settlers from Latvia, that were the responsible for the consolidation of the colony. Later, other Brazilian immigration agents were sent to Latvia and succeeded in attracting more families.

Culture
The city maintains or supports directly in several ways a wide range of departments, programs, groups and cultural institutions. Those include the Municipal Public Library (Biblioteca Pública Municipal Professor Antônio Fernandes Gonçalves) —that has a section of books in the Latvian language. Although the city later received many people from other ethnicities, the Latvian Culture is still very noticeable and there are plans for the creation of a Center of Latvian Culture (Centro de Cultura Leta) there.

Economy
The economy is based on industry, mainly textiles. The city's GDP went from R$373 million in 1999 to R$1.6 billion in 2009. With its per capita value reaching R$32,862 (2009 data) —double the national average.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012. The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

Climate
The city has a highland tropical climate, semi-humid with dry winters.

Religion
Christianity is present in the city as follows:

Catholic Church
The Catholic church in the municipality is part of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limeira.

Protestant Church
The most diverse evangelical beliefs are present in the city, mainly Pentecostal, including the Assemblies of God in Brazil (the largest evangelical church in the country), Christian Congregation in Brazil, among others. These denominations are growing more and more throughout Brazil.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Nova Odessa


text: User talk:64.213.56.17

title: User talk:64.213.56.17


text:
User:MCiura

See http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Mciura

title: User:MCiura


text:
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights

The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights or Al Mezan (ميزان) is a non-governmental organization based in the Palestinian Jabalia refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Its declared goals are: To promote and protect human rights in the OPT and especially in the Gaza Strip with a focus on economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR); to work towards the realization of Palestinians’ individual and collective human rights, including the right to self-determination through the channels of international law; to enhance democracy and citizen participation in the OPT and press towards good governance that respects human rights. The organization has a special consultative status in the United Nations.

Name
Mezan (ميزان) is Arabic for balance or scales, as well as justice and equity.

Activities
The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights states it is dedicated to securing a permanent foundation for the protection of human rights in the Gaza Strip. Although it claims its long-term aim is to foster development of full economic, social, and cultural rights, during the current heightened conflict between Israelis and Palestinians the Al Mezan Center has focused on what it alleges are accelerating violations of basic civil rights and human rights, primarily by the Israeli Defense Forces.

In the role of human rights monitor, the Al Mezan Center documents alleged human rights violations, such as disproportionate military attacks on civilian areas that result in widespread civilian casualties, the practice of imprisonment without trial, political assassination, and official policies condoning brutality and torture that undermine development of civil society. The center also provides legal aid, advocacy, and capacity-building services and resources and conducts educational activities to raise awareness in the local community about basic human rights, democracy, and the importance of international humanitarian relief.

Funding
The organization's core donors are:
 * Netherlands Representative Office
 * Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
 * Kerkinactie/ Global Ministries
 * International Commission of Jurists- Sweden

Individual project donors are:
 * Mertz Gilmore Foundation
 * The French Consulate (funded the library in 2002–2003)
 * The Ford Foundation

Affiliations
The organization is a member of the following networks and committees:
 * Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Network (ESCR Network)
 * Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations Network (PNGO)
 * Coalition for Accountability and Integrity
 * Middle East and North Africa Network to Stop the Use of Children as soldiers
 * Habitat International Coalition – Housing and Land Rights Network
 * MENA Network to Stop the Proliferation and Misuse of Small Arms & Light Weapons

Reports of the center
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights issued a report about the Gaza Strip condemning Israel's violations against the fishermen in Gaza Sea. On 21 February 2017, Israeli naval forces opened gunfire at a Palestinian fishing boat off the coast of Al Waha, North Gaza. As a consequence, one of the fishermen, Mohammed Bakr, was shot in the back; the five fishermen on board were then withdrawn to an unknown location and their boat was confiscated. They are residents of Al-Shate' refugee camp and are identified as: Mohammed Omran Sabri Bakr, 23; Abdullah Sabri Bakr, 19; Mahmoud Sabri Bakr, 17; Omar Mohammed Najeeb Bakr, 25; and Thabet Mohammed Bakr, 21. But before detaining them for nearly 24 hours, the Israeli forces forced them to strip their clothes and jump into the water to swim to arrest at the navy vessel – though the weather was very cold. In spite of Mohammed's injury in his hand, he was forced to do as the others were doing. While they were on board the navy vessel, Mohammed was handcuffed, blindfolded and struck with a rifle butt. As the report mentioned, the 1993 Oslo Accords declared that a permitted fishing zone for fishermen in Gaza reaches to 20 nautical miles (nm); however, it was reduced to 12 nm by 2002 and to 6 nm by 2006. During the recent years, it has sometimes been decreased to three nm since Gaza has been considered as an enemy entity for Israel. According to the report, since 2000, the Israeli forces have killed six fishermen, injured 115, detained 613 fishermen and seized 146 boats and pieces of equipment, which resulted in deterioration in the Palestinian fishing sector on addition to thousands of jobs linked to this sector. Within the fishermen's syndicate 3,600 fishermen are registered; but less than 1,500 of these fishermen are active within their profession, so all their members have lived below the poverty line, as clarified in the report.

title: Al Mezan Center for Human Rights


text:
Novais

Novais may refer to:

People

 * Abílio Novais (born 1967), Portuguese football player and manager
 * João Novais (born 1993), Portuguese footballer
 * Paulo Dias de Novais (c.1510–1589), Portuguese explorer and colonial administrator
 * Walace de Sousa Novais (born 1993), Brazilian footballer
 * Nelson Novais (born 1988), Portuguese Engineer, and Mosano cofounder

Places

 * Novais, Brazil, São Paulo, Brazil
 * Novais, Portugal, a parish in the municipality of Vila Nova de Famalicão

title: Novais


text:
Danny Goodman

Danny Goodman is a computer programmer, technology consultant, and an author of over three dozen books and hundreds of magazine articles on computer-related topics. He is best known as the author of The Complete HyperCard Handbook (1987, Bantam Books, 650,000 copies in print), The JavaScript Bible (1996, IDG Books, 500,000 copies in print), and Dynamic HTML (1998, O'Reilly & Associates, 100,000 copies in print). His The Complete AppleScript Handbook (1993, Random House) is also notable as an important early work on the AppleScript programming language.

