Mini Cabrio John Cooper Works

Download Mini Cabrio John Cooper Works photo. Find Mini Cabrio John Cooper Works images.

Wallpaper Mini Cabrio John Cooper Works

Pode-se dizer que existem dois tipos de conversíveis no mundo dos carros, pelo menos a julgar pelas propostas. O teto aberto traz sempre a mesma ideia de liberdade, mas um roadster traz dois lugares e desenho bem agressivo, exclusivo dele, gerando impressão de ousadia e desprendimento por parte do seu dono.

Já um cabriolet em geral é mais uma versão de outro modelo já existente, e traz quatro lugares. E estas diferenças já são suficientes para lhe dar outro perfil: a liberdade para eles é com mais gente, mais para diversão do que aventura, até porque sugere que vai receber a família do dono junto consigo.

Logo, se um carro de imagem como o Mini Cooper precisava de uma versão sem teto, seu charme de “bonitinho” só poderia ser aproveitado por um Cabrio. O interessante foi que a marca decidiu que um Mini cabriolet poderia sim ser mais apimentado, e resolveu estender o preparo John Cooper à versão que chega atualmente no país.

A ótima vendagem da marca por aqui motivo a chegada da nova versão por R$ 149.950, que traz os mesmos atributos do hatch JCW, e com isso ganha uma personalidade fascinante. O visual foi incrementado com os adesivos de listras, rodas aro 17" e o kit aerodinâmico, enquanto o motor é o mesmo 1.6 turbo de sempre, mas com melhorias que lhe fazem render 211 cv.

Isso faz o pequeno cabriolet ir de 0 a 100 km/h em 6s9 e chegar a uma máxima de 235 km/h. Todo esse desempenho gera uma empolgação correspondida pela cabine completíssima, que preza pelo luxo mas também pela segurança, ao trazer sistema de freios retrabalhado, controles de tração e estabilidade e sistema anticapotamento, além de capota com acionamento elétrico.

Like? Mini Cabrio John Cooper Works for wallpaper? Shar this image to Mini Cabrio John Cooper Works for your friend.

Wallpaper MOTOS 1

Download Wallpaper MOTOS 1 photo. Find Wallpaper MOTOS 1 images.

Wallpaper Wallpaper MOTOS 1

Like? Wallpaper MOTOS 1 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Wallpaper MOTOS 1 for your friend.

Varyag officially acknowledged

Download Varyag officially acknowledged photo. Find Varyag officially acknowledged images.

Wallpaper Varyag officially acknowledged

Today, China's Defense Ministry finally admitted to the existence of refitting the Vayarg carrier. Here is the Xinhua link on the subject.

Here is a Reuters Article.

And here are the highlights of the news conference with Defense Ministry. I wish to get a clip of the news conference and watch it over later, but here are the interesting points.

• Some anonymous source said 2 more aircraft carriers are being built at JN shipyard in Shanghai. (I'm not 100% on the number or the location, but it sounds quite plausible)
• Geng did not give an official sea trial date and said that it is not related to South China Sea drama.
• Geng said the task of training carrier-borne aircraft pilots is under the way. He also said that China is relying on its own effort to train naval pilots. (This is interesting, because I've read that the first Chinese pilots already got to Brazil.)
• Varyag is used for research, experiment and training. (I think it will have be eventually used for more than that, but we will see)
  

Here are some of the Varyag pictures taken in the past couple of days. Looking at the work on the deck, it looks like the refitting is close to being done.






Like? Varyag officially acknowledged for wallpaper? Shar this image to Varyag officially acknowledged for your friend.

Peugeot 307 2012

Download Peugeot 307 2012 photo. Find Peugeot 307 2012 images.

Wallpaper Peugeot 307 2012

O 307 de novo? Mas se o sedã virou 408, cadê o tão prometido hatch 308? Não, ainda não é dessa vez que vamos voltar à sintonia com a Europa. O veterano hatch médio chegou à fase de se voltar ao custo/benefício para continuar atraente até a chegada do sucessor. E este sim é o que vai voltar a focar no estilo agressivo típico da marca, mas combinado a um espaço interno quase tão generoso quanto o de uma minivan.

