Pulsed EPR measurements were performed on a commercial Bruker E680 X-band spectrometer equipped with a cylindrical TE dielectric resonator (model ER 4118 X-MD5) with a centre frequency f = 9.75 GHz. Single-crystals of Na [Ho Y (W O ) ]∙nH O (x = 0.001 to 0.25) were prepared according to the method described in ref. 23. Samples were re-crystallized before study, then transferred to the spectrometer directly from the mother liquor and cooled rapidly in order to prevent loss of crystallinity due to evaporation of lattice solvent. The sample temperature was controlled using an Oxford Instruments CF935 helium flow cryostat and ITC503 temperature controller. A strong temperature dependence of T at the CTs required operation of the cryostat at a temperature of 5.0 K in order to ensure good thermal stability and sample-to-sample reproducibility. For each series of measurements, a single crystal was mounted on a 4 mm diameter quartz rod and positioned at the centre of the cylindrical resonator for perpendicular mode excitation. The tendency for samples to rapidly lose solvent, and the low symmetry space group of the HoW compound, made it impossible to index and align crystals before mounting. However, the Bruker E680 and ER 4118X-MD5 dielectric resonator combination allows for in situ sample rotation about a single axis. Each crystal was therefore aligned as best as possible on the basis of angle-dependent CW EPR measurements performed at 9.75 GHz and 5.0 K. The remaining misalignment, θ, between B and z was determined by scaling the applied field to match the simulations in Fig. 1 (see below). A θ < 30° criterion was then applied; crystals not meeting this condition were discarded and a new sample selected for study. When overcoupled for ESE measurements, the bandwidth of the resonator is given by Δf = f /Q ≈ 250 MHz, where the loaded quality factor Q ≈ 40. This is sufficient to allow variable-frequency measurements with reasonable microwave B fields down to a lower limit of ~9.1 GHz. The B fields were independently measured under the same conditions via the Rabi oscillation frequency (Ω ) of a spin-1/2 EPR standard (the organic radical bisdiphenylene-2-phenylallyl dissolved in polystyrene); B values varied from ~4 G at 9.1 GHz, to 9 G at 9.75 GHz (Ω = 11–25 MHz for s = 1/2). A two-pulse sequence (T/2–τ–T–τ–echo, where T characterizes the pulse durations and τ the delay time between pulses) was employed for all ESE measurements reported in this work. The values of T, τ and the source power were optimized at each frequency, with the assumption that the optimum conditions correspond approximately to the Hahn-echo sequence, π/2–τ–π–τ–echo, where π refers to the tipping angle. For T measurements, τ was varied and the resultant echo amplitude then fitted to a single exponential decay. Because the ESE measurements were performed well below the centre frequency of the cavity, and owing to the lack of a priori knowledge of the matrix elements associated with the observed transitions, pulse sequences were adjusted at each frequency by one of two methods: (1) the π/2 pulse length (T/2) and source attenuation were adjusted to maximize the echo intensity relative to the spectrometer noise for the ESE-detected spectra in Figs 2a and 4a, thereby explaining the variability of the vertical error bars denoting excitation bandwidth (defined as 2/T, or 1/τ , where τ is the duration of the π/2 pulse in the Hahn-echo sequence); and (2) Rabi oscillation measurements were used to determine the optimum π/2 pulse length for the detailed T measurements displayed in Figs 3 and 4c, and Extended Data Figs 1 and 2 (the Rabi pulse sequence was optimized via method (1)). On this basis, a Rabi frequency, Ω = 98 Mrad s−1 (15.6 MHz), was determined for 0 dB attenuation at the CTs, resulting in a minimum π/2 pulse length of 16 ns for the employed spectrometer. This corresponds to an optimum dephasing factor Q = 820, defined here as Q = Ω T , a figure of merit for qubit operation. We note, however, that this does not preclude shorter pulses using a more powerful microwave source, suggesting the possibility of Q values up to 1.5 × 106 using the modified definition in ref. 9. Interestingly, this value is identical to the one reported in ref. 9 for an Fe nanomagnet, in spite of the vastly different frequencies employed in the two measurements, primarily because of the much longer coherence in the HoW system. Based on knowledge of the spectrometer used for the Fe study, we estimate a Q = Ω T of just 50 for Fe ; of course, the same arguments concerning limited source power apply in that case. The HoW Q value compares favourably with other candidate molecular spin qubits using both definitions—for example, the optimum Q (=Ω T ) varies from ~2,000 for the Cr Ni wheel (ref. 10), up to ~10,000 obtained recently for a CuII coordination complex16. However, one should bear in mind that extreme dilution/deuteration was employed in these cases. The energy spectrum associated with the Hund’s rule spin–orbit coupled ground state of the Ho3+ ion, with L = 6, S = 2 and J = |L + S| = 8, can be described by the effective Hamiltonian (equation (1) in the main text, reproduced here for convenience) The double summation describes the CF interaction in terms of extended Stevens operators (k = 2, 4, 6, and ), with associated coefficients (refs 31, 32), and with expressed in terms of the total electronic angular momentum operators and (i = x, y, z). Using this convention, the axial (q = 0) coefficients determined from magnetic and continuous-wave (CW) EPR measurements are23, 24: = 0.601 cm−1, = 6.96 × 10−3 cm−1, and = −5.10 × 10−5 cm−1. This parameterization results in the m = ±4 CF states lying lowest in energy (Fig. 1), separated from the m = ±5 excited states by ~20 cm−1 (ref. 23). The second term in equation (1) describes the hyperfine coupling between the Ho3+ electron and I = 7/2 nuclear spin, resulting in the observation of eight (2I + 1) well-resolved electro-nuclear transitions via high-field CW EPR measurements; here, denotes the total nuclear angular momentum operator, and A the hyperfine coupling tensor, for which the parallel component, A = 830 ± 10 MHz, has