yes, that is significantly faster, big growth in subsections as well, 27%. but profits went down on a year-over-year basis because of gross costs and worse margins. higher costs across the board. even.com adjusted $29 million, and again, profit well in line with guidance less than a year ago, profits of a net income of $7.9 million. but again, adding a lot of subscribers for tivo, also seeing 7% year-over-year sales growth, analysts trading up quite a bit. all right, cory johnson. thank you for that first read on tivo. we're looking at the earnings scorecards. how did we do? scarlet: earnings-per-share, barely there. i think we can close the book on this one. joe: it's interesting. there is a talk before this court about in earnings recession. a lot of people thought that earnings would be negative because of energy -- scarlet: more negative -- joe: on a revenue basis. scarlet: a lot of people see that as a truer reflection of what is going on in the economy. joe: they always find a way to ring more profits out of the revenue. scarlet: and the buyback some c

provisions in the code section and embedded within that code section is the section i highlight under subsection i which requires they adopt spaces it reduces spaces for parking and maximize other uses so the pardon has provided valet as part the thought parking situations and we've identified the subterranean or maximizing of other uses there's an opportunity within the sub garage. >> let me go begin at the beginning unit over one thousand scapegoat and two or three bedroom are sdoiltd to one to one parking there's 23 so that takes care of that and the remaining unit as a right i guess or maybe by cu .75. >> correct. >> if we do the math at 50 spaces their compliant but you're saying they could use their space better and add a few more spaces. >> first we're saying in the code our concern you know we want to raise this for the commissions consideration yes, we building if they were able to do you want the needs there could be additional spaces. >> for parking for the residential unit. >> maybe a supplemental area. >> perhaps for uses because the way i'm reading it it says you can mitigate by me

government code established a one year time period, however, american people exception that is subsection d and g and that laws the time alignment to pause or town hall awhile there's an going on regulation into the matter and the officer is not subject to that investigation and the administration of the investigation is tasked with looking at the train policy or tactical concerned identified in the course of their investigation any ois officer involved shooting involving a san francisco police department at the airport oakland or somebody off doubt wherever is in the jurisdiction of the internal division it maybe investigated by the office of complaints the ocii will be complaint driven but their volunteers are notified with the fallout once the dock it has been notified this incident has happened so for information we've talked about the information in the two different criminal investigation the da investigation and the homicide investigation closed it closed they've shared with each other and shared information with the i a the administrative investigator but that information didn't f

the anyone else establishment submit to the planning department everything for the finding under subsection b on behalf of that's the is what. >> the requirements in the bulletin. >> the upper part. >> correct. >> so the planning department would check again, whether the dpw requirements are met correct. >> they will check to make sure for instance, in their functioning before january 19th that the business license was received from january 19th, etc. the planning department is checking using those documents to make sure their complying with the amnesty program. >> so the clearance of the dpw as of those conditions may not be acceptable to the planning department potentially because they've gone through the dpw and successfully gone through that process. >> in terms of the - >> the compliance with those conditions probably can you have a turn out down from the planning department and if they don't comply with the requirements potentially. >> okay. the these compliance that you mentioning are they additional to what is set up in sex d with conditions what's the conditions i'm a little bit co

the anyone else establishment submit to the planning department everything for the finding under subsection b on behalf of that's the is what. >> the requirements in the bulletin. >> the upper part. >> correct. >> so the planning department would check again, whether the dpw requirements are met correct. >> they will check to make sure for instance, in their functioning before january 19th that the business license

supportive of and moving forward i believe that more than ever today from the mission merchant is that subsection or subdivision appropriate that's itself point i want to remind ours of in follow-up on commissioner hillis and the second point i'd like support a continuance not just a