Goodman began writing about electronics and computers in the late 1970s, and became a full-time author in 1981. In 1987, the first edition of the highly acclaimed The Complete HyperCard Handbook was published. This influential work was once cited as being "the best selling Macintosh book and fastest selling computer book in history".

Having received critical acclaim with his Macintosh-related works, especially on scripting via HyperCard and AppleScript, he turned his attention to the new scripting language of the Internet, JavaScript, and related technologies such as HTML and Cascading Style Sheets. His articles on the websites of Netscape, Apple Computer, and O'Reilly Media have been popular and noted for being accessible to both experts and non-professionals. In particular, his better known works have covered important techniques for achieving compatible cross-browser scripting solutions, dealing with the many differences of the major browsers Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari and others; as well as discussing cross-platform issues involving the Macintosh, Windows, and Unix environments.

Goodman has written a few apps for the iPhone, namely iFeltThat (earthquake maps) and BeaconAid-HF (for radio frequency monitoring).

Goodman was born in Chicago, Illinois, and moved to San Francisco in 1983. He has a BA and M.A. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in Classical Antiquity.

Awards

 * Computer Press Association Book Awards:
 * Best Product Specific Book (1987): The Complete HyperCard Handbook (1987, Bantam Books)
 * Best Product Specific Book (1988): Danny Goodman's HyperCard Developer's Guide (1988, Bantam Books)
 * Best Introductory How-To Book, Systems (1992): Danny Goodman's Macintosh Handbook (1992, Bantam Books)
 * Software Publishers Association Awards:
 * Best Utility (1987): Focal Point (1987, Activision)
 * Best Add-On (1987): Focal Point (1987, Activision)
 * Best User Interface (1987): Business Class (1987, Activision)

title: Danny Goodman


text:
Novais, São Paulo

Novais is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 5,945 (2020 est.) in an area of 118 km². The elevation is 555 m.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012. The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Novais, São Paulo


text:
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) (, et seq.) is a United States federal law that prohibits U.S. citizens and entities from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their business interests.

The FCPA is applicable worldwide and extends specifically to publicly traded companies and their personnel, including officers, directors, employees, shareholders, and agents. Following amendments made in 1998, the Act also applies to foreign firms and persons who, either directly or through intermediaries, help facilitate or carry out corrupt payments in U.S. territory.

Pursuant to its anti-bribery purpose, the FCPA amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require all companies with securities listed in the U.S. to meet certain accounting provisions, such as ensuring accurate and transparent financial records and maintaining internal accounting controls.

The FCPA is jointly enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which apply criminal and civil penalties respectively.

Since its passage, the FCPA has been subject to controversy and criticism, namely whether its enforcement discourages U.S. companies from investing abroad. The Act was subsequently amended in 1988 to raise the standard of proof for a finding of bribery.

Provisions and scope
The core aim of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is to prohibit companies and their individual officers from influencing foreign officials with any personal payments or rewards. The FCPA applies to any person who has a certain degree of connection to the United States and engages in corrupt practices abroad, as well as to U.S. businesses, foreign corporations trading securities in the U.S., American nationals, citizens, and residents acting in furtherance of a foreign corrupt practice, whether or not they are physically present in the U.S. This is considered the nationality principle of the Act. Any individuals involved in these activities may face prison time. In the 1992 case US v. Liebo, the DOJ filed a case against the vice president in charge of the Aerospace division of Napco International Inc. for violations in accordance with the FCPA. After pleading guilty, Liebo was sentenced to a term of 18 months for the offense violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.

The FCPA also extends to foreign companies and individuals who engage in corrupt practices while in the United States, even if the actual bribery occurs outside the country. This extraterritorial reach is based on the principle of territorial jurisdiction. For example, in 2013, French oil and gas company Total S.A. agreed to pay a $245.2 million penalty to settle FCPA charges related to bribes paid to an Iranian official to obtain oil and gas concessions. Although the bribery scheme occurred entirely outside the United States, the SEC and DOJ asserted jurisdiction because Total had registered securities with the SEC and made corrupt payments through U.S. banks.

In the case of foreign natural and legal persons, the Act covers their deeds if they are in the U.S. at the time of the corrupt conduct. This is considered the protective principle of the Act. Moreover, the FCPA governs not only direct payments to foreign officials, candidates, and parties, but payments made to any other recipient in furtherance of influencing a foreign official, candidate, or party. These payments are not restricted to monetary forms and may include anything of value. This is considered the territoriality principle of the act.

The FCPA's prohibition on bribes extends beyond simple monetary payments. The act defines bribes as "anything of value," which encompasses a wide range of tangible and intangible benefits. This can include gifts, travel expenses, entertainment, job/internship offers, scholarships, and charitable donations. For example, in 2012, Eli Lilly and Company, a U.S. pharmaceutical firm, settled an FCPA case involving improper payments made through its subsidiaries to foreign officials in Russia, Brazil, China, and Poland. The bribes included gifts, travel, and entertainment expenses, such as spa treatments, jewelry, and a trip to the 2006 World Cup. Lilly agreed to pay disgorgement of $13,955,196, prejudgment interest of $6,743,538, and a penalty of $8.7 million for a total payment of $29,398,734. This case demonstrates the wide range of benefits that can be considered bribes under the FCPA and the importance of robust due diligence and compliance programs to prevent and detect such violations.

The FCPA is subject to ongoing scholarly and congressional debate regarding its effects on international commerce. Scholars have found that its enforcement discourages U.S. firms from investing in foreign markets. This coincides with the well established observation that companies engaging in mergers and acquisitions in emerging markets face a uniquely increased level of regulatory and corruption risk.