been determined from the high-field CW EPR spectrum24. The final two terms in equation (1) respectively parameterize the electron and nuclear Zeeman interactions with the local magnetic induction, B , in terms of a Landé g-tensor (g ) and isotropic nuclear g-factor (g ); μ and μ represent the Bohr (electron) and nuclear magneton, respectively. The parallel component of the Landé g-tensor, g = 1.25(1), has been determined from CW EPR studies24. In addition to the axial (q = 0) CF parameters, CW EPR measurements at X-band frequencies can only be accounted for by including a sizeable tetragonal ( ) interaction, with = 3.14 × 10−3 cm−1 (see Fig. 1a and ref. 24 for detailed explanation). It is this term (which is allowed because of a small distortion of the HoW molecule away from exact D symmetry) that generates avoided level crossings between m = ±4 states, as seen in Fig. 1a. In principle, the sixth order tetragonal interaction is also symmetry allowed. However, contains the commutator [ ] and is, thus, indistinguishable from within the truncated m = ±4 ground doublet. Therefore, we employ only the term to capture the effects of the distortion away from exact D symmetry. The key point is that connects the m = ±4 states in second-order, resulting in unusually large (~9 GHz) quantum tunnelling gaps. For B ‖z, the frequencies of the resultant weakly allowed EPR transitions between these states then follow a field-dependence of the form (see Fig. 1b) where the approximate quadratic expression applies for fields close to the gap minima, B . Indeed, because represents the only off-diagonal CF interaction in equation (1), an almost exact mapping of the first expression of equation (3) onto curves generated via exact diagonalization of equation (1) is possible, yielding the following parameters: Δ = 9.18 GHz, γ = 139.9 GHz T−1 (=1.25 × 8 × μ /h, that is, g = 1.25), and B = 23.6, 70.9, 118.1 and 165.4 mT. This analysis assumes B ‖z, while the experiments are typically performed with a small field misalignment (θ ≠ 0), as noted above. However, due to the extreme uniaxial symmetry of the HoW molecule, the perpendicular component of the effective gyromagnetic tensor associated with the m = ±4 doublet, γ < 0.1 GHz T−1 (g < 0.01), resulting in a virtual insensitivity to the perpendicular component of the applied field (B ) over the range explored in this investigation; for comparison, note that γ ≈ 0.04 GHz T−1. For this reason, one can approximate the electronic Zeeman term in equation (1) using a scalar interaction of the form, (where B = B cosθ). Equation (3) then applies quite generally at the gap minima, provided the applied field is rescaled to account for any misalignment. Hence all EPR spectra are plotted as a function of the longitudinal applied field component, B . Importantly, the derivative df/dB → 0 (that is, γ → 0) as B → B , resulting in an almost complete insensitivity of the EPR transition frequencies at the gap minima to magnetic noise associated with the environment, thus giving rise to the strong T divergences at the CTs. However, the small yet finite γ (<0.1 GHz T−1) probably limits T right at the CTs (within ±0.5 G of B ) in these studies due to the unavoidable field misalignment. In fact, γ → 0 as B sinθ → 0, which may explain the longer T values observed at the lowest field CTs in Fig. 3, and also suggests that longer T s may be achievable in precisely aligned samples. The data displayed in Fig. 3 were obtained for a small crystal of the most dilute sample (x = 0.001). It is the high quality of this crystal that results in the sharp T peaks at all four CTs (all four B locations). However, it gives weak ESE signals, making it challenging to perform a detailed analysis of the scaling of T with B . Careful T measurements were therefore repeated for larger samples. Unfortunately, the larger crystals are susceptible to twinning that manifests as a broadening of spectral peaks and T divergences, with the effect being most pronounced at the higher field CTs (see Fig. 2a). However, the first CT at B = 23.6 mT often remains sharp (see below for explanation). Extended Data Fig. 1 displays T measurements for the x = 0.001 and 0.01 concentrations, plotted against (B − B ) on both logarithmic (main panels) and linear (insets) scales. Similar to the data in Fig. 3, the T peaks exhibit broad tails, with an apparent kink at mT for the more dilute sample. However, when plotted on a log-log scale, the data follow a power law (to within the experimental uncertainty) spanning an order of magnitude in (B − B ) for x = 0.001, and almost two orders of magnitude for x = 0.01, particularly on the high-field sides of the T peaks. This apparent monotonic behaviour of the form T ∝ (B − B )−n supports our assertion that the decoherence is dominated by dipolar field fluctuations that vanish as df/dB → 0. However, the exponent, n, is both sample-dependent (n = 0.33 and 0.46, respectively, for x = 0.001 and 0.01), and different from previous predictions28, 29: n = 1 for indirect flip-flop processes (spin diffusion), and n = 2 for instantaneous diffusion25. We believe that sample inhomogeneity is responsible for these differences in HoW , thus masking the intrinsic T dependence on B , causing obvious sample-to-sample variability. It is nevertheless interesting that a power-law scaling still holds, as opposed, for example, to Gaussian behaviour. This clearly merits further theoretical investigation. Reduced ESE intensity and faster T decay curves are part of the reason for the increased error bars and apparent broad tails seen in Fig. 3 and Extended Data Fig. 1. In addition, ESE-envelope-modulation (ESEEM)25 is detectable in the decay curves recorded in these tails (not shown). However, only one to two heavily damped periods of oscillation can be seen, thus adding to the error in T (not to mention a potential systematic error that is not taken into account in our analysis). It is these combined factors that likely explain the apparent kink in some of the data at mT, as well as the weak variation in T across the ‘normal’ transitions seen in the right-hand panel of Fig. 3. Interestingly, enough ESEEM periods can be detected to