Below are some links to a Google Drive that contains files related radio chatter during combat. They are really interesting as they show how soldiers communicated during firefights.
The last one are a series of 4 files which are chatter during a base attack
We Are the Mighty includes a brief analysis of the life expectancy of a Vietnam War Radioman.
He didn’t have anybody to go with.
They make up everything
In case he got a hole in one.
In the bible…in the big inning.
Between Dayton and Marion.
A retail store!
For a collection of articles that highlight specifically the urban/rural divide see: What’s Up With Rural America and How to Fix It.
There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration’s new “zero tolerance” policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research.
Myth 1: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton –
FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the brainchild of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit. https://www.justice.gov/…/press-rele…/file/1049751/download…
Myth 2: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration –
FALSE. Annual trends show that arrests for undocumented entry are at a 46 year low, and undocumented crossings dropped in 2007, with a net loss (more people leaving than arriving). Deportations have increased steadily though (spiking in 1996 and more recently), because several laws that were passed since 1996 have made it legally more difficult to gain legal status for people already here, and thus increased their deportations (I address this later under the myth that it’s the Democrats’ fault). What we mostly have now are people crossing the border illegally because they’ve already been hired by a US company, or because they are seeking political asylum. Economic migrants come to this country because our country has kept the demand going. But again, many of these people impacted by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy appear to be political asylum-seekers. https://www.npr.org/…/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-…
Myth 3: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs –
FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rather than processing their claims, they have been taken into custody on the spot and had their children ripped from their arms. The ACLU alleges that this practice violates the Asylum Act, and the UN asserts that it violates the UN Treaty on the State of Refugees, one of the few treaties the US has ratified. This is an illegal act on the part of the United States government, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible. https://www.nytimes.com/…/meatpackers-profits-hinge-on-pool…
Myth 4: We’re a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get –
FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. Our government (under both parties) has always been aware that US companies recruit workers in the poorest parts of Mexico for cheap labor, and ICE (and its predecessor INS) has looked the other way because this underground economy benefits our country to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Thus, even though the majority of people crossing the border now are asylum-seekers, those who are economic migrants (migrant workers) likely have been recruited here to do jobs Americans will not do. https://www.upi.com/…/Donald-Trumps-wall-ign…/2621477498203/
Myth 5 : The children have to be separated from their parents because there parents must be arrested and it would be cruel to put children in jail with their parents –
FALSE. First, in the case of economic migrants crossing the border illegally, criminal prosecution has not been the legal norm, and families have been kept together at all cost. Also, crossing the border without documentation is a typically a misdemeanor not requiring arrest, but rather a civil proceeding. Additionally, parents who have been detained have historically been detained with their children in ICE “family residential centers,” again, for civil processing. The Trump administration’s shift in policy is for political purposes only, not legal ones. See p. 18: https://www.aclu.org/…/ms-l-v-ice-plaintiffs-opposition-def…
Myth 6: We have rampant fraud in our asylum process the proof of which is the significant increase we have in the number of people applying for asylum.
FALSE. The increase in asylum seekers is a direct result of the increase in civil conflict and violence across the globe. While some people may believe that we shouldn’t allow any refugees into our country because “it’s not our problem,” neither our current asylum law, nor our ideological foundation as a country support such an isolationist approach. There is very little evidence to support Sessions’ claim that abuse of our asylum-seeking policies is rampant. Also, what Sessions failed to mention is that the majority of asylum seekers are from China, not South of the border. Here is a very fair and balanced assessment of his statements: http://www.politifact.com/…/jeff-sessions-claim-about-asyl…/
Myth 7: The Democrats caused this, “it’s their law.”
FALSE. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused this, the Trump administration did (although the Republicans could fix this today, and have refused). I believe what this myth refers to is the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which were both passed under Clinton in 1996. These laws essentially made unauthorized entry into the US a crime (typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders), but under both Republicans and Democrats, these cases were handled through civil deportation proceedings, not a criminal proceeding, which did not require separation. And again, even in cases where detainment was required, families were always kept together in family residential centers, unless the parents were deemed unfit (as mentioned above). Thus, Trump’s assertion that he hates this policy but has no choice but to separate the parents from their children, because the Democrats “gave us this law” is false and nothing more than propaganda designed to compel negotiation on bad policy. https://www.independent.co.uk/…/trump-democrats-us-border-m…
Myth 7: The parents and children will be reunited shortly, once the parents’ court cases are finalized.