Persons subject to the FCPA

 * Issuers
 * The term "issuer" is used to describe any U.S. or foreign corporation that has a class of securities registered, or that is required to file reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1)

 * Domestic concerns
 * Refers to any individual who is a citizen, national, or resident of the U.S. and any business entity organized under the laws of the U.S. or one of its states, or having its principal place of business in the U.S. (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2)

 * Any legal person
 * Covers both enterprises and individuals (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3)

History
In 1975 and 1976, American public life was shaken by dozens of scandals involving bribery of foreign officials by prominent American companies. These disclosures, driven by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions and high-profile public hearings by the Church Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations, made headlines for months causing serious problems for foreign leaders important to the United States. Some of the most sensational disclosures involved corrupt payments by Northrop, Lockheed, United Brands, Gulf Oil, and Mobil in Saudi Arabia, Japan, Honduras, Korea, Italy, and the Netherlands. The headlines were punctuated by suicides of corporate executives and foreign officials. One CEO [chief executive officer] jumped out a window. A European dignitary stepped in front of a streetcar.

Investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in the mid-1970s revealed that over 400 U.S. companies admitted making questionable or illegal payments in excess of $300 million to foreign government officials, politicians, and political parties. The abuses ran the gamut from bribery of high foreign officials to secure some type of favorable action by a foreign government, to so-called facilitating payments that were made to ensure that government functionaries discharged certain ministerial or clerical duties. If the official has no choice but to bribe, and bribery is legal in the country, bribing is seen as necessary for "greasing the wheels", i.e. facilitating the conduct of business. Among the major examples of such practices were the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which officials of aerospace company Lockheed paid foreign officials in several countries to favor their company's products, and the Bananagate scandal, in which Chiquita Brands bribed the President of Honduras for more favorable government policies.

While primarily a domestic scandal, Watergate also had international implications. Investigations revealed that slush funds used for political espionage against the Democrats were also used for bribing foreign officials. This linkage highlighted the pervasive nature of corruption in U.S. businesses and politics. These scandals notably involved substantial bribes paid to foreign officials to secure business advantages overseas, profoundly damaging the reputation of American businesses and, by extension, the U.S. government. This period highlighted a serious need for legislative action to address these corrupt practices. Investigations revealed that President Richard Nixon's reelection campaign, and other corporate entities, utilized funds for illicit purposes, including international bribery. This series of events not only led to President Nixon's resignation but also propelled a national and legislative push towards greater transparency and ethics in both domestic and international business dealings.

In response to these high-profile revelations, Congress enacted the FCPA to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system. The Act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on December 19, 1977. The enactment of the FCPA was a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as it marked the first significant effort to legally prohibit the bribery of foreign officials. It set a standard for moral leadership and integrity in international commerce, underscoring the importance of honest business practices in fostering stable and fair global markets. The first criminal enforcement action under the Act was against Finbar Kenny. Kenny had advanced Sir Albert Henry, Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, $337,000 from postage stamp revenue for Henry's re-election campaign. In 1979, Kenny became the first American to plead guilty of violating the FCPA and was fined $50,000.

Amendments
The Act was first amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, where Title V is known as the "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Amendments of 1988". It introduced a "knowing" standard in order to find violations of the Act, encompassing "conscious disregard" and "willful blindness." Other amendments were for "bona fide", "reasonable" and lawful gifts under the laws of the foreign country. This meant that individuals and companies could be held liable for corrupt practices if they purposefully ignored the facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that bribery was likely to occur. The amendments clarified that certain types of payments or gifts that are bona fide, reasonable, and lawful under the laws of the foreign country do not constitute an offense under the FCPA. This was important for U.S. businesses engaging in international operations where cultural norms often include gift-giving as a part of business etiquette.

The second amendment to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), known as the International Anti-Bribery Act of 1998, was a significant development aimed at enhancing the United States' commitment to combating global corruption. This amendment was designed to implement the provisions of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which sought to create a unified international approach to fighting bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. One of the primary changes introduced by the 1998 amendment was the extension of the FCPA's jurisdiction to include certain foreign persons and entities. This meant that not only U.S. citizens and companies but also certain non-U.S. persons and companies acting in furtherance of a corrupt payment while in U.S. territory could be held accountable under the FCPA. This included making it a criminal offense to bribe foreign public officials to obtain or retain business or any improper advantage in the conduct of international business. The 1998 amendments increased the penalties for violations and strengthened enforcement measures, reflecting a global trend towards stricter anti-corruption laws.

The FCPA dominated international anti-corruption enforcement from its introduction until c. 2010 when other countries began introducing broader and more robust legislation, notably the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010. The International Organization for Standardization introduced an international anti-bribery management system standard in 2016. In recent years, cooperation in enforcement action between countries has increased.

Influence
The FCPA's influence has been profound, changing how companies operate worldwide and how governments enforce against corruption. The Act not only led to heightened awareness and enforcement of anti-corruption measures in the United States but also encouraged other nations to adopt similar laws, fostering a more coordinated international approach to combating bribery and corruption.FCPA and other anti corruption laws also provided companies with increased investor confidence, allowing them to judge a companies' governing board by how ethically sound and compliant to FCPA they are and whether or not they deal and run their business in good faith. Not only did it influence companies to become more self aware of possible corruption within their companies, but it also allowed for a growth in business ethics education. There are now certifications and dedicated courses that provide students and up and coming business professionals with the necessary knowledge needed to avoid and terminate possible corruption within companies and foreign markets.

Debates Surrounding Foreign Corrupt Practices
Dealing with foreign corrupt practices has many issues in itself. It presents many conversations pertaining to the potential for political interference in an organization, jurisdiction, and political differences across capitals. International organizations may be impeded by differences in legal systems and diplomatic relations. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed in a report that while many companies supported the act and its efforts to improve corporate codes of conduct, there was also major dissatisfaction in regards to certain standards that the act had in place for financial reports. Arguing that there wasn't enough clarification about what the companies needed to report on, especially concerning money. This debate over financial reports has led to the concept of "materiality standard". Companies are arguing that this concept is not very clear in the FCPA regulations, so they want to allow more flexibility in what counts as "material".