confirm that it is due to coupling to protons in the sample. Importantly, the ESEEM vanishes at the CTs, providing further strong evidence that the Ho3+ spin becomes decoupled from the surrounding dipolar spin bath as both (B −B ) and df/dB → 0. The EPR spectra of HoW are inhomogeneously broadened24, with the two main contributions originating from (i) crystal twinning and (ii) strain in the off-diagonal CF parameter. (i) Crystals of HoW form as long thin needles that tend to aggregate into aligned bundles. Separating single crystals from these bundles can be challenging, particularly given that removal of the samples from their mother liquor for periods of more than a few minutes leads to sample degradation. Even after separation, our measurements suggest varying degrees of mosaic spread, particularly for the larger crystals. Indeed, simulations of high-field CW EPR spectra (where the effects of the mosaicity are more pronounced than at X-band) employed a Gaussian orientational distribution with a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of 1°, albeit for a small crystal24; the distribution is considerably broader for many of the samples employed for ESE measurements. Within the context of equation (2), this mode of disorder produces a spread in γ and the B values, resulting in horizontal smearing of the energy levels in Fig. 1, as opposed to a vertical smearing produced by a distribution in (see below). The horizontal smearing becomes more pronounced at higher fields, akin to g-strain. Consequently, the EPR spectra often become broader with increasing field, as is clearly evident in Fig. 2, and less so in Fig. 4. Although subtle, the effects of sample mosaicity are most pronounced at the CTs. The horizontal spread in the CTs results in a smearing of the divergence in T . In general, the strongest/narrowest divergences were obtained for the smallest crystals, which have the smallest mosaic spread. It is for this reason that the data for the most dilute samples in Figs 2 and 3 were obtained for two different crystals: the large crystal employed in Fig. 2a did not produce particularly strong T divergences, with maximum values reaching only ~2 μs. Meanwhile, a smaller crystal was employed in Fig. 3: this sample gave very good echoes right at the CTs, in spite of its reduced spin count; however, its ESE spectra vanish into the noise upon moving appreciably away from the CTs. These trends can be attributed both to a T weighting effect, which amplifies the otherwise weak ESE signals at the CTs for the more ordered (longer T ) sample, and to the narrower mosaic distribution that further enhances echoes at the CTs. Multiple small samples were studied, and optimum T values at the CTs in the 6–8 μs range were found in nearly all cases for the x = 0.001 and 0.01 samples (see Fig. 3 and Extended Data Figs 1 and 2). (ii) Other sources of inhomogeneous broadening include: strains in the spin Hamiltonian parameters ( , A and g ), caused by microscopic disorder, and inhomogeneities in B due to electron and nuclear dipolar fields. The latter may be ruled out as a major source of broadening at X-band (and 5 K) due to weak sample magnetization and the lack of any systematic dependence of the EPR linewidth on Ho concentration. Meanwhile, the only effect of the diagonal (q = 0) CF terms in equation (1) is to ensure an isolated m = ±4 doublet ground state with γ = g Jμ /h = 139.9 GHz T−1 (J = 8 and g = 1.25). Other than that, the low energy spectrum exhibits little or no dependence on , and (ref. 24), and should thus be insensitive to strains in these parameters. For related reasons, and because of the contracted nature of the 4 f shell and strong spin-orbit coupling, the g and A tensors are relatively immune to local strains in the crystal structure (although the effective interactions will of course be sensitive to sample alignment due to the strong axial character of the CF). This leaves which, indeed, has a profound influence on the X-band EPR spectrum, as clearly seen in Fig. 1a and discussed in detail in ref. 24: directly sets the scale of the tunnelling gap, Δ, which is responsible for the CTs. The finite parameter arises because of a small deviation of the coordination environment around the Ho ion from exact D symmetry24. The superposition of disorder onto this weakly distorted structure can then give rise to a relatively strong modulation of the local parameter and, hence, to a broad distribution for the ensemble. Working under this assumption, we re-simulated CW X-band spectra obtained for an x = 0.1 sample at a frequency of 9.64 GHz (figure 8 of ref. 24), assuming that the main source of broadening is a Gaussian distribution in . The best simulation is obtained with a FWHM of 5.0 × 10−5 cm−1, that is, ~1.6% of (or a standard deviation, σ = 2.1 × 10−5 cm−1). This, in turn, produces a vertical distribution in the corresponding tunnelling gap, Δ. Because connects the m = ±4 states at the second order of perturbation, the resultant standard deviation of the gap distribution is given approximately by σ ≈ 2Δσ / = 4.1 × 10−3 cm−1 = 123 MHz (FWHM of 290 MHz), where Δ = 0.306 cm−1 = 9.18 GHz is the mean gap value (the factor of ‘2’ emerges because of the quadratic dependence of Δ on ). Figure 1b depicts the Gaussian broadening of the EPR transition frequencies as a 3D colour map, with contours shown at the ±σ and ±2σ levels of the distribution. Because affects only Δ, this mode of disorder does not shift the magnetic fields (B ) at which the CTs occur for the different molecules in the distribution. However, it does distribute them vertically over a relatively wide frequency range (approximately ±0.25 GHz at the 2σ level). This can explain the observation of ESE intensity exactly at the CTs over a wide frequency range for the concentrated (x = 0.1) sample seen in Fig. 4. Because the cavity employed for these investigations has a centre frequency at 9.75 GHz, its sensitivity improves upon increasing the frequency from 9.1 to 9.4 GHz. Meanwhile, the number of Ho3+ spins in the distribution decreases with increasing frequency. These two factors approximately offset, explaining the relatively constant ESE intensity