. >> it is in the planning code by adding you knew subsection to modify the measurement methodology i'm sorry how would- >> say that again. >> (laughter). awe perpetrate and create a process to authorize certain floor and exist in the cross-examination 3 zoning district that's all thank you >> commissioner johnson. >> mr. star thank you and there are some legislative items generally speaking i know you write those ahead of time can you send those to us. >> i write them maybe a half hour ahead of time. >> maybe we can post them there is more to the spoiler legislation their public records but sometimes hard to follow when you we have a lot of items. >> i will try to overwhelm before the hearing. >> what before the hearing. >> commissioner johnson are you referring to his brief. >> his brief. >> his report. >> so i know aaron is writing his belief pretty close to the hearing but if we set up a paragraph e-mail it to the commissioners. >> mr. star will send it out on friday for the legislation maybe that's the thing in lieu of the commissioners friday summaries in lieu of sending the notes

supportive of and moving forward i believe that more than ever today from the mission merchant is that subsection or subdivision appropriate that's itself point i want to remind ours of in follow-up on commissioner hillis and the second point i'd like support a continuance not just a promise the the devil is in the details and there's good intentions by but i want to see the negotiations satisfactory to all parties before i'll want to approve the project i like the intent of people working things out it is happen in the spirit and wouldn't take a a long time to do so the question to the architect when you presented the ground floor plan i was looking at the planner and you were using the elevation to take us around the building and what you were saying didn't match did you deinvites another plan between the time why couldn't i follow. >> the only difference possibly could be as you interfrom the corner a retail lightwell to the left on valencia. >> that's not drawn. >> correct. >> i find that part of question i do think that not only we do architecture here we want to see a commitment the plan fo

section 6.60 and -- let me find it -- on the top of page 79 where it says, other determinations under subsection d, described below the department is responsible declared emergency with immediate notice to the board of supervisors, the mayor, controller and the commissioner having jurisdiction over the area effected by the emergency if any. then it goes on. the department is responsible for the execute of the repair. that is the new language they're proposing. >> great. >> in addition to that our office is recommendationing, and indicating the departments agree to add that the proposed emergency resolution, that the board needs to approve must be submitted to the board of supervisors within 60 days -- >> now why is it 60 days? >> we basically, based on some of the recent issues, that have surrounded emergency declaration, we were concerned by the time the departments were submitting these declarations six months after the declaration, not only had the work primarily commenced it was almost over. there was no ability for the board of supervisors to reject or do anything different than approve bec

supportive of and moving forward i believe that more than ever today from the mission merchant is that subsection or subdivision appropriate that's itself point i want to remind ours of in follow-up on commissioner hillis and the second point i'd like support a continuance not just a promise the the devil is in the details and there's good intentions by but i want to see the negotiations satisfactory to all parties before i'll want to approve the project i like the intent of people working things out it is happen in the spirit and wouldn't take a a long time to do so

[reading] inside or outside of our offices, attendees, subject to subsection a of this section, 67.295 shall attempt to identify names of attendees, present in the organizations they represent. provided that an official shall not require any attendee, to identify themselves so we're not foring anyone to identify themselves unless they're campaign consultants, under campaign and government conduct code article one chapter five lobbyists, with the [inaudible] article two, chapter two. permit consultants, conduct code, article three, chapter four, and developers of major projects, as in campaign and government code 3.510. is discussed at the meeting, in this case we're only asking for a major donor we're identifying the major donor, when they're discussing the project that's before the board of supervisors, and the subject of that meeting after this meeting or event the official shall update the attendees, by the officials of the organization they represent. that is the new language we have in here. we want to make sure we're following what is elsewhere in our ethics legislation, identify

[reading] inside or outside of our offices, attendees, subject to subsection a of this section,

. >> i don't think that is right. 1861 subsection been requires minimization procedures because it reflects that it was understood that this tool could be used to obtain data that would relate to a number of u.s. persons so the statute requires the government propose that an element of the program be robust minimization procedures which was spelled out in detail in orders of the fifth but there would be protections are around the use and dissemination of the data. >> some experience with minimization procedures to put something in legislation if this program were going to be authorized by congress that says what made sense or didn't make sense that this is the attorney general has to specify and so far the record is signed off on what the attorney general exports and it was made more restrictive because the attorney general asked it to be made more restrictive. they are operating in context and. nobody is they're saying here is what would be better minimization procedures or what the constitution requires, the government goes in and says here is a list of things you should tell us to do and

code of regulations or title 40 code regulations that activities identified in paragraph 1a of subsection f of section 404 of the federal water pollution control act 33 united states code 1344 f.1a must best tablied or ongoing in order to receive an exemption under such subsection. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. chairman. the house has previously passed language to require the army corps of engineers to apply the clean water act as congress has passed it. not as the corps may wish it to have been written. unfortunately the corps has disregarded these efforts and posed regulations that could prevent farmers from changing crops or fallowing fields during especially california's historic drought. section 404 of the clean water act exempts regulation if the following, and i quote normal farming, civil culture ranching activities such as plowing, seeding cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber and forest products or upland soil and conse