Brystol Myers Squibb hasn't dealt with issues pertaining to materiality standards but it does play into their new measures and ensuring compliance within the act. As a multinational corporation, they deal with many financial transactions such as purchases, investments, sales, and expenses. So being able to determine if individual transactions or aggregate amounts meet the threshold of materiality.

Enforcement
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are jointly responsible for enforcing the FCPA, since it amends both an SEC Act and the criminal code. SEC enforcement applies to companies regulated by the SEC while the DOJ enforces the Act against individuals and domestic companies' entities not regulated by the SEC. However, enforcement by one agency does not preclude enforcement by the other, and on numerous occasions the DOJ and SEC have initiated enforcement actions against the same company for violations of the FCPA. In 2010 the SEC created a specialized unit for FCPA enforcement. In 2012, the SEC and the DOJ issued their first joint guide to the FCPA, the second edition of this guide was published in 2020.

Imprisonment for FCPA violations is relatively uncommon, yet when it does occur, the sentences, which can include imprisonment or house arrest, typically average around 30 months. Additionally, FCPA-related investigations are often lengthy, with an average duration of approximately 39 months from initiation to conclusion, according to a study by Stanford University.

In recent years, the SEC and DOJ have increasingly focused on individual accountability in FCPA enforcement actions. In 2015, the DOJ announced the "Yates Memo," which prioritized the prosecution of individuals involved in corporate misconduct, including FCPA violations. This policy shift has led to several high-profile cases against executives. In 2019, the former head of Alstom's subsidiary in Indonesia was sentenced to 15 months in prison for his role in a bribery scheme to secure a $118 million power plant contract. The prosecution of individuals serves as a strong deterrent and underscores the personal risks associated with FCPA violations.

Enforcement of the FCPA continues to improve, allowing for more companies to be held accountable and scrutinized for deals that they make within markets that are known for having a high threat of corruption and bribery. As anti corruption laws continue being improved, more companies within outside traditional branches are being held accountable for possible FCPA breaches within their businesses. As the world becomes more intertwined and connected, anti corruption laws continue to be enforced regardless of what business you may be in, in order to create a more fair and less impartial business realm that promotes equality and fair opportunity.

Requirements
The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA make it unlawful for a U.S. person, and certain foreign issuers of securities, to make a payment to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person. Since the 1998 Amendment of FCPA they also apply to foreign firms and persons who take any act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment while in the U.S. the meaning of foreign official is broad. For example, an owner of a bank who is also the minister of finance would count as a foreign official according to the U.S. government. Doctors at government-owned or managed hospitals are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA, as is anyone working for a government-owned or managed institution or enterprise. Employees of international organizations such as the United Nations are also considered to be foreign officials under the FCPA. A 2014 federal appellate court decision has provided guidance on how the term "foreign official" is defined under FCPA. The 1998 amendment to the FCPA applies to all U.S territories as well with this amendment in turn expanding the jurisdiction of the law to include anyone that is related to the United States and deals in business or foreign affairs.

Because the Act concerns the intent of the bribery rather than the amount, there is no requirement of materiality. Offering anything of value as a bribe, whether cash or non-cash items, is prohibited. This can even include paying for travel for foreign government officials, when it considered "excessive."

The FCPA also requires companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to meet its accounting provisions. These accounting provisions operate in tandem with the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA and require respective corporations to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. It would prevent corporations from knowingly altering these money-keeping records that they utilize for their business. While an increasing number of corporations are taking additional steps to protect their reputation and reduce their exposure by employing the services of due diligence companies tasked with vetting third party intermediaries and identifying easily overlooked government officials embedded in otherwise privately held foreign firms. These foreign companies would be subject to FCPA regulations if they are a part of the U.S. stock market and make payments or file reports of those payments to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. That is when these foreign companies will also be subject to FCPA allegations. Companies would still be under hefty legal repercussions from the FCPA even if there is no money involved as bribes under the FCPA definition can also be considered with anything that has value so examples include watches, cars, houses, and even stocks or bonds.

Regarding payments to foreign officials, the act draws a distinction between bribery and facilitation or "grease payments", which may be permissible under the FCPA, but may still violate local laws. The primary distinction is that grease payments or facilitation payments are made to an official to expedite his performance of the routine duties he is already bound to perform. The exception focuses on the purpose of the payment rather than on its value. Payments to foreign officials may be legal under the FCPA if the payments are permitted under the written laws of the host country. Certain payments or reimbursements relating to product promotion may also be permitted under the FCPA.

A U.S. company acquiring a foreign firm could face successor liability for FCPA violations committed by the foreign firm prior to being acquired. Generally, acquiring companies may be liable as a successor for pre-existing FCPA violations committed by an acquired company where those violations were subject to the FCPA's jurisdiction when committed. This position was further confirmed by the DOJ in a 2014 opinion stating that pre-acquisition conduct by a foreign target company without a jurisdictional nexus to the U.S. would not be subject to FCPA enforcement.

Anti-bribery/anti-corruption (ABAC) solutions
Businesses increasingly focus on their core competencies, and as a result engage more third parties to provide critical business functions. Companies do not have direct control over their third-party providers, which expose them to regulatory and reputational risk of FCPA violations by those third parties. Under the FCPA, businesses are accountable for activities involving both their internal and external relationships. Companies that operate internationally, or that engage third parties in countries with a high Corruption Perceptions Index, are especially at risk. Many companies have now adopted "anti-bribery/anti-corruption" (ABAC) solutions to combat this risk and help protect themselves from fines and reputational damage.