FALSE. Criminal court is a vastly different beast than civil court proceedings. Also, the children are being processed as unaccompanied minors (“unaccompanied alien children”), which typically means they are sent into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Under normal circumstances when a child enters the country without his or her parent, ORR attempts to locate a family member within a few weeks, and the child is then released to a family member, or if a family member cannot be located, the child is placed in a residential center (anywhere in the country), or in some cases, foster care. Prior to Trump’s new policy, ORR was operating at 95% capacity, and they simply cannot effectively manage the influx of 2000+ children, some as young as 4 months. Also, keep in mind, these are not unaccompanied minor children, they have parents. There is great legal ambiguity on how and even whether the parents will get their children back because we are in uncharted territory right now. According to the ACLU lawsuit (see below), there is currently no easy vehicle for reuniting parents with their children. Additionally, according to a May 2018 report, numerous cases of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were found to have occurred in these residential centers. https://www.aclu.org/…/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-wides…
Myth 8: This policy is legal.
LIKELY FALSE. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 5/6/18, and a recent court ruling denied the government’s motion to dismiss the suit. The judge deciding the case stated that the Trump Administration policy is “brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.” The case is moving forward because it was deemed to have legal merit.https://www.bloomberg.com/…/aclu-suit-over-child-separation…
Oftentimes different units would create service menus for special occasions such as Christmas, Thanksgiving or New Years. These are some examples
Below is base brochure handed out to personnel when they arrived at base and are expecting to stay awhile. This one is from Harmon Field in Stephenville, Newfoundland. Dated Feb, 1945
These could often be found at post exchanges or other on base facilities.
In the current landscape, more and more is being asked of the NHS whilst resources continue to dwindle. Procurement, Commercial and Finance functions are having to make budgets stretch further and further each year, which means making decisions on strategic procurements is a real minefield.
On top of this, we are seeing an increase across Public Sector procurement in the number of contract awards being challenged. And it’s usually on minor errors such as a failure to adequately record rationale or follow process. Bidding organisations are getting better and better at challenging when losing bids, leading to an increase in costs for the Authority and delays in getting vital products and services in place.
All in all, the current climate for NHS procurement teams is a tough one. In this blog I’ll share my thoughts on how, through successful use of technology, you can still deliver best possible
outcomes and value for money on your complex procurements.
Traditionally, Excel spreadsheets are used to manage tender evaluations and to record the procurement decisions made. However, using spreadsheets can:
When arriving at a decision and debriefing bidders at the end of a competition, there are many and varied data sets that inform the competition. (From ITx documentation, clarifications, issues raised by evaluators, rationale, to weightings and bid documentation). These are difficult, time consuming and costly to pull together in a spreadsheet, let alone from e-Sourcing tools, Outlook and other collaboration tools. This often makes decision making different and unclear. Separating the winning bid and the next best bid, or sometimes even the next two or three best bids can prove incredibly hard. This unfortunately opens up grounds for legal challenge.
There are many e-Procurement or e-Sourcing tools on the market which cover many of the processes required to successfully source goods and services. However, whilst many of these tools may have an evaluation capability, it tends to be fairly basic. And often it is aimed at providing an efficient mechanism for buyers to structure their decision-making with a limited set of criteria, individual reviewers or small teams of evaluators. Many even push out to Excel to manage the more complex procurements because they cannot manage the complex calculations or complex process that is inherent with a less than straight-forward evaluation. E-Sourcing tools are suited to a more tactical, commodity type of procurement where the cheapest compliant bidder is likely to be preferred.
And so, in an ever challenging environment, why follow a process that puts you at risk of making the wrong decision, legal challenges and delivering poor value for money?
AWARD® is a SaaS solution which is specifically designed to support strategic procurement decision-making and mitigate your common challenges. Unlike spreadsheets, AWARD® is specifically designed to manage the collaborative and multi-dimensional nature of complex evaluation. It takes collaboration, weighting, multi-faceted scoring, the recording of rationale and moderation in its stride.
Throughout your procurement process, AWARD® provides a structured, transparent and robust approach, addressing value for money and assuring delivery of the best possible outcome. With controlled access and the ability to contain all competition data within the platform, AWARD® builds a solid audit trail to defend decision making. In addition, large teams of evaluators can be supported within the system, each with a unique log in. Individual criteria can also be assigned to individual evaluators. Their progress can be tracked throughout the evaluation allowing for efficient management of the process.
And so, in an increasingly demanding environment, AWARD® is here to make your job easier, your procurement outcomes better and deliver value for money. By leading you to clearer separation between the winning bid and the other bidders, you can confidently award your contract. With all the data in one place and a clear and transparent audit trail, debriefing unsuccessful bidders can be done at the touch of button. Thus, your decisions are kept safe from challenge and any legal fees.