you get what the implication of that is, and also a subsection called yes we can and we try to summarize everything that is happening that is positive. at the moment pitch didn't catch today's announcement that mexico is committing to peak emissions by 2026. so there's momentum in the right direction. but there's suddenly the yes we can, attitude and also the no, we can't and we have a section on that, too and there's plenty of things to put in there too to add up. now, let me take the more optimistic tact here. try. to india has a one dollar per ton of coal. not co2. coal. tax. half a billion bucks a year, and much of that is being spent on renewables clean green and so on. that's india. china has seven regional trials in place -- cap and trade trials in place. the non reform commission is writing the five-year plan and is charged with writing the next five-year plan, and the chance is pretty good it will include a cap on co2 emissions. the whole country the electricity sector and so on, but that's china. that's late'll lay today mexico announced emission will peak by 2026. don't ask me

so in -- 1861, subsection g, i believe it is, requires mine minimization procedures. this could be used to gather data that would relate to a number of u.s. persons. so the statute requires that the government propose and that an element of the program be robust minimization procedures. they've been spelled out in orders of the fisc, but there would be protections around the use and dissemination of the data. >> now that you've got some experience with the procedures, it presumably would be possible to spell out something in legislation if this program were going to be authorized by congress explicitly that said what made sense and didn't make sense. after all, this just says the attorney general has to specify. so far the record is that fisc signed off. and when it was made more restrictive, that was because the attorney general asked for it to be more restrictive. nobody's there saying here's what would be better minimization procedures or we think this is what the constitution requires. the government goes in and says here's a list of things we think you should tel

. >> i don't think that, 1861, subsection g requires minimization procedures. it was understood that this tool could be used to obtain data that could relate to a number of u.s. persons. the statute requires that the government proposed and then an element of the program be robust minimization procedures. they spelled out any orders of the fifth but that there would be rejections around the use and -- protections around the use and dissemination of the data. >> now that we have experience with minimization procedures, it would be impossible to spell out something in legislation of this program were going to be authorized by congress explicitly that said what made sense and what did not. this just says that the attorney general has to specify. the record is basically just sign off on what the attorney general asks for. when i got more restricted, that was because of the effort to be more restrictive. they are operating in an expert complex. no one is there saying that these would be better procedures or what the constitution requires. the government looks and sa

in 1861 subsection g requires minimization procedures because i think the text of the statute reflects it was understood that this tool can be used to obtain data that would relate to, you know, a number of number of us persons. and so the statute requires that the government propose an element of the program be robust minimization procedures. they have outstanding tale. but but that there would be protections around the use and dissemination of the data. >> now that we have some experience with minimization procedures i presume it would be possible to spell out something and legislation of this program were going to be authorized by congress implicitly the said what makes sense and what didn't. after all, this judgment the attorney general has to specify and so far basically signing off on what the attorney general asks for. when it was made more restrictive that was because of the attorney general asking for it to be so. that is not a criticism of the court because they operate essentially an expert a context. no one is there saying here is what would be better all we think this is w

provision of law or refrain from implying any such sanctions pursuant to an agreement described in subsection a, here it is for a period of 10 days. so. if the president has been violating the law, as some of us believe, by lifting sanctions that he doesn't have authority to lift, and we come along and the house and senate disapproval the treaty with iran, and he vetoes that treaty, here's the lesson. he can't illegally lift sanctions against iran for 10 whole days. 10 calendar days. says 10 calendar days. man, that's going to teach him a lesson. this is a powerful bill that will teach the president, you don't mess with congress. you loosen sanctions that the law put in place, why, we'll pass another bill that says you can't do it for 10 whole days. and that's what we did here. now, now, on page 9 we've got the effect of congressional action with respect to nuclear agreements with iran. it's a sense of congress. and b says it's a sense of congress that these negotiations are critically important matter of -- are a critically important matter of national security of the united states and its a