In April 2013, The Ralph Lauren Corporation paid off $882,000 to the U.S Securities and Exchange commission due to the penalty they received from violating the FCPA. This violation came from an Argentinian subsidiary manager who was paying off officials at customs to have Ralph Lauren merch snuck into the country. Ralph Lauren did not have any form of serious FCPA training before this incident as they had never encountered or had issues with corruption beforehand. The company then pledged to increase their due diligence on the matter as they sought to work with the U.S Department Of Justice about their book keeping and make sure that all of their employees are properly trained on matters pertaining to the FCPA and foreign business.

ABAC compliance solutions are a subset of third party management. These systems can automatically manage third party information and monitor their ongoing activities in compliance with FCPA regulation.

Application
Stronger DOJ and SEC enforcement has increased the prominence of the FCPA from 2010 onwards. The SEC website shows a complete list of enforcement cases since 1978. Notable select cases of the application of FCPA since 2008 are with ALCOA, Biomet, Bizjet, Hewlett Packard Company, KBR, Marubeni Corporation, News Corporation, Siemens, Smith & Nephew and Walmart de Mexico as follows:

In 2008, Siemens AG paid $450 million in criminal fines to the DOJ and $350 million to the SEC for violating the FCPA. This is one of the largest penalties ever collected for an FCPA case.

In 2012, Japanese firm Marubeni Corporation paid a criminal penalty of US$54.6 million for FCPA violations when acting as an agent of the TKSJ joint venture, which comprised Technip, Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V., Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., and JGC Corporation. Between 1995 and 2004, the joint venture won four contracts in Nigeria worth more than US$6 billion, as a direct result of having paid US$51 million to Marubeni to be used to bribe Nigerian government officials.

In 2012 Smith & Nephew paid US$22.2 million to the DOJ and SEC, and Bizjet International Sales and Support Inc. paid US$11.8 million to the DOJ for bribery of foreign government officials. Both companies entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.

In March 2012, Biomet Inc. paid a criminal fine of US$17.3 million to resolve charges of FCPA violations and US$5.5 million in disgorgement of profits and pre-judgment interest to the SEC.

In January 2014, ALCOA paid $175 million in disgorgement of revenues and a fine of $209 million to settle charges that its Australian bauxite mining subsidiary retained an agent that made bribes to government officials in Bahrain and to officers of Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C. to secure long-term contracts to supply the company with bauxite ore.

In March 2014, Marubeni Corporation agreed with the DOJ to pay a US$88 million fine after pleading guilty to taking part in a scheme to pay bribes to high-ranking Indonesian officials in order to secure a lucrative power project.

In July 2014, Alstom pleaded guilty of violating the FCPA and reached a settlement with U.S. authorities to resolve the FCPA violation charges. The charges involved bribery and corruption in various countries, including Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others As part of the settlement, Alstom agreed to pay a total of $772 million in fines.

On February 24, 2015, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company "Goodyear" agreed to pay more than $16 million to settle FCPA charges that two of its African subsidiaries allegedly paid $3.2 million in bribes that generated $14,122,535 in illicit profits. The SEC FCPA charges involved Goodyear subsidiaries in Kenya and Angola for allegedly paying bribes to government and private-sector workers in exchange for sales in each country. According to the SEC because "Goodyear did not prevent or detect these improper payments because it failed to implement adequate FCPA compliance controls at its subsidiaries" and, for the Kenyan subsidiary, "because it failed to conduct adequate due diligence" prior to its acquisition. It was not alleged that Goodyear had any involvement with or knowledge of its subsidiaries' improper conduct.

In February 2016, VEON Ltd. (formerly VimpelCom Ltd.) agreed to pay a total of $795 million to the DOJ and the SEC to resolve charges of FCPA violations, making it one of the largest FCPA settlements at the time. The charges involve allegations of paying bribes to government officials in Uzbekistan to secure business advantages and obtain operating licenses in the country's telecommunications sector.

In September 2016, Sculptor Capital Management (formerly Och-Ziff Capital Management Group) agreed to pay a total of $412 million to the U.S. DOJ and the SEC to resolve charges of FCPA violations. The company went through a several year investigation into violations of the FCPA for allegedly paying bribes to government officials in several African nations.

In July 2017, Ng Lap Seng, a Macau-based Chinese billionaire real estate businessman, chairman of the Sun Kian Ip Group (新建业集团), and a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), was convicted after a five-week trial of two counts of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, one count of paying bribes and gratuities, one count of money laundering and two counts of conspiracy. In 2018 Ng Lap Seng was sentenced to 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release for his role in a scheme to bribe United Nations ambassadors to obtain support to build a conference center in Macau that would host, among other events, the annual United Nations Global South-South Development Expo (GSSD Expo) organised by the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC), then headed by Chinese national Yiping Zhou.

Charges
In 2009, former U.S. House Representative William J. Jefferson was charged with violating the FCPA by bribing African governments for business interests. In 2010 the DOJ and the SEC were investigating whether Hewlett Packard Company executives paid about $10.9 million in bribery money between 2004 and 2006 to the Prosecutor General of Russia "to win a €35 million contract to supply computer equipment throughout Russia." On September 11, 2014, HP Russia pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge D. Lowell Jensen of the Northern District of California to conspiracy and substantive violations of the anti-bribery and accounting provisions of the FCPA. The court sentenced HP Russia to pay a $58,772,250 fine.

In July 2011, the DOJ opened an inquiry into the News International phone hacking scandal that brought down News of the World, the recently closed UK tabloid newspaper. In cooperation with the Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom), the DOJ was to examine whether News Corporation violated the FCPA by bribing Metropolitan police officers. Nine police officers were convicted including a senior officer in the Met counter-terrorism command, Det Ch Insp April Casburn, former Met anti-terrorism officer Timothy Edwards, former police officer Simon Quinn, former Met officer Paul Flattley and Scott Chapman, an ex-prison officer.