and signal-to-noise ratio across the studied frequency range. The ESE intensity does peak at 9.2 GHz, above which it decays, although not as rapidly as one may expect purely on the basis of the gap distribution. This is due to the increasing B field of the spectrometer, which enables excitation of more spins and hence the generation of stronger echoes at higher frequencies. This same behaviour is observable at the other concentrations. For example, CTs are very clearly observable in between the ‘normal’ EPR transitions over a wide frequency range at B = 165 mT for the x = 0.01 sample, as seen in Extended Data Fig. 3. Further evidence can also be found at some of the higher frequencies, where inspection of Fig. 1a reveals crossings between nuclear sub-levels (Δm = ±1) at fields exactly half way between the B values. If the applied field is not well aligned to the crystal z axis, these become avoided crossings (with <10 MHz gaps), giving rise to new CTs at these higher frequencies. This is a subtlety of the perpendicular field component, B , which will be the subject of a future publication. The avoided nuclear sub-level crossings do not influence any of the conclusions concerning the CTs at the gap minima (Δ). Nevertheless, the higher frequency CTs are observable, particularly at low fields where the effects of disorder due to sample mosaicity are less pronounced, and the ‘normal’ ESE transitions are quenched due to very short T s (refs 2, 9). This is the explanation for the sharp double peaks seen for the x = 0.001 sample at ~50 mT between 9.4 and 9.7 GHz in Fig. 2a, as well as the sharp zero-field peaks and some of the fine structures seen between B values at higher fields and frequencies. On the basis of the 50 mT CTs, one can see that the vertical broadening spans less than 400 MHz in this sample, that is, less than ±200 MHz from the peak of the distribution. In other words, σ clearly varies from sample to sample, being smaller for the x = 0.001 concentration. This is the reason why intensity due to the low-frequency CTs (at B ) is not discernible in between the broad ‘normal’ transitions in the most dilute sample in Fig. 2a.
OSI Laser Diode Inc., an OSI Systems Company, offers the TCW TriBiner fiber-coupled laser, the TCW RGBM-105R. The triple wavelength device is a red, green, and blue (RGB) laser diode module that has been specifically designed to meet strict efficiency footprint requirements of the visible laser display market. The module couples all three wavelengths, 450 nm, 520 nm, and 638 nm, into a single output fiber pigtail. There are various fiber pigtail options available, depending on application needs. The optical power is typically 35 mW (operating at 25 C) and spectral width (FWHM) is 2 nm for all three wavelengths. The continuous wave (CW) threshold current is: 30 mA for the 450 nm wavelength; 40 mA for the 520 wavelength; and 50 mA for the 638 nm wavelength. The operating temperature range (at rated drive conditions) is from -20 to +50 C; storage temperatures (non-operational) range from -40 to +85 C. Typical applications include RGB displays, RGB projectors, and optical sensors.
News Article | January 11, 2016
Very few people know what the Hollywood Foreign Press is, exactly, and yet the association's premier award, the Golden Globe, somehow matters. This is the reality we live in. Whether these awards have relevance beyond predicting further awards and renewal for on-the-bubble TV shows, though, one thing is for sure: the award ceremony itself is often a more entertaining, less stuffy show than the Oscars. There's alcohol, for one thing. Fourth-time host Ricky Gervais made that clear by immediately plunking a pint down on the podium. Alcohol's famous social lubrication properties tend to have a trickle-down effect that leads to a looser show altogether. Also, the doubling up of movie and TV creates so many awards that all of those pesky technical categories are excised. (See you in hell, Best Visual Effects supervisors!) "Shut up, I don't care," Gervais says to the audience near the top of the show, beer on podium. This line was in response to groans over Gervais's jokes about women like Jennifer Lawrence demanding equal pay for the films they unmistakably carry, and it set the tone for an almost antagonistic relationship between crowd and host throughout the night. Gervais is famous in this sphere for leaning on shock value, and in that regard he did not disappoint, with jokes that were reliably offensive to all manner of individuals, but at times admirably audacious. Gervais was not the only one who opted for off-color language, though, as this ceremony will probably be remembered as the night of 1000 bleeps. It was hard to tell just what was being said in most cases, since entire strings of sentences were regularly bleeped out, but it's fun to imagine that it was a lot raunchier than it probably was. This year's awards were notable for the rise of The Revenant and The Martian in film, which both won directorial and acting honors for their categories, and lots of deserved, unlikely wins for TV stars, including The Affair's Maura Tierney, Mr. Robot's Christian Slater, and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend's Rachel Bloom. Of course, not everybody was happy about the awards. Many online were mad that The Martian, a dramatic film buoyed by the lead character's sense of humor, was considered a comedy, and thus beat out far funnier projects such as Spy and Trainwreck. It was a decision that proved every bit as divisive and controversial as the show's host. In between handing out awards there were plenty of bits from the usual assemblage of marquee celebrities. Some of them fell flat as an anvil landing on a pancake. Jonah Hill put a bear-hat on his head and spoke in character as the bear from The Revenant. Someone decided to give Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg New Years Eve glasses and have them apparently just wing it. There were just about as many hits as misses, though, and Co.Create has assembled the 15 essential moments from the show below. Within two minutes of the broadcast beginning, Ricky Gervais had already made a joke about