Não se pode negar, porém, que o modelo atual ainda tem seus talentos. Se suas linhas volumosas já perderam o brilho de outrora, ele se vale de não ter vendas massivas para preservar um certo requinte de imagem que Astra e Golf, por exemplo, perderam há tempos – com o detalhe de que o segundo insiste em não o assumir, e é tratado pela marca como um modelo que nunca sairá do auge.

A cabine continua unindo espaço primoroso com linhas elegantes, mas ganhou lista de série mais recheada: a básica Presence 1.6 16v soma sensor de chuva e crepuscular e retrovisor interno fotocromático a ar-condicionado, direção hidráulica, freios ABS, airbag duplo, rodas aro 15” e faróis de neblina, por R$ 53.490.

Presence Pack 1.6 16v é o nome da versão média, que já tinha teto solar elétrico, sistema de som multimídia com comandos satélite e rodas aro 16”, e ganhou ar-condicionado digital bizona com sensor de qualidade do ar, por R$ 57.930. E a topo-de-linha Feline passa a se chamar Premium 2.0 16v, e ganha bancos de couro de série, por R$ 64.890.

Like? Peugeot 307 2012 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Peugeot 307 2012 for your friend.

DUI Appeal - Indiana Says Can't Plead Guilty and Claim Innocence

Download DUI Appeal - Indiana Says Can't Plead Guilty and Claim Innocence photo. Find DUI Appeal - Indiana Says Can't Plead Guilty and Claim Innocence images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal - Indiana Says Can't Plead Guilty and Claim Innocence

In Wingham v. State of Indiana, 780 N.E.2d 1164, the defendant (who had previously pled guilty to OWI) filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his plea should not have been accepted, because he maintained his innocence during the plea. The appeals court herein agreed. The Court of Appeals held that trial court did not have adequate factual basis to accept guilty plea from defendant who denied being intoxicated at time of accident. The plea colloquy was as follows:



Court: Had you been drinking alcoholic beverages before that time?



Wingham: Yes.



Court: And were you intoxicated?



Wingham: No.



Court: Do you understand that one of the elements of this crime is that you were intoxicated at the time you were driving the vehicle and if you plead guilty today, you admit that you were intoxicated?



Wingham: Yes.



Court: Did the police officer offer you a breath test?



Wingham: Yes, sir.



Court: And was the result of the breath test .08?



Wingham: Yes, sir.



In holding the plea insufficient, the court stated:



"We hold, as a matter of law, that a judge may not accept a plea of guilty when the defendant both pleads guilty and maintains his innocence at the same time. To accept such a plea constitutes reversible error."





Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal - Indiana Says Can't Plead Guilty and Claim Innocence for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal - Indiana Says Can't Plead Guilty and Claim Innocence for your friend.

DWI Appeal - Minnesota Says No to Wheelchair DWI

Download DWI Appeal - Minnesota Says No to Wheelchair DWI photo. Find DWI Appeal - Minnesota Says No to Wheelchair DWI images.

Wallpaper DWI Appeal - Minnesota Says No to Wheelchair DWI

Many thanks to Doug Hazelton for locating this gem. In State Of Minnesota v. Brown, --- N.W.2d ----, 2011 WL 2302319 (Minn.App.), a physically disabled individual operating a motorized wheelchair was convicted of his 3rd DWI. The case involved the following stipulated facts:

(1) Brown is physically disabled and uses a battery-operated three-wheel Legend Pride Mobility Scooter (scooter) as a means of mobility to “experience life and complete his day to day necessities”; (2) the scooter has a maximum speed of 5.75 miles per hour; (3) Brown drove his scooter on Grand Rapids city sidewalks to a car dealership; (4) the car dealership contacted the city police department regarding a possibly intoxicated individual in their automobile display lot; (5) the city police arrived and arrested Brown for DWI; (6) Brown consented to a breath test and tested .17 for alcohol concentration; (7) Brown has a 2001 DWI conviction; (8) a driver's license is not required to operate the scooter, vehicle insurance is not required for the scooter, and the scooter cannot be registered at the Department of Public Safety in order to obtain vehicle license plates; (9) Minn.Stat. § 169.212, subd. 2(c) (2008) provides that