the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed force in enduring ground operations. that's an interesting are terp one not previous used in any legal documents, this idea of what is an enduring offensive ground operation. and then also, esadditionally puts limitations and now he says the thorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of enactment. unlike 2001, the president is proposing this one includes a built-in terp nation date. that meeds to the final thing that i wanted to talk about from my perspective is, the military operational perspective. what is the military likely to think or what would be their role in the discussions of this aumf? again, i don't speak foolishly or personally from the official position of the department of defense. but i can tell you generally what the military wants in any military operation is they want one clear objectives of what they -- what they are expected to accomplish and two, they want operational flexibility. all right? so looking at this proposed aumf, i can

the authority granted subsection 8 does not authorize use of u.s.forces during grounded operations that's an interesting term one that is not previously used in the legal documents. the idea what is an enduring offensive ground operation. and also, he additionally puts limitations on that saying the authorization of use of military force shall terminate three years after the david enactment. unlike 2001 it doesn't have a specific date. this leads me to kieft final thing that i wanted to talk about from my perspective and that's the military operational perspective. so what is the military likely to think or what would be their role in the discussion of this amuf. speaking personally from the official position of the department of defense but i can tell you generally what the military wants in any military operation, is they want one clear objectives of what they're expected to accomplish. and two, they want operational flexibility. all right? so looking at this promed edpromised aumf, they can look at this because it's arbitrary. if you give the spe

in section 203, it says that upon making determination under subsection c-3 a democratic elected government in cuba is in power. the president shall, upon determining that a democratic elected government of cuba is in power, submit the determination to the appropriate congressional committees. es let me first ask has the president made a determination that a democratically elected government in cuba is now in power? >> the president has not taken actions under those aspects of the libertat act. he has not invoked that part or any of the act to take the actions he's taken. >> he simply done feel like he has to refer to the libertat act? what his he doing if he's not lifting the embargo? what is this? >> i think -- >> how is he skirting it? >> i think the president's made very clear that the congress is the only body that can lift the embargo, and as he said in his state of the union message he called on congress to do so. therefore, he's made clear that he does not have the authority to lift the embargo. >> what's he doing? it seems like a lifting of embargo to me. >> what he's taken are exe

fact there was a section, an article i published with the american university law review that the subsection is titled four plus one does not equal four. >> and just looking at the cases in this area, my sense is that the first amendment doesn't get you very far in a criminal context because you're dealing necessarily in a criminal context with somebody who in fact was discovered to be engaged in some sort of wrongdoing and that first amendment cases -- >> allegedly. >> well, okay. allegedly. all my clients are instituted don't get me wrong. so you're dealing with a context where usually it's going to be relatively clear that at least it was a good faith investigation. the government was trying to find evidence of criminal activity rather than just expose what a group of people were trying to interfere with first amendment protected speech. there's a case from the ninth circuit involving namla investigating a group engaged in potential speech there's a good faith test from a first amendment standpoint that goes beyond what the fourth amendment standard would be. there's no problem with infil

what concerns us is taking one subsection of a fleet of a couple million rail cars and making a differentact capacity. part of the way the rule is going to be hinged is if you don't do this you have a blanket slower speed across the entire network. when we go back and look at this really tough recession eight years now, nine years, we are starting to approach historic volumes that we as an industry saw in 2006. we have to go back to 2006. it was a period of time where ports were congested, railroads congested, highways congested. we see ton miles back up on the various infrastructures. anything that anybody does that has potential to take away capacity has potential to have a major impact to the economy. we just saw that this last really highlighted the last three or four months at the ports on the west coast when there was a dock worker strike. we saw how fragile the supply chain was and chaos that it created where people literally weren't getting goods for months on months. capacity is not abundant. even though we are spinning our way into it last thing we want is a regulation that auto

in 1861 subsection g requires minimization procedures because i think the text of the statute reflects it was understood that this tool can be used to obtain data that would relate to, you know, a number of number of us persons. and so the statute requires that the government propose an element of the program be robust minimization procedures. they have outstanding tale. but but that there would be protections around the use and dissemination of the data. >> now that we have some experience with minimization procedures i presume it would be possible to spell out something and legislation of this program were going to be authorized by congress implicitly the said what makes sense and what didn't. after all, this judgment the attorney general has to specify and so far basically signing off on what the attorney general asks for. when it was made more restrictive that was because of the attorney general asking for it to be so. that is not a criticism of the court because they operate essentially an expert a context. no one is there saying here is what would be better all we think this is w