Caitlyn Jenner. Yup, he went there (if 'there' means back in time to an era when being transgendered was a punchline in and of itself.) Luckily, Queen Latifah was there on the front lines, giving Ricky the side eye many at home wished they could. Andy Samberg's appearance at the Golden Globes was like an encore to his hosting gig at last year's Emmys. He presented an early award with an inventive bit about it being the final award of the night, and then recounted all the wacky things that had ostensibly occurred over the last few hours. It's no fun when someone who expects to win wins. (See: Leonardo DiCaprio's speech.) What's much more entertaining is someone who is genuinely shocked and honored just to be nominated at all win against Julia Louis-Dreyfus and scream out of flustered disbelief. Rachel Bloom, whom Co.Created spoke with last year, was delightfully human in a way that will likely bring in lots of new viewers to her worthy show. When the nominations were announced last December, America Ferrera was mistakenly referred to on the Golden Globes Twitter account as Jane The Virgin star, Gina Rodriguez. When presenting an award last night, Ferrera, joined by Eva Longoria, struck back with a joke about casually mixing up the names of stars of Latina actresses. Confirmed besties Amy Schumer and Jennifer Lawrence got chummy on stage and scored some laughs with jokes about celebrity name abbreviations à la J-Law. Ricky Gervais's joke about Matt Damon being 'the only person Ben Affleck hasn't been unfaithful to' was neither good nor bad, but it was definitely intense. What the world needs now are more award show presentations that end with Jason Statham putting Spy director Paul Feig in a headlock. In accepting an award on composer Ennio Morricone's behalf for The Hateful Eight, a drunken Quentin Tarantino got some simple facts wrong and basically behaved like you'd imagine Family Guy's Peter Griffin might in receiving a Golden Globe on someone else's behalf. Aziz Ansari went to Parks & Rec co-star Amy Poehler's school of Golden Globe reactions last night. When his category was called, Ansari could be seen leafing through a book entitled Losing to Jeffrey Tambor With Dignity, which proved inaccurate when Gael Garcia Bernal had a surprise win. Whether or not he could use a good accidental bumping from Lady Gaga on the way to the stage is another matter, but the look Leonardo DiCaprio gives Lady Gaga after that happens is an award show treasure. Mel Gibson vs Ricky Gervais is an Alien vs Predator situation that makes everybody watching feel electric with discomfort. After Gibson lands a decent dig at Gervais, comparing him to a colonoscopy, Gervais can't help but run back in for more spotlight, and earn some bleeps for apparently saying this: In accepting the Cecil B. DeMille Award, Denzel Washington brought his wife and kids onstage, and it’s an adorable-fest. Taraji P. Henson, always a force to be reckoned with, outdoes herself, landing three highlight moments in the span of a minute. First, upon winning, she hands out her Empire character's namesake cookies, then she yells at a handler to "Get off my train!", before finally telling the Globes composer that she will not wrap it up in a timely manner. Epic stuff all around. Probably no one expected Jim Carrey to come out to the stage and just kill for a couple minutes with a bit about the Golden Globes' inherent insignificance, and yet that is what happened. What a time to be alive. Just when you think the kid from Room, Jacob Tremblay, could not be any cuter, there he is, standing on his chair to cheer Globe-winning costar, Brie Larson. Finally, like a tiny angel descending from heaven, Ricky Gervais gets in one final post-game swipe at Mel Gibson during the closing credits: "From myself and Mel Gibson: Shalom." Have a look below at the full list of winners, and let us know in the comments who you thought got robbed. BEST ACTOR, MUSICAL OR COMEDY Matt Damon, The Martian BEST MUSICAL OR COMEDY The Martian BEST ACTRESS IN A SERIES, COMEDY Rachel Bloom, Crazy Ex Girlfriend, (CW) BEST ACTOR IN A SERIES, COMEDY Gael Garcia Bernal, Mozart in the Jungle (Amazon) BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A SERIES OR TV MOTION PICTURE Maura Tierney, The Affair (Showtime) BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A MINISERIES OR TV MOTION PICTURE Christian Slater, Mr. Robot (USA) BEST ACTOR IN A MINISERIES OR TV MOVIE Oscar Isaac, Show Me a Hero (HBO) BEST ACTRESS IN A MINISERIES OR TV MOVIE Lady Gaga, American Horror Story: Hotel (FX) BEST COMEDY Mozart in the Jungle BEST ORIGINAL SCORE Ennio Morricone, The Hateful Eight BEST ORIGINAL SONG Writing's On The Wall, vocals performed by Sam Smith, from Spectre
But there are also drawbacks. Some services are easy to add and cancel, like Netflix is. Time Warner Cable required a phone call for both. Apart from Sling, leaving your home cuts off access to a lot of video. As with traditional cable service, sometimes there are unexpected fees that end up on your bill. A breakdown of what's good and what's not: What you get: About 20 cable channels, including ESPN, ABC Family, AMC and Food Network. Over-the-air channels like ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC are not available; Univision is for an additional fee. You can only watch one stream at a time, so it's not for families. Benefits: It's the best deal for live TV, with a slim package of some of the most popular cable channels. The same shows are available at home as when you're away. Drawbacks: There have been quality issues with streaming. You can't record shows. There are some on-demand episodes, but you can't skip commercials for most, and it's hard to figure out where the on-demand episodes are. Sling announced at CES last week that it will improve that by March. You don't get access to apps created by channels except for WatchESPN. A family with multiple TVs would probably want more than one subscription. (If you add HBO, you get three streams for that channel only.) Where it's available: Nationwide. Price per month: Starts at $20, plus taxes where required. Adding HBO costs $15, and add-on packages of channels with