[a]n electric personal assistive mobility device may be operated on a roadway only:



(1) while making a direct crossing of a roadway in a marked or unmarked crosswalk;



(2) where no sidewalk is available;



(3) where a sidewalk is so obstructed as to prevent safe use;



(4) when so directed by a traffic control device or by a peace officer; or



(5) temporarily in order to gain access to a motor vehicle[;]



and (10) Grand Rapids does not have an ordinance prohibiting a person from public intoxicated in public or an ordinance prohibiting a person from consuming an alcoholic beverage in public.

Minnesota law defines a “Vehicle”, in relevant part, as “every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway.” However, Minnesota law also defines “motor vehicle,” in relevant part, as “every vehicle which is self-propelled,” excluding “an electric personal assistive mobility device.” Additionally, Minnesota law defines “pedestrian” as “any person afoot or in a wheelchair.” “Wheelchair” is defined as including “any manual or motorized wheelchair, scooter, tricycle, or similar device used by a disabled person as a substitute for walking.” In most states, one can be convicted of DUI?DWI on any vehicle, even if it is not a motor vehicle per se.



The appellate court found that a wheelchair used to assist a physically disabled person is simply a substitute device for walking, and as such did not constitute a vehicle, despite the definition to the contrary:

"It is plain that for purposes of traffic regulations contained in Chapter 169, Brown's scooter is a wheelchair and is not a motor vehicle, and Brown, who uses the scooter as a substitute for walking, is, while operating his scooter, a pedestrian. See Boschee v. Duevel, 530 N.W.2d 834, 839 (Minn.App.1995) ( “[T]he mere circumstance, that [a person] ... propels himself or herself along by means of a chair, or by some other mechanical device, does not clothe him or her, in a broad and general sense, with any other character than that of a pedestrian.”





Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DWI Appeal - Minnesota Says No to Wheelchair DWI for wallpaper? Shar this image to DWI Appeal - Minnesota Says No to Wheelchair DWI for your friend.

DUII Appeal - Oregon Refuses to Suppress Test Refusal

Download DUII Appeal - Oregon Refuses to Suppress Test Refusal photo. Find DUII Appeal - Oregon Refuses to Suppress Test Refusal images.

Wallpaper DUII Appeal - Oregon Refuses to Suppress Test Refusal

This case comes to DAD thanks to Bruce Tarbox. In State of Oregon v. Robinson, NCDD Former Regent John Henry Hingson appealed after a jury finding of guilty, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed evidence of his refusal to take the breath test and, in any event, should have declared a mistrial when the prosecutor later referred to defendant's statement that he refused to take the test on advice of counsel as an “excuse” for not taking the test.



After receiving a citizen's report about a suspected drunk driver, Officer Moyle located defendant, whose vehicle matched the caller's description, and arrested him. One of the officers, Moyle, drove defendant to jail, escorted him to a small room, and asked him whether he wanted to contact “anyone for advice.” Defendant stated that he did, and Moyle gave defendant 20 minutes to contact someone. Defendant attempted to call his attorney during that time but was unsuccessful. Moyle then told defendant that his time was up and asked defendant whether he would submit to a breath test. Defendant, unable to contact his lawyer, refused to submit to the test. He was ultimately charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII),



At 1:29 a.m., “from outside the Intoxilyzer room,” Moyle told defendant “that he needed to finish up on the phone” and that he “had about a minute longer.” At 1:30 a.m., Moyle “opened the door and told [defendant] that he needed to be done now.” Defendant responded “that he hadn't been able to contact John Henry,[[FN1] and that he wasn't—he wasn't answering and he got a weird message.”