An April 2012 article in the New York Times reported that a former executive of Walmart de México y Centroamérica alleged in September 2005 that Walmart de Mexico had paid bribes to officials throughout Mexico in order to obtain construction permits, that Walmart investigators found credible evidence that Mexican and American laws had been broken, and that Walmart executives in the U.S. "hushed up" the allegations. According to an article in Bloomberg, Wal-Mart's "probe of possible bribery in Mexico may prompt executive departures and steep U.S. government fines if it reveals senior managers knew about the payments and didn't take strong enough action, corporate governance experts said." Eduardo Bohorquez, the director of Transparencia Mexicana, a "watchdog" group in Mexico, urged the Mexican government to investigate the allegations. Wal-Mart and the US Chamber of Commerce had participated in a campaign to amend FCPA; according to proponents, the changes would clarify the law, while according to opponents, the changes would weaken the law.

In March 2014, Austrian authorities arrested Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian businessman who heads the board of directors of Group DF, after a judge in Virginia issued a warrant for his arrest on bribery and other charges. Firtash was released on bail of €125 million, making it the largest in Austrian history. In April 2014, a U.S. grand jury in Chicago formally charged Firtash and five others with violations of the FCPA, including charges such as bribery and money laundering.

In June 2015, Joseph Sigelman, American businessman and former CEO of OfficeTiger, pleaded guilty to FCPA violations as part of a plea agreement with the DOJ. The charges involved allegations of paying bribes to government officials in Colombia to secure business advantages and obtain oil contracts. Sigelman was fined $100,000, concluding the proceedings.

In October 2015, the SEC settled charges against the New York-based pharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb related to its Chinese joint venture. The charges included making unlawful payments and providing other benefits to healthcare providers in state-controlled hospitals to boost prescription sales. From 2009 to 2014, BMS China, a majority owned venture of BMS, engaged in practices such as giving cash, gifts, meals, and sponsoring travel and conferences to secure business, which were improperly recorded as legitimate expenses. The misconduct resulted in over $11 million in profits, for which the fines BMS was ordered to pay were just north of $14 million in total judgement. BMS agreed to return $11.4 million in profits, $500,000 in prejudgment interest, and a $2.75 million penalty. They were additionally required to report on their FCPA compliance for a two-year period.

Other cases are with Avon Products, Invision Technologies, BAE Systems, Baker Hughes, Daimler AG, Monsanto, Halliburton, Titan Corporation, Triton Energy Limited, Lucent Technologies.

Exception
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) makes an exception for payments referred to as "grease" or facilitation payments. These payments are made to accelerate or secure routine government acts, such as acquiring permits, processing visas, or providing police protection. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) states that such gifts must be nominal and not intended to illegally influence government officials. Similarly, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) highlights the need of making limited greasing payments to non-discretionary officials for non-discretionary acts.

However, distinguishing between legitimate grease contributions and criminal bribes might be difficult. This assessment is made after considering factors such as the amount, frequency, and purpose of the payment, as well as the level of the foreign official concerned. Furthermore, the outcome of the transaction or litigation for which the payment was made may affect its legality under the FCPA.

Despite efforts to provide advice, the distinction between grease payments and bribes remains a source of contention in FCPA enforcement, with legal experts and practitioners continuing to argue and interpret it.

title: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act


text:
Francisco de Almeida

Dom Francisco de Almeida, also known as the Great Dom Francisco (c. 1450 – 1 March 1510), was a Portuguese nobleman, soldier and explorer. He distinguished himself as a counsellor to King John II of Portugal and later in the wars against the Moors and in the conquest of Granada in 1492. In 1505 he was appointed as the first governor and viceroy of the Portuguese State of India (Estado da Índia). Almeida is credited with establishing Portuguese hegemony in the Indian Ocean with his victory at the naval Battle of Diu in 1509. Before Almeida returned to Portugal he lost his life in a conflict with indigenous people at the Cape of Good Hope in 1510. His only son Lourenço de Almeida had previously been killed in the Battle of Chaul.

Exploits as soldier
Almeida was born at Lisbon. As was customary for men in his social circle, he joined the military at an early age. In 1476 he took part in the Battle of Toro. Then he fought in conflicts in different parts of Morocco and in 1492 participated in the Christian conquest of Granada on the side of the Castilians.

Mission to the east

In 1505 King Manuel I of Portugal made Almeida, then in his mid-fifties, the first viceroy of Portuguese India (Estado da Índia). With an armada of 22 ships, including 14 carracks and 6 caravels, Almeida departed from Lisbon on 25 March 1505. The armada carried a crew of 1,500 soldiers. The flagship was the carrack São Rafael captained by Fernão Soares. The mission's primary aims were to bring the spice trade under Portuguese control, build forts along the east African and Indian coasts, further Portuguese spice trade through alliances with local chieftains, and construct trading posts.

African conquest
Almeida rounded the Cape of Good Hope and entered African coastal waters again at Sofala and the Island of Mozambique, whence they proceeded northwards to the coastal settlement of Kilwa. In July 1505 they employed 8 ships to attack and conquer the roughly 4,000-strong population of this harbour town. Because of the good harbour that the town provided, sufficient for anchoring ships of up to 500 tons, the Portuguese decided to build a fort here. For this purpose Pêro Ferreira and a crew of 80 soldiers remained in the town.

In 1505, Francisco d'Almeida arrived with eleven heavily armed ships that destroyed Kilwa, Barawa and Mombasa, a coastal port further north. The city with a population of about 10,000 was conquered in heavy combat against the troops of the local Arab sheikh. The city was plundered and torched. The Portuguese were assisted in this attack by an enemy of Mombasa, the Sultan of Melinde. The same month a caravel of Almeida's fleet captained by John (João) Homere captured Zanzibar island and claimed it for Portugal.

Viceroy in India
On 25 March 1505, Francisco de Almeida was appointed as Viceroy of India, on the condition that he would set up four forts on the southwestern Indian coast: at Anjediva Island, Cannanore, Cochin and Quilon. Francisco de Almeida left Portugal with a fleet of 22 vessels with 1,500 men.

On 13 September, Francisco de Almeida reached Anjediva Island, where he immediately started the construction of Fort Anjediva. On 23 October, he started, with the permission of the friendly ruler Kōlattiri, the building of St. Angelo Fort in Cannanore, leaving Lourenço de Brito in charge with 150 men and two ships.