themes like sports, movies, kids and world news are $5 each. What you get: Major broadcast networks and popular cable channels. Those owned by Disney, including ABC and ESPN, will be added at an unspecified date, and CW isn't available. You can watch up to three simultaneous streams in a home. Benefits: You can record shows so you can fast-forward through commercials, but they expire after 28 days, with no ability to archive them, as you can with traditional DVRs. Drawbacks: You need a PlayStation or Amazon's Fire TV device to sign up. Price is comparable to regular cable. Where it's available: Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia and the San Francisco Bay Area. Price per month: Three tiers. The cheapest is $50 a month for about 50 channels, including AMC, CNN, ESPN, Fox and NBC. Tops out at $65 for 85 channels. Pricier bundles have more sports options. Showtime is another $11, and a few others are available on an a la carte basis. What you get: Local networks, HBO and the ability to watch two simultaneous streams. Benefits: An Internet-based DVR with 20 hours of storage that lets you fast-forward commercials and watch outside the home. Drawbacks: Live TV works only on phones, tablets and computers in your house. For the TV, you need an antenna for live channels, though you get channel apps like HBO Go and Fox Now for on-demand video if you have a streaming gadget like Roku, Apple TV or Xbox. Where it's available: Boston and Chicago markets for Comcast's existing Internet customers. The company plans for expand to other regions and create more channel options. Price per month: $15, plus taxes and fees, which can add up to an additional $4. What you get: Different tiers of service that mirror cable offerings: Local networks and a bundle with popular cable channels. Five simultaneous streams. Benefits: You get TV and most popular streaming video services through a free (for now) Roku 3 box, which is easy to use. Channels are high-definition quality. Drawbacks: With taxes and fees, a service advertised at $10 cost me more than $13. You need a phone call to sign up and cancel. Channels took about three seconds to load. Where it's available: New York City; Mt. Vernon, New York; New Jersey for people who also pay for Time Warner Cable. There's no timeline beyond that. Price per month: $10 for over-the-air channels, $20 if you add Showtime and Starz, $50 to also add several dozen cable networks including AMC, Disney, ESPN, Fox News and TNT. These are promotional prices that will rise. Local taxes and fees are additional. Charter Communications has been pitching a streaming service to its Internet customers in markets including St. Louis and Madison, Wisconsin. The company wouldn't provide details, but according to its ads, the service comes with a free Roku. Local networks plus HBO or Showtime cost $13 a month, before taxes and fees; adding 16 cable networks brought it to $20 a month. Explore further: Review: Can you really save money by cutting the cord?
News Article | August 25, 2016
Geoffrey Guy stood out when he began attending conferences of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Washington, DC, in the mid to late 1990s. The stout British gentleman, dressed in a Brooks Brothers suit, was hard to miss among the other attendees dressed in tie-dye shirts and psychedelic parkas, recalled Allen St. Pierre, then NORML’s deputy national director. But while he might not have fit in, Guy, a doctor in his early 40s who’d already made millions by founding a UK-based pharmaceutical company, was eager to learn all he could at the events about medical marijuana. “He was like a dry sponge who desperately wanted to be thrown in a bucket of water,” said St. Pierre, who recently resigned from his 11-year stint as NORML’s executive director to pursue private-sector opportunities. What Guy absorbed at those conferences and other fact-finding excursions became the basis for GW Pharmaceuticals, a UK drug company he founded with fellow doctor Brian Whittle in 1998 that has now become a major player in the legal marijuana industry by developing Sativex, a groundbreaking marijuana-derived drug sold in more than a dozen countries worldwide, and Epidiolex, a cannabis-based seizure medication that’s on a fast track to become the first cannabis-based drug approved in the United States. While much has been written on GW’s groundbreaking origins, part of the story is missing, according to St. Pierre: The close ties the nascent drug company forged with some of the biggest and most colorful names in the US marijuana movement. Early GW investors included the late Peter Lewis, the billionaire former chairman of Progressive Insurance who donated millions to the Marijuana Policy Project and other cannabis reform efforts, and Don Wirtshafter, a longtime marijuana activist who was removed from NORML’s board of directors in 2000 after allegations surfaced of shady dealings between NORML and High Times magazine. At the same time, said St. Pierre, GW employed the services of reform-minded scholars, writers and lawyers, including celebrated marijuana seed collector David Watson, pioneering cannabis scientist Ethan Russo and marijuana research and policy guru Paul Armentano, who had left his position at NORML in 1999 and later that year did short-term freelance contract work for GW, drafting content for various sections of their website. (Armentano, now NORML’s deputy director, confirmed these details but declined to comment further on the matter.) GW also boasted an unusual champion: Irvin Rosenfeld, a stockbroker who is one of only two surviving patients to receive medical marijuana from the federal government thanks to the little-known Compassionate Investigational New Drug program. “I started supporting them and buying their stock,” said Rosenfeld of GW. “I wasn’t calling my regular clients on this. I was going to NORML conferences and other conferences and saying, ‘This company, I think it has potential.’” Thanks largely to Rosenfeld’s efforts, by 2001 St. Pierre said 12 of NORML’s 19 board members had invested in GW, including several who’d sunk more money into the British company than they’d ever donated to the