There are three predominant styles and methods of kintsugi: crack, piece method, and joint-call. While, in each case, gold, silver, or platinum-dusted epoxy is used to fix the broken pottery, the techniques and finished results vary.
Objects mended using the crack approach are touched up with minimal lacquer. This is the most common kintsugi technique, and it culminates in the shimmering veins that have come to define the art form.
Civ 5 Gold Edition Crack
The plaintiff Benson (respondent here) owns a fairly old concrete garage building in the City of Winters and sued the defendant Weaver (our petitioner) because of a serious crack in the south wall near the roof level, allegedly caused by a nearby blasting operation of the defendant-petitioner in the course of wrecking an exposed concrete foundation-floor of a former building. It was pleaded that the explosion hurled large rocks and debris against the wall so as to crack it or, alternatively, *96 caused earth tremors and vibrations accomplishing the same result. A judgment for the defendant-petitioner on a verdict was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, with an order for a new trial, on the ground of prejudicially erroneous exclusion of certain evidence of damage to another building nearby, 250 S.W.2d 770, the defendant-petitioner complaining here that such error of the trial court, if error, was no ground for the reversal.
The jury findings (by the corresponding special issue numbers) were that: (1) no fragments were blown against the wall; (3) the defendant-petitioner did not use an excessive amount of explosive and (5) the crack existed prior to the explosion. The issue resulting in this finding No. 5 reflected a specially pleaded defense. There was no issue as to the existence of the crack at the time of the trial, since it admittedly did exist. Issues Nos. 2 and 4 on causal relationship between "the crack" and the tortious conduct of the defendant-petitioner, as enquired about in Issues Nos. 1 and 3, were not answered. Neither were Issues Nos. 6 and 7, which enquired as to the value of the building in suit before and after the blast.
Appreciating this, the defendant-petitioner argues that Issue No. 5 was merely one on "damages". But the kind of damage issue to which liability evidence is usually irrelevant is one in which the issue enquires whether the plaintiff suffered any loss, not whether his undisputed loss is due to the act of the defendant. And here both the fact of the crack and the existence of at least some monetary loss from the crack are unquestioned, the only disputes being (a) whether or not the blast caused the crack by hurling rocks against the wall, (b) whether or not the blast charge was excessive and thus caused the crack by concussion or vibrations, (c) the precise money depreciation of the building as a result of the crack. So the purport of Issue No. 5 was rather one of determining liability than of determining damages. Its object evidently was the legitimate one of presenting the question of proximate cause in another way (in accordance with the special plea of the defendant-petitioner) so as possibly to produce a conflict in the verdict, should the other findings be favorable to the plaintiff-respondent. Undoubtedly if such favorable findings had been made and if Finding No. 5 had still been made as it was, there would have been a conflict between No. 5 and the findings of proximate cause.
Issue No. 5 being thus but another way of presenting the question of proximate cause, was the excluded evidence of the force of the blast relevant to it, so that if the jury had heard such evidence, a different Finding No. 5 might properly have resulted? In other words, we may, in determining this question of relevance, look at the case as if the jury had answered Issue No. 1 that fragments had been blown against the wall or No. 3 that the blast charge was excessive, or both, but, with the evidence in question excluded, had also found that neither the rocks nor the excessiveness of the blast had caused the crack. And since the excluded proof was quite obviously competent evidence indicating great force in the blast, the question is simply does the degree of force of the blast have logical bearing on the matter of whether rocks thus thrown against the wall or a concussion or earth tremors incident to an excessive blast caused the crack? Now surely the degree of force of the blast is relevant to whether rocks striking the wall from the blast (Issue No. 1) did so with sufficient violence to crack the wall. (At this point we are, of course, assuming that this force was relevant also to whether the rocks did strike the wall, because the proposition we are discussing assumes the exclusion to be prejudicial error, except as Finding No. 5 may have rendered it immaterial to the judgment). And we think the force of the blast is also relevant to the issue of whether the excessiveness of the charge proximately caused the crack. (Here we assume that it was also relevant to Issue No.3 whether the charge was excessive and should have been admitted on that issue). Doubtless the fact of even an atomic blast plus the bare fact that the crack exists is not evidence that the latter is due to the former, since obviously cracks in walls occur more often than not for reasons other than blasts. But where there are additional circumstances in evidence tending to date the crack as coincident with