Francisco de Almeida then reached Cochin on 31 October 1505, with only eight vessels left. There he learnt that the Portuguese traders at Quilon had been killed. He decided to send his son Lourenço with 6 ships, who wantonly destroyed 27 Calicut vessels in the harbour of Quilon. Almeida took up residence in Cochin. He strengthened the Portuguese fortifications of Fort Manuel on Cochin.

The Zamorin of Calicut prepared a large fleet of 200 ships to oppose the Portuguese, but in March 1506 De Almeida's son Lourenço de Almeida intercepted Zamorin's fleet in a sea battle at the entrance to the harbour of Cannanore, the Battle of Cannanore, and inflicted heavy losses. Hereupon Lourenço de Almeida explored the coastal waters southwards to Colombo, in modern-day Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, the Zamorin succeeded in convincing the Kōlattiri of Cannanore of the true imperialistic motives of Portuguese in Kerala. The Kōlattiri was already annoyed and angered with the Portuguese for their violation of the safe conduct guaranteed to the ships of Muslim merchants of Cannanore. The Kōlattiri joined the fight against the Portuguese, besieging Fort St. Angelo at the Siege of Cannanore.

In 1507 Almeida's mission was strengthened by the arrival of Tristão da Cunha's squadron. Afonso de Albuquerque's squadron had, however, split from that of Cunha off east Africa and was independently conquering territories to the west.

In March 1508, at the request of the Arab merchants of Calicut, an Egyptian fleet under the command of Amir Husain Al-Kurdi (Mir Hussain) of the Mameluk Egyptian attacked and defeated the Portuguese squadron under command of Lourenço de Almeida at Chaul in the Battle of Chaul. Lourenço de Almeida was killed in this battle and this led to a temporary retreat by the Portuguese from Indian waters.

Afonso de Albuquerque arrived at Cannanore at the close of 1508 and immediately made known a hitherto secret commission he had received from the King empowering him as governor to replace Almeida at the end of his term as viceroy. Almeida, determined to avenge the death of his son and free the Portuguese prisoners taken at Chaul, refused to recognize Albuquerque's credentials immediately, and later arrested him.

In 1509, Almeida became the first Portuguese to arrive by ship in Bombay. He sought Meliqueaz, to whom he had written a menacing letter, and the Mameluk Mirocem, fiercely engaging them at the naval Battle of Diu on 3 February 1509 commanding a fleet of 23 ships near the port of Diu. He inflicted a decisive defeat on a joint fleet from the Mamlûk Burji Sultanate of Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, the Zamorin of Calicut, and the Sultan of Gujarat, with technical naval support from the Republic of Venice and the Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), which feared for their eastern trade links.

His victory was decisive: the Ottomans and Egyptians left the Indian Ocean, enabling a Portuguese trade monopoly over Indian waters for over 100 years, into the 17th century when it was ended by the Dutch and English. Albuquerque was released after three months' confinement, on the arrival of the grand-marshal of Portugal with a large fleet, in November 1509.

Return and death
Almeida sailed for Portugal in December 1509 and reached Table Bay near the Cape of Good Hope, where the Garcia, Belém and Santa Cruz dropped anchor in late February 1510 to replenish water. There they encountered the local indigenous people, the ǃUriǁ'aikua (recorded as "Goringhaiqua", a Khoe-speaking clan). After friendly trade with the ǃUriǁ'aikua, some of the crew visited their nearby village, situated in modern-day Observatory where they tried to steal some of the locals' cattle. Almeida allowed his captains Pedro and Jorge Barreto to return to the village on the morning of 1 March 1510. The village's cattle herd was raided with the loss of one man, while Almeida awaited his men some distance from the beach. As the flagship's master Diogo d'Unhos had moved the landing boats to a watering point, the Portuguese were left without a means of retreat. The ǃUriǁ'aikua sensed the opportunity for an attack, during which Almeida and 64 of his men perished, including 11 of his captains. Almeida's body was recovered the same afternoon and buried on the shore front of the current Cape Town. An archivist, Nicolaas Vergunst, suggested in a 2011 book that De Almeida was the victim of a plot by his own men, who intentionally cut off his retreat after the planned provocation of the ǃUriǁ'aikua

Relatives and subjects
Almeida was the son of the 1st Count of Abrantes and one of a number of highly distinguished siblings including two bishops, an ambassador to the Holy See and the Portuguese head of the Order of Malta. His son, Lourenço, was killed in the battle of Chaul, but he was survived by a daughter, Leonor, who was married twice: with Dom Rodrigo de Melo, Count of Tentúgal, precursor of the Dukes of Cadaval, and with Francisco de Mendonça, of the House of the Alcaides de Mourão. He also had a bastard daughter, Susana, who married Diogo de Barbuda, Alcaide of Seia. Ferdinand Magellan (Fernão de Magalhães) accompanied Almeida to the east, but was promoted to captain and only returned in 1512 after losing that commission.

title: Francisco de Almeida


text:
User talk:MCiura

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Lst27 19:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Voting
You might want to know that there was a voting started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland. Halibutt 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Silesia
Cześć. Zapraszam cię do WikiProject Silesia. Mam nadzieję że się wpiszesz na listę użytkowników i coś czasem poedytujesz związanego z naszym Śląskiem :) LUCPOL 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Shell sort

I'll have some spare time tomorrow. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your interest. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think that embossed orange bar/cornflower blue background colour scheme works better too. If you want the source code (the graphics/sorting is done with C#, animated gif creation with Java) then get back in touch. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Shellsort copy edit
Hello MCiura. Thanks very much for making your expertise available to Wikipedia. I've copyedited Shellsort as you requested on the GOCE Requests page.

Discussing computational complexity in the 3-gap case, your original says "A complicated function ψ(h, g) from the last formula is asymptotically ...", and I think this does not quite make sense in English. I have changed it to "ψ(h, g) in the last formula is a complicated function asymptotically ...". I think this might be your meaning, but am not 100% sure. Please would you check this out and correct it if necessary, or we can discuss it if you wish.