marijuana organization. The situation triggered some of the first discussions the board ever had on whether members should be allowed to invest in cannabis-related companies. “There is no way you have GW Pharmaceuticals without a bizarre and interesting cast of characters from the marijuana movement,” said St. Pierre, who never invested in GW. “When [GW] started, they promoted this really grand notion that you could make money and prove marijuana was a safe and viable drug. You would be doing well and doing good, in terms of the legalization of marijuana.” But more than a decade later, as GW has become a stock market darling and medical marijuana has become a nationwide industry, did the hopes of these marijuana advocates turned pharmaceutical investors come to pass? Are pharmaceutical interests, sensing financial potential, pushing for cannabis reforms? Or is Big Pharma, wary of new competition, working to stop marijuana legalization in its tracks? There’s reason for pharmaceutical interest to be supportive of marijuana reforms. After all, excitement has been growing about the prospect of cannabis-based drugs. According to the cannabis advisory firm Viridian Capital Advisors, biotech companies, led by GW, were responsible for more than half of the roughly $400 million investors sunk into the marijuana industry in 2015. And while the DEA’s refusal two weeks ago to reschedule marijuana as a less dangerous drug frustrated many cannabis activists, the fact that the agency announced it would increase the number of operations allowed to grow research-grade cannabis signaled it was open to marijuana pharmaceuticals. As noted by Armentano in an Alternet article, according to the DEA’s notice on the matter, “under the new approach explained in this policy statement, persons may become registered with DEA to grow marijuana not only to supply federally funded or other academic researchers, but also for strictly commercial endeavors funded by the private sector and aimed at drug product development.” This isn’t the first time federal interests have lowered the barriers to marijuana drug development while keeping a hardline stance on cannabis in general. Last year, the Controlled Substances Act was amended to require that all schedule I drugs be moved to a less restrictive schedule within 90 days of winning FDA approval. In other words, if the FDA approves GW’s Epidiolex, it won’t be schedule I drug, unlike the plant from which it’s derived. FDA approval will come with another benefit: Seven years of market exclusivity for that specific cannabis-based formulation. “I think the DEA announcement is good news for companies that are already producing cannabis in other countries according to the strict quality standards expected by the FDA,” said Marcel Bonn-Miller, a University of Pennsylvania professor and executive director of the new Institute For Research On Cannabinoids. “The GWs of the world, it plays into their hand. It wouldn’t cost them that much to produce product in the United States.” But aside from a few other companies besides GW working to produce pharmaceutical-grade medical marijuana products, such Tilray in Canada and Bedrocan in the Netherlands, there aren’t many indications that pharmaceutical interests are looking to take advantage of cannabis reforms to produce new drugs. Possibly that’s in part because there are already synthetic pharmaceuticals on the market that mimic some of the effects of marijuana, such as Marinol, Syndros and Cesamet. And while many patients say these options can’t compete with the benefits of real cannabis plants, since the country’s drug development process is geared toward producing synthetic pharmaceuticals–only very rarely has the FDA approved plant-derived drugs along the lines of Epidiolex–most drug companies might not think it’s worth the hassle to try to loosen marijuana restrictions to allow for more cannabis drugs synthesized from the real thing. Finally, if pharmaceutical interests do see major financial gains from marijuana legalization, we’d already know it, said John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies marijuana policy: “If the pharmaceutical industry is readying itself to make billions of dollars on medical cannabis or medical products derived from cannabis, how did they not get marijuana rescheduling two weeks ago?” So maybe Big Pharma isn’t actively supporting marijuana legalization. But is it opposed to it? It might be, according to recent research coming out of the University of Georgia. There, Ashley and W. David Bradford, a father-daughter team, scrutinized prescription drugs sold under Medicare Part D from 2010 to 2013 and found that drug sales, particularly for painkillers, were markedly lower in the 17 states that then had medical marijuana laws. And a new paper just submitted by the Bradfords reports that in medical marijuana states, drug sales under Medicaid, which covers a younger population than Medicare, were even lower. The results didn’t appear to be simply correlational; sales of drugs that weren’t likely to be replaced by cannabis use, such as flu medications, weren’t lower in states that had legalized medical marijuana. All in all, the Bradfords estimated that state medical marijuana programs were responsible for $165.2 million in Medicare prescription savings in 2013 and $178.5 million in Medicaid prescription savings in 2014. With figures like that, W. David Bradford has come around to the idea that pharmaceutical companies could be intimidated by marijuana reforms. “Rescheduling whole-plant marijuana does pose a threat to the pharmaceutical industry,” he said. It’s why some people believe drug companies are quietly supporting anti-marijuana efforts. In 2014, investigative journalist Lee Fang published articles in The Nation and Vice detailing how pharmaceutical firms had ties to organizations and individuals opposing marijuana legalization. And recently, the Florida Medical Association voted to oppose a medical marijuana ballot measure on the state’s November ballot at a conference that just happened to be sponsored by one of the largest pharmaceutical trade organizations. “With few exceptions, most pharmaceutical