FN1. The parties agree that “John Henry” referred to defendant's attorney, John Henry Hingson III.

Before trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence of his refusal to take the breath test on the ground that the police had not provided him with a reasonable opportunity to communicate privately with counsel before deciding whether to submit to the test. He claimed that Moyle failed to take the proper steps to afford him a reasonable opportunity to consult privately with counsel. Specifically, defendant argued that (1) Moyle failed to request that defendant submit to the breath test before providing him an opportunity to seek counsel; (2) defendant's equivocal invocation of the right to counsel-that is, answering affirmatively to the question whether he wanted to “call anyone for advice”-required Moyle to further inquire if defendant intended to contact counsel and, if so, to inform defendant that the conversation would be private; and (3) no reasonable person in defendant's position would have understood his communications with counsel to be private with the door left ajar.



At that point, Moyle began the process of obtaining breath samples. He gave defendant directions on how to provide proper samples and where to stand. He then “told him this was his opportunity to give the samples” and that “if he chose not to give the samples, it would be considered a refusal.” Defendant explained, “I can't get ahold of my attorney. I'm not saying I won't take the test, but since I can't get ahold of him I don't know what to do.” Defendant emphasized that “it was very important that [Moyle] understood that.” When Moyle presented the Intoxylizer tube to defendant and asked him to give the sample, defendant “continued to say he wasn't refusing.” Defendant “neither grabbed the tube, nor gave the sample,” and Moyle informed defendant that he “would be taking his lack of beginning to give samples as a refusal.”



The court held that the request for a breath test need not precede the suspect's opportunity to consult with an attorney:

"Neither this court nor the Oregon Supreme Court has ever endorsed a particular script or timeline that officers must follow in order to afford an arrested driver a reasonable opportunity to obtain advice of counsel before submitting to a breath test."

The appeals court concluded that the refusal was properly admitted at trial:

"Setting aside the obvious differences between an officer present in the room and a door slightly ajar, there is no basis on this record to conclude that the cracked door had any effect on defendant's efforts to contact counsel. The reason that defendant was unable to contact counsel was that his attorney “wasn't answering and he got a weird message”; that had nothing to do with the fact that the door was cracked two inches. Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney but was unable to do so, through no fault of the police. Defendant's right to consult privately with an attorney extends no farther than that, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence of his refusal to submit to a breath test."

Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUII Appeal - Oregon Refuses to Suppress Test Refusal for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUII Appeal - Oregon Refuses to Suppress Test Refusal for your friend.

DWI Appeal - New York Court Says PBT Admissible

Download DWI Appeal - New York Court Says PBT Admissible photo. Find DWI Appeal - New York Court Says PBT Admissible images.

Wallpaper DWI Appeal - New York Court Says PBT Admissible

In People of New York v. Jones, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2764207 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.), 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 21250, the prosecution filed a motion in limine to introduce the PBT result of 0.09 Brac into evidence at trial to establish guilt. The trial court allowed the result, and the defendant was convicted. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the PBT was inadmissible because: 1) portable devices had previously been disapproved by New York courts @) the FST was not shown to be reliable and 3) portable breath tests are only considered valid as screening devices and not as full chemical tests.



Rejecting all of the above, the appeals court held that the Alco FST was admissible because 1) it was on the NHTSA Conforming Products List and therefore all such devices were deemed 'approved' under New York's breath testing regulations; 2) device was on Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices, and was approved for both "Mobile" and "Nonmobile" use; 3) inclusion of device on Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices in itself establishes general acceptance of reliability and accuracy of its results and therefore dispenses with need to present foundational evidence thereof through expert testimony; 4) NHTSA has approved the Alcosensor FST for not just screening, but as an evidential breath testing device.



Of additional significance was that the court held that the fact that the officer who administered blood alcohol test may not have maintained continuous observation of defendant for 15 minutes prior to test did not render its results inadmissible, but went only to weight to be afforded the results.



Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DWI Appeal - New York Court Says PBT Admissible for wallpaper? Shar this image to DWI Appeal - New York Court Says PBT Admissible for your friend.

DUI Appeal - Attempt DUI Does Not Exist in Kansas

Download DUI Appeal - Attempt DUI Does Not Exist in Kansas photo. Find DUI Appeal - Attempt DUI Does Not Exist in Kansas images.

Wallpaper DUI Appeal - Attempt DUI Does Not Exist in Kansas

In State of Kansas v. Perkins, --- P.3d ----, 2011 WL 2732597 (Kan.App.), the Supreme Court of Kansas was asked to determine whether the definition of attempt found in the criminal code should be applied to a charge of "operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the degree he could not do so safely." At trial, Perkins testified that the passenger, his stepson, had been driving the entire time and that the two of them switched places after parking the truck. According to Perkins, they had pulled over to clean up vomit he had deposited in the truck cab. In the course of doing so, they had gotten out of the truck, and Perkins had then sat down in the driver's seat. Perkins told the jury he didn't have much recollection of Trooper Henrickson or their interaction. Perkins' stepson testified that he had driven the pickup and parked on the shoulder.



Under K.S.A. 21–3301, an attempt is “any overt act toward the perpetration of a crime done by a person who intends to commit such crime but fails in the perpetration thereof or is prevented or intercepted in executing such crime.” Perkins reasons that the jury concluded he drove the pickup truck and then parked on the shoulder of the highway. In turn, he could not have been guilty of an “attempt” to drive because he neither “failed” in that effort nor was he “prevented or intercepted” before he could and actually did drive.



Perkins argued there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for attempting to operate or drive the pickup truck. The lynchpin of Perkins' legal argument was how he defined an attempt under the DUI statute. There is no language in K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567 that supplies a specific definition. Perkins submitted that the failure to define "attempt" within the DUI statute allowed him to import the definition of attempt from the provision of the Kansas Criminal Code used to establish attempts as a distinct type of crime, K.S.A. 21–3301.

In rejectiong the defendant's argument, the Supreme Court stated:

"Applying the requirements of K.S.A. 21–3301 to an attempted DUI would undercut the purposes of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567. Driving under the influence, like many traffic offenses, falls in the no-bad-intent category. State v. Martinez, 268 Kan. 21, Syl. ¶ 3, 988 P.2d 735 (1999). If K.S.A. 21–3301 were to control, however, an attempted DUI would require proof of a specific intent to drive while drunk. Nothing indicates the legislature had that in mind. It would be a peculiar thought: The completed offense of DUI would require no criminal or bad intent, but an attempted DUI would require a specific state of mind to perform the prohibited act of driving drunk.



In turn, voluntary intoxication would be a defense to an attempted DUI if it negated that specific intent. What that would mean is someone really drunk—too drunk to get a car in gear, for example—could beat a charge of attempting to drive under the influence precisely because of his or her intoxication. Such a result might be the stuff of law school debate, but attributing it to the legislature is kind of loopy. And the courts refrain from seeing loopiness in legislative handiwork unless they have no other choice. State v. Barnes, 275 Kan. 364, Syl. ¶ 2, 64 P.3d 405 (2003) (“The legislature is presumed to intend that a statute be given a reasonable construction so as to avoid unreasonable or absurd results.”).



There is another, independent reason the legislature did not intend to incorporate the criminal attempts statute into the DUI statute. The inclusion of the phrase “attempt to operate” in the definition of the DUI offense in K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567 would have been unnecessary and, thus, superfluous had the legislature meant the criminal attempts statute to govern. The provisions of K.S.A. 21–3301 apply to “the [failed] perpetration of a crime.” In turn, a “crime” includes an offense “created by statute other than in this code.” K.S.A. 21–3102(2). And a crime “is an act or omission defined by law and for which, upon conviction, a sentence of death, imprisonment or fine ... is authorized.” K.S.A. 21–3105. Read in tandem, K.S.A. 21–3102(2) and K.S.A. 21–3105 establish the offense of DUI, as set forth in K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567, as a “crime.”