By the way, I find the animation at the top very distracting and not really helpful. The walkthrough in the Description section is clear enough, I think.

To help you in future, please would you place tags after any punctuation. (See MOS). Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Asymptotic analysis of result on shellsort
We know that a lower bound on any sorting algorithm that uses comparison is $$\Omega(N \ln(N))$$. See Knuth, Vol. 3. You will notice that all of the other routines have a run time that are $$\omega(N \ln(N))$$.

Now, if $$\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{f(N)}{g(N)} = 0$$, we say that $$f(N) = o(g(N))$$.

In this case, the worst-case time complexity is given by $$O(e^\sqrt{8\ln(5/2)\ln N})$$. If we compare the given function and $$N$$, we get:

$$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{e^{\sqrt{8 \ln(5/2) \ln(N)}}}{N} = 0$$

and you can either ask Maple,

or just try it yourself with increasingly larger numbers. Why not just pick your mathematical software of your choice and plot $$e^\sqrt{8\ln(5/2)\ln N}$$--its growth looks more like the logarithm.

Therefore, if the limit is 0, then the worst-case time complexity is being claimed as a function that is $$o(N)$$ which contradicts the above known lower bound of $$\Omega(N \ln(N))$$. In fact, if you try it out, you will find that $$e^\sqrt{8\ln(5/2)\ln N} = o(N^d)$$ for any $$d > 0$$ but $$e^\sqrt{8\ln(5/2)\ln N} = \omega(\ln(N))$$.

I don't know what the correct answer is--it might actually be $$O(Ne^\sqrt{8\ln(5/2)\ln N})$$, as this is at least plausible--but the answer that is there is wrong and it should not appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.10.179 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pentagramma mirificum
Hello! Your submission of Pentagramma mirificum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:MCiura


text:
Novo Horizonte

Novo Horizonte (Portuguese for "new horizon") may refer to the following places in Brazil:

 * Novo Horizonte, Bahia, a municipality of Bahia state
 * Novo Horizonte, Santa Catarina, a municipality of Santa Catarina state
 * Novo Horizonte, São Paulo, a municipality of São Paulo state
 * Novo Horizonte, Ataléia, a district of Ataléia, Minas Gerais state

title: Novo Horizonte


text:
Talk:National Review

Vague nonsense on climate change
An editor is edit-warring in vague text from an Economist blog about articles by one guy at the NR as a rebuttal to text on NR's promotion of climate change denial. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Please explain the advantage in not putting the three paragraphs in this section in chronological order? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it's weird. FWIW, I'm the editor in question; the Economist language seemed relevant (an NR writer on the magazine's masthead had been described by RS as "changing the debate" on climate change, and his views are firmly within the scientific consensus). Other writers for NR have been within that consensus, too, and the Bump quote is sourced simply to a search term on NR's homepage. I think the section as it is now is inaccurate, let alone a violation of UNDUE. 67.245.37.188 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The section should start with a general summary of how NR covers climate science, not with an in-the-weeds legal dispute about NR's attacks on one climate scientist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that a rule? It's a "controversies" section, i.e. a list of controversial events, not a "Political views" section, which would be inapposite anyway. 67.245.37.188 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump section seems written in a non-neutral way
"However, contributors to National Review and National Review Online take a variety of positions on Trump. Liberal commentator Peter Beinart criticized Lowry and Hanson for "breez[ing] by Trump’s blatant assaults on long-held conservative values in their rush to find something, anything, to congratulate him for,"[33] while National Review contributors such as Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg have remained critical of Trump.[34] In a Washington Post feature on conservative magazines, T.A. Frank noted: "From the perspective of a reader, these tensions make National Review as lively as it has been in a long time."[35] " See what I'm talking about? It seems to me that Beinart's comment is out of place here. Every Trump supporter receives criticism from Trump detractors, and every Trump detractor receives criticism from Trump supporters. It's not even in a Controversy section. Lowry and Hanson's views are only mentioned in this paragraph within the context of their views being criticized, while Ponnuru and Goldberg's views are mentioned straightforwardly. And Beinart's criticism seems rather broad, too. I'm not saying it's a bad thing for Beinart to have said, but it seems clear to me that it doesn't belong in this paragraph. I hope you will agree that this is highly irregular for Wikipedia. I could say more, but I have my fingers crossed that you guys will see what I'm saying and agree that my point is reasonable. Or at least, most of you will. If no one responds in a few days I'll change it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs) 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Contradictiory claims in Background
The Background section has contradicting claims regarding whether or not there was a significant conservative media presence. It is either one or the other. As it stands now it reads like the victim of an edit war. Having somehow, for my sins, read some of the Tribune from that era and prior I doubt the credibility of someone claiming that it is a conservative newspaper. Can we get a review of the credibility of this source?

Finally perhaps the word conservative ought not to be there. Or one might say relative to today prior to conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.17.241 (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Update thumbnail photo?
It's already more than 10 years old, and while visually striking, it makes NR seem more objectivist/Randian than it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.209.130 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:National Review


text:
Novo Horizonte, São Paulo

Novo Horizonte (Portuguese for "New Horizon") is a municipality in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. The population is 41,414 (2020 est.) in an area of 932 km2. Novo Horizonte is the center of a Microregion with 79,222 inhabitants.

History
In 1906, the district of Novo Horizonte was created. The city was officially established on December 21, 1916, and installed on October 28, 1917.

Economy
The Tertiary sector is the economic basis of Novo Horizonte. Commerce, services and public administration corresponds to 69.9% of the city GDP. Industry is 21.5% of the GDP, and the Primary sector corresponds to 8.5%.

The cultivation and processing of sugarcane is relevant.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012. The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

Sport
Grêmio Novorizontino is the local association football club founded in 2010. It's the spiritual successor to Grêmio Esportivo Novorizontino which folded in 1999.

title: Novo Horizonte, São Paulo