Best of all, to help you make further time-saving efficiencies, AWARD® can work in unison with e-Sourcing tools, such as Jaggaer and Proactis, to transfer all of the criteria and tender documents into AWARD®.
Using AWARD®, our Public Sector clients across the NHS, Ministry of Defence and wider Government have reduced their time to evaluate and award contracts by an average of 40%. They’re achieving better outcomes and protecting their decisions from legal challenge. To find out how you can too, contact me at mduerden@commercedecisions.com
Below are some links to websites that cover issues related to future development and growth for Columbus, Ohio
All lock picking content is for educational and informational use only.
Underwriters Laboratories defines the different types of locks for which the specification applies.
Product: This refers to any type of lock or component defined within the standard:
Door Lock: This is a rim or mortise-type locking assembly that is used on doors to deter unauthorized opening by one or more of the following means:
∑ Jimmying the door;
∑ Picking;
∑ Impressioning techniques;
∑ Driving the locking cylinder or assembly;
∑ Sawing or drilling the lock bolt;
∑ Pulling the lock cylinder;
∑ Other methods that involve the use of small hand-tools.
Locking Cylinder: A key-cylinder that is used within door locks, alarm control switches, alarm shunt switches, utility locks, and similar devices to resist unauthorized opening by one or more of the following techniques:
∑ Picking;
∑ Impressioning techniques;
∑ Forcing methods;
∑ Pulling;
∑ Drilling the cylinder.
Security Container Key Lock: This is a lock that is designed for use on key-locked safes, collection safes, and similar security containers to resist methods of entry that include:
∑ Picking;
∑ Impressioning;
∑ Drilling;
∑ Pulling;
∑ Punching;
∑ Forcing methods.
UL specifies a number of requirements that relate to the construction and operation of any lock that is certified under this standard. These include:
∑ The product shall be constructed so that it may be readily and conveniently operated when the proper key or keys are used;
∑ The lock must be practicable for installation by a trained locksmith, and able to be installed in a position or location that does not degrade its burglary-resistant qualities;
∑ Parts must maintain a high degree of tolerance and uniformity. This is especially important with regard to bittings.
Locks tested under UL 437 must be constructed of brass, bronze, stainless steel, or equivalent corrosion-resistant material, or shall have a protective finish that meets salt spray tests.
There are a number of common standards relating to locks and security containers, including requirements relating to nonmetallic parts, corrosion protection, and salt spray. These are described in UL 768.
Door locks and cylinders must be capable of at least 1000 key changes. Security containers must achieve significantly higher security levels, providing at least 1,000,000 differs for any design. Two-key locks require a minimum of 64 guard key changes, and at least 15,000 customer key changes for any design.
Specific requirements for locks that are utilized on security containers include:
∑ Key shall be field changeable;
∑ The bolt lever must fit snugly on its post and shall be secured tightly;
∑ The fence face shall be perpendicular to the plane of the tumblers;
∑ The wheels, tumblers, levers, or pins shall run true, and be at right angles to their mounting post;
∑ Within a combination-lock, the clearance between the fence face and the tumbler wheels shall not be less than .025î (0.64 mm) when the bolt lever is raised by means of a driver cam, and not less than .015î (0.38 mm) when the bolt lever is raised by means other than a driver cam;
∑ Mechanical means must be provided that immobilizes the bolt if the lock is punched or pulled;
∑ The tolerance between plug and shell in a pin tumbler lock must be less than one cut depth.
The lock shall function as intended during 10,000 complete cycles of operation at a rate not exceeding 50 cycles per minute;
A lock having a changeable core or field-changeable key design shall operate as intended after each of 50 changes of the core or key.
Attack resistance tests encompass setup requirements, use of specified tools, timing, and entry methods.
A number of tests have been defined to ascertain the attack resistance of a lock. UL 437 requires that a device cannot be opened or compromised as a result of the application or use of tools and techniques set forth in the standard, and summarized here.
Specific protocols have been devised with respect to mounting of samples to be tested. Door locks must be installed in accordance with the lock manufacturer’s instructions, in a 1-1/2î (38.1 mm) solid hardwood door of average size. The door is mounted in a 1-1/4î (38.1 mm) thick wood frame and reinforced as if actually installed. Door locks that are designed specifically for a certain door construction are to be tested in that mode.