the blast, the result may well be different. Surely if there were eye-witness testimony that the crack never existed before the blast and was noted for the first time the day after the blast, the degree of force of the blast its ability to have caused the crack would be at least a circumstance to fortify or weaken the inference from the date of origin that the crack was caused by the blast. Naturally in a circumstantial evidence case (and this case is such a one) a *98 single circumstance may be of no probative value, if considered apart from the others, and yet be admissible because the others are in evidence. Here there was evidence that sometime between one and three months before the blast the crack did not exist, and that the characteristics of the crack, as observed a time shortly after the blast, indicated it to be of recent origin. There was also expert opinion evidence that the crack was due to an external force. There was no evidence, other than circumstances and opinion testimony, to date the crack previously to the blast. There was considerable proof for the defendant-petitioner, the primary effect whereof was to show that the force of the explosion was relatively mild, or in other words to show from the defense standpoint the true force of the blast. (Indeed, much of this defensive proof particularly about the ancient Ford car standing "sturdy and staunch" by the wall and suffering no injury was of the same type as that which the plaintiff-petitioner was not permitted to introduce, only the former sought to prove the force small by the absence of damage to nearby objects, while the excluded proof was to show the force great through the presence of such damage. The plaintiff-respondent naturally did not object to the former, since he himself was strenuously, if unsuccessfully, trying to introduce proof of the same general type). Under these conditions, we think evidence indicating great force in the blast was relevant on the causation issues and thus also relevant to Special Issue No. 5, as another form of presenting the same issues. In blast-damage cases, the fact that causation is so often impossible of proof, except through circumstantial evidence, justifies a rather liberal attitude in judging the relevance of a particular circumstance.
The game has received critical acclaim and was hailed as an exemplary product of one of the leading video game producers in the turn-based strategy genre, and has been listed as one of the best video games of all time. Civilization IV sold over 3 million copies by 2008 and won multiple awards, including several Game of the Year awards. Its title song, "Baba Yetu", was the first piece of video game music to win a Grammy Award. Two major expansions were released, Civilization IV: Warlords and Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword, as well as the stand-alone expansion pack Civilization IV: Colonization, which were all combined in 2009 into one release edition titled Sid Meier's Civilization IV: The Complete Edition.
Each city can only produce one military unit or one building at a time; any additional units or buildings are placed into a queue. The rate of construction is determined by the amount of material collected from the surrounding spaces; players can also choose to speed production by sacrificing gold or population if they adopt the required governmental policy; called civics. The player can instead specialize the city towards gathering a particular resource instead of constructing additional units or buildings. Also, in order to produce some units or buildings, certain resources must be collected within the empire and connected to the empires trade network by roads or harbours (for example, horses are needed for mounted units, and iron for swords, while stone or marble increase production of certain Wonders.).
Once the player has formally met another civilization, they can perform diplomacy at any time. For example, if the two civilizations are on friendly terms, the player can ask to trade units and/or technology for gold and vice versa, or request opening of national borders in order to freely explore in the other civilization's territories. The player can also use the diplomacy menu to request help in a war against a third civilization, or formally declare war on any civilization in which they engage diplomacy.
Religion plays a much more important role in Civilization IV than in the previous installments of the franchise. Impacting many of the game's key mechanics like government civics and diplomatic relations, the game's new religious system, according to Firaxis Games producer Barry Caudill, was added to increase gameplay depth over the entire game.[8] The game features seven religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism) that are founded by the first civilization to research a certain technology which varies per religion. Religions can then be spread actively through the production of missionary units or passively through means such as trade routes. Religions may be spread to domestic and foreign cities and there is no limit to the number of religions that can be present in any single city. The player may only choose one state religion at a time and all seven offer identical advantages (e.g. cities with the state religion receive bonuses in happiness, and potentially in production, science, gold and even military unit experience points).
2ff7e9595c
Comments