Had K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567 contained no language regarding attempts at all, K.S.A. 21–3301 would have applied to criminalize an attempted DUI. Accordingly, the legislative decision to mention attempts specifically and to treat them identically to the completed crime must have been undertaken to change the default rule that would otherwise apply K.S.A. 21–3301 for that purpose. As we have said, the reference to attempts in K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567 would be wholly unnecessary and entirely vestigial if the legislature wanted K.S.A. 21–3301 to control. The accepted rules of statutory construction run counter to that result. See Fisher v. Kansas Crime Victims Comp. Bd., 280 Kan. 601, 613, 124 P.3d 74 (2005); State v. Van Hoet, 277 Kan. 815, 826–27, 89 P.3d 606 (2004) (“The court should avoid interpreting a statute in such a way that part of it becomes surplusage.”).



We, therefore, believe the legislature both meant to act in a reasonable way when it referred to an attempt to operate a vehicle as being included in the offense of DUI outlined in K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567 and wasn't simply littering the statute with extra words. Accordingly, we reject Perkins' argument that the nature and scope of an attempted DUI is controlled by K.S.A. 21–3301.

Thus, the conviction was affirmed.



Editor's Note: Unlike, Kansas, many other states do not include the word "attempt" in their specific DUI/DWI statute, although they do have such an offense in the criminal code.. According to Kansas' position, that would create a loophole - "[h]ad K.S.A.2008 Supp. 8–1567 contained no language regarding attempts at all, K.S.A. 21–3301 would have applied to criminalize an attempted DUI" said the Supremes - keep this opinion available on your next felony. It could get dropped to a misdemeanor if the "attempt" defense applies.....





Looking for a Top DUI DWI Attorney? Visit Americas Top DUI and DWI Attorneys at http://www.1800dialdui.com or call 1-800-DIAL-DUI to find a DUI OUI DWI Attorney Lawyer Now! Like? DUI Appeal - Attempt DUI Does Not Exist in Kansas for wallpaper? Shar this image to DUI Appeal - Attempt DUI Does Not Exist in Kansas for your friend.

Honda Fit 2012

Download Honda Fit 2012 photo. Find Honda Fit 2012 images.

Wallpaper Honda Fit 2012

Os modelos da Honda são conhecidos por apresentar um regime de mudanças diferente do que se costuma praticar no Brasil. Em geral, as marcas mantém um mesmo projeto por cerca de dez anos, e apenas lhe dão re-estilizações leves a cada três ou quatro, mudando desenho da dianteira e traseira e aplicando mais equipamentos por versão, para que se mantenha competitivo frente à concorrência até que surja o sucessor realmente novo.

Já a marca japonesa não hesita muito em trazer os modelos mais novos para cá, mas eles em geral esperam até o sucessor sem face-lifts. E é o caso do Fit, que chega à linha 2012 exatamente como chegou à atual geração. A única mudança, na verdade, é que a versão de topo, EXL, passa a ser oferecida somente com o câmbio automático CVT.

Ou seja, temos DX (R$ 51.805), LX (R$ 54.905) e LXL (R$ 57.860) com o 1.4 de 100 cv e 13 kgfm de torque, enquanto EX (R$ 61.715) e EXL (R$ 71.720) trazem o 1.5 16v de 115/116 cv e 14,8 kgfm. Todo Fit traz de série ar-condicionado, airbag duplo e direção elétrica, e a opção do CVT sai por R$ 4 mil.

Like? Honda Fit 2012 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Honda Fit 2012 for your friend.

Wallpaper DIVERSOS 5

Download Wallpaper DIVERSOS 5 photo. Find Wallpaper DIVERSOS 5 images.

Wallpaper Wallpaper DIVERSOS 5

Like? Wallpaper DIVERSOS 5 for wallpaper? Shar this image to Wallpaper DIVERSOS 5 for your friend.