The following test requirements apply for attack ratings:
∑ The tools used for these tests include any common hand tools, hand or portable electric tools, drills, saw blades, puller mechanisms, and picking tools. For door locks only, pry bars up to three feet (.9 meter) long are also to be employed;
∑ Tools that are used on two-key locks must not include saws, puller mechanisms, or portable electric drills;
∑ Common hand tools are defined as chisels, screwdrivers no more than 15î (380 mm) long, hammers having three-pound (1.36 kg) head weight, jaw-gripping wrenches, and pliers;
∑ Puller devices are to be either a slam-hammer mechanism, having a maximum head weight of three pounds (1.36 kg), or a screw type;
∑ Picking tools are common or standard patterns, as well as those designed for use on a particular make or design of cylinder;
∑ Portable electric tools are identified as high-speed handheld drills that meet the following criteria:
∑ Operate at a maximum of 1900 RPM;
∑ Maximum ºî (6.4 mm) chuck size;
∑ Use high-speed drill bits;
∑ Utilize electrically operated vibrating needles.
Net times in minutes are specified for each type of test, and the lock upon which the procedure is to be performed. The sequence is not relevant, nor the number of methods to be applied. Samples may be tested for several techniques, or a new specimen may be utilized for each procedure. Below are the results in time it takes to work to break a lock.
| Test | Door Locks/Cylinders | Security Container Key Locks | Two-Key Locks |
| Picking | 10 | 30 | 45 |
| Impressioning | 10 | 30 | 45 |
| Forcing | 5 | 30 | 5 |
| Drilling | 5 | 30 | NA |
| Sawing | 5 | 30 | NA |
| Prying | 5 | 30 | NA |
| Pulling | 5 | 30 | NA |
| Driving | 5 | 30 | NA |
There are eight methods of forced and direct entry that are defined within the Standard: picking, impressioning, forcing, drilling, sawing, prying, pulling, and driving. These have been previously described in Chapters 29-32.
Picking
Picking tools are employed in an attempt to align the active components, including tumblers, levers, wheels, or pins, in order to open the lock.
Impressioning
Methods of impressioning, as defined in Chapter 31, are employed in an attempt to produce working keys.
Forcing
Rotary forces are applied with the test tools in three critical areas, in an attempt to open the target lock:
∑ In the key slot;
∑ On the exposed part of the cylinder;
∑ On the exposed portions of the lock assembly.
Drilling
Drilling requires that a drill and one or more bits are utilized to attack the plug, exposed lock body, and other parts in an attempt to compromise critical components to effect an opening.
Sawing
A saw is employed in an effort to cut, compromise, remove, and open critical components, including the plug, body of the cylinder, and lock bolt.
Prying
Tools are utilized in an attempt to pry the bolt out of engagement with the strike opening within a door lock assembly.
Pulling
Techniques of pulling are directed at critical locking components including the plug, body, bolt, or other areas in order to compromise and open the device.
Driving
Driving is the opposite of pulling. Tools are utilized in an attempt to drive or force the plug, body of the lock, lock bolt, or other part to allow bypass of the mechanism.
All lock picking content is for educational and informational use only.
This was taken from a PDF and put into a more SEO friendly post.
Recently I purchased the SouthOrd Tubular 8 pick and the rubber handle just spun freely which seems to be a defect that anothe
Recently I purchased the SouthOrd Tubular 8 pick and the rubber handle just spun freely which seems to be a defect that another member also encountered. The loose handle actually worked in my favor. I removed it completely and was able to clamp it together between 2 pieces of wood to hold it steady while drilling. I used a drill press with a 1/16th drill bit and bought a 1/16th spring pin. The original pin and hole are just slightly smaller but replacing it with a 1/16th works just as well with NO difference. Below are some pictures of the procedure.
To hold the pick steady all I did was drill a 11/32 hole, which is slightly smaller than the diameter of the pick, and clamp it between two pieces of wood.
This close up picture sucks but I’m hoping to use my buddy’s camera that’ll take excellent close-up shots. If you look carefully you’ll see both pins in there.
Depending what type of lock you’ll be picking, you’ll have to remove one of these pins. I’ll try and have the new close-up pics posted by Tuesday.
Please note that removing the pin is easy enough with needle-nose pliers but putting it back in takes some time. To make it easier, I squeezed/squished the very tip of the pin so that it could be inserted easier in the hole. Once it’s there, just push the rest of the pin in by pushing the pick against a hard surface.
On the original 8-pin model, the spring pin is located between two of the sliding blades while on a 7-pin model the spring pin is located directly under one of the sliding blades. I drilled the whole about 90 degrees from the original spring pin.
The final product is an 8-pin tubular pick that will work on any 7 or 8 pin tubular lock!
To do this mod, it took me about 30 minutes and cost me less than $5.00 Cdn. The Crazy Glue was $1.69 and the 1/16th cobalt drill bit was $2.29. Not bad at all considering a new pick would run about $70.00 US.
Pdf of procedure can be obtained here.