companies have been silent about their intentions toward medical marijuana,” said Joel Stanley, CEO of CW Hemp, which produces “Charlotte’s Web,” a hemp-based product made famous by the CNN documentary “Weed.” “Pharmaceutical dollars, however, have not been so silent. If we look into some of the largest backers of [anti-marijuana organizations], we find the big pharmaceutical companies.” Some people believe it’s not just longstanding pharmaceutical interests that oppose legal marijuana; they say manufacturers of cannabis-based drugs like GW are also trying to restrict whole plant marijuana reforms. That includes Jody Mitchell, who helped pass a law legalizing low-THC medical cannabis oil in Alabama this year. According to Mitchell, at a hearing for the bill, Shannon Murphy, executive director of the Alabama chapter of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a national anti-legalization group, told lawmakers she worked for GW. While Murphy apparently later amended her statement to note that she wasn’t paid by the drug company, to Mitchell, the message was clear: “GW wants to corner the market.”* Mitchell believes a GW monopoly won’t work for everyone – and that includes her 12-year-old son Robert, who suffers from a rare and debilitating form of epilepsy. Last year, Robert was part of an Epidiolex trial in Alabama, but his mother said she pulled him from the study when researchers required her to increase his dosage to up to 50 milligrams of cannabidiol (CBD), the active ingredient in the drug, per kilogram of body weight. “I told them they were crazy if they thought I was going to give my child that much CBD,” said Mitchell. “It’s insane.” Now, on a cannabis oil that provides him with .25 milligrams of CBD per pound of body weight, Robert has logged less than 35 seizures this month, down from the thousands he suffered last August. But are pharmaceutical interests really backing marijuana prohibition? Anti-cannabis advocates insist they’re not. “Big Pharma isn't interested in fighting legalization,” said Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana. And even if companies like painkiller manufacturers offered him money, Sabet insists he wouldn’t accept it: “If anything, big opioid manufacturers offer us a warning against Big Marijuana and the notion of addiction for profit.” Sabet isn’t the only one who says pharmaceutical companies aren’t opposing the marijuana movement. “Pharmaceutical companies in particular are by and large not an overt part of this policy debate,” said NORML’s Armentano. “It’s possible that maybe they are playing a role behind the scenes, but if they are, I am not aware of it.” If pharmaceutical firms wanted to oppose marijuana reforms, they certainly have the resources to do so. According to campaign finance reports, companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer have already donated more than $86 million to oppose a California ballot measure this fall that would set a cap on how much state agencies can spend on prescription drugs. In comparison, no drug companies have donated to those fighting California’s marijuana legalization ballot measure, leaving anti-marijuana interests with a war chest of just under $200,000. But pharmaceutical companies might not have to actively oppose cannabis legalization to cause problems for the marijuana movement. Some activists are concerned that lawmakers will use the approval of drugs like GW’s to justify terminating existing medical marijuana programs—and that, they say, could be disastrous. “If they allow pharmaceutical companies to create pharmaceutical-level marijuana drugs but still allow other cannabis products and home brews, that’s fine,” said Brian Wilson, a Denver-based administrator of a medical marijuana parent advocacy group on Facebook with 7,400 members. “The big issue is what happens if these drugs get approved and everything else gets shut down. You have tons and tons of different strains and combinations of cannabinoids that have worked for people. Cannabis is not one-size-fits-all.” These days, GW keeps its distance from the marijuana movement from which it sprung. While Guy, the company’s co-founder, once said his ambition was “bottling the essence of cannabis,” in a prepared statement attributed to Steve Schultz, vice president of investor relations, GW now insists, “Epidiolex is not medical marijuana. It is pharmaceutical CBD, a non-psychoactive component of the cannabis plant, manufactured to pharmaceutical good manufacturing practice standards.” GW wouldn’t respond to questions about its former ties to cannabis activists, saying in a statement, “GW’s inception was grounded in science, not politics.” Meanwhile, most of the NORML board members and other marijuana advocates who purchased GW stock sold their shares years ago, said St. Pierre, long before GW’s recent market surges would have netted them significant profits. That is, except for Rosenfeld. “It’s been more successful than I ever expected it to be,” he said of his GW stock. While Rosenfeld believes GW took advantage of some folks in the marijuana movement, he still supports the company. “We need GW, but we also need the FDA and [the National Institute on Drug Abuse] and the DEA to recognize the benefits of this medicine in all of its forms.” Looking back on his colleagues’ connections to GW, St. Pierre concludes the episode suggests pharmaceutical interests aren’t playing a major role in the marijuana legalization. “All these years later, I think the argument that you should invest in pharmaceutical stock to prove that marijuana is a safe and effective medicine turned out to be pretty foolhardy,” he said. “Looking at the history and scope of marijuana law, there is really almost no relationship between the pharmacolization of marijuana and its actual reforms.” *Editor's note: In a written statement, Shannon Murphy claimed she never said she worked for GW and never later amended her statement. According to Murphy, “I have only ever spoken to one of their employees in context of gaining information on clinical trials and expanded access programs for patients. We spoke via a phone call and had a couple of emails related to that.”