Intermediate English Book

[Map Rousch]

Theintermediate SOE leaderboard includes seasons from receivers like Davante Adams, Keenan Allen, Danny Amendola, Cooper Kupp and Adam Humphries, all of whom are generally regarded as skilled route runners.

Model data elements are only settable as intermediate if they are truly intermediate, i.e. the data element is the output of one tool and also the input to another tool in the chain. When you added the Delete tool to the chain, that made it intermediate (between the point distance and delete tool).

Data marked as intermediate data in a model is automatically deleted when the model is executed using its dialog box or when the model is executed from the Python window. Intermediate data will not be automatically deleted when the model is executed from the ModelBuilder window in order to maintain a model's has-been-run process state.

I'm running it from the toolbox where the model is saved. Intermediate data is being deleted, but I want to tag more data as intermediate so it is also deleted. For now I added a process to delete the data but IMO that seems cheap/unnecessary if the data could simply be tagged intermediate and automatically deleted.

so you are saying that some of the files that are being created (ie intermediate) during the model are not being deleted? any particular tool? are there scripts in the model? a visual might help if it isn't too onerous, with the places where intermediate data are not being deleted, noted.

I have a second point distance that runs a few steps later with slightly different input. The option to check this data as intermediate is grayed out. I can't figure out why. I can set it as managed though?

To top it all off, if I add a delete process to the model, that very same output is then checked as intermediate (model builder checks it, I didn't do it). If I remove the delete process then it reverts back to the second screen shot.

I did notice that you don't seem to have that box as a parameter...perhaps that is why it is a managed parameter. I can understand why you might want it to be as you have made it and I understand the need to delete it ... effectively, it is a managed parameter...one that is used but (perhaps) the user need not interface with.

In conclusion... as you inevitably move forward to ArcGIS Pro, this discussion will be moot ... the option will no longer be there and the new rules will govern. Perhaps just consider this a minor inconvenience that one has to endure

I appreciate the response, but I do not see my organization moving to a "Pro-only" environment any time soon, so that point doesn't quite apply. Regardless, it seems like pro is going to decide what to delete for you, which is my all-time favorite thing that any piece of software does for me. Can't wait!

I'll run through that tutorial at lunch today and see if it sheds any light on my situation, but aside from that my original problem still stands (Why can't I check the intermediate property for that output?). The fact that pro will make this choice for me some day in the future makes the question even more important to me.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty required the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate and permanently forswear all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. The treaty marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and employ extensive on-site inspections for verification. As a result of the INF Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed a total of 2,692 short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles by the treaty's implementation deadline of June 1, 1991.

U.S. calls for the control of intermediate-range missiles emerged as a result of the Soviet Union's domestic deployment of SS-20 intermediate-range missiles in the mid-1970s. The SS-20 qualitatively improved Soviet nuclear forces in the European theater by providing a longer-range, multiple-warhead alternative to aging Soviet SS-4 and SS-5 single-warhead missiles. In 1979, NATO ministers responded to the new Soviet missile deployment with what became known as the "dual-track" strategy: a simultaneous push for arms control negotiations with the deployment of intermediate-range, nuclear-armed U.S. missiles (ground-launched cruise missiles and the Pershing II) in Europe to offset the SS-20. Negotiations, however, faltered repeatedly while U.S. missile deployments continued in the early 1980s.

INF Treaty negotiations began to show progress once Mikhail Gorbachev became the Soviet general-secretary in March 1985. In the fall of the same year, the Soviet Union put forward a plan to establish a balance between the number of SS-20 warheads and the growing number of allied intermediate-range missile warheads in Europe. The United States expressed interest in the Soviet proposal, and the scope of the negotiations expanded in 1986 to include all U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles around the world. Using the momentum from these talks, President Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev began to move toward a comprehensive intermediate-range missile elimination agreement. Their efforts culminated in the signing of the INF Treaty on Dec. 8, 1987, and the treaty entered into force on June 1, 1988.

Although active states-parties to the treaty total just five countries, several European countries have destroyed INF Treaty-range missiles since the end of the Cold War. Germany, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic destroyed their intermediate-range missiles in the 1990s, and Slovakia dismantled all of its remaining intermediate-range missiles in October 2000 after extensive U.S. prodding. On May 31, 2002, the last possessor of intermediate-range missiles in Eastern Europe, Bulgaria, signed an agreement with the United States to destroy all of its INF Treaty-relevant missiles. Bulgaria completed the destruction five months later with U.S. funding.

States-parties' rights to conduct on-site inspections under the treaty ended on May 31, 2001, but the use of surveillance satellites for data collection continues. The INF Treaty established the Special Verification Commission (SVC) to act as an implementing body for the treaty, resolving questions of compliance and agreeing on measures to "improve [the treaty's] viability and effectiveness." Because the INF Treaty is of unlimited duration, states-parties could convene the SVC at any time.

The INF Treaty's protocol on missile elimination named the specific types of ground-launched missiles to be destroyed and the acceptable means of doing so. Under the treaty, the United States committed to eliminate its Pershing II, Pershing IA, and Pershing IB ballistic missiles and BGM-109G cruise missiles. The Soviet Union had to destroy its SS-20, SS-4, SS-5, SS-12, and SS-23 ballistic missiles and SSC-X-4 cruise missiles. In addition, both parties were obliged to destroy all INF Treaty-related training missiles, rocket stages, launch canisters, and launchers. Most missiles were eliminated either by exploding them while they were unarmed and burning their stages or by cutting the missiles in half and severing their wings and tail sections.

The INF Treaty's inspection protocol required states-parties to inspect and inventory each other's intermediate-range nuclear forces 30 to 90 days after the treaty's entry into force. Referred to as "baseline inspections," these exchanges laid the groundwork for future missile elimination by providing information on the size and location of U.S. and Soviet forces. Treaty provisions also allowed signatories to conduct up to 20 short-notice inspections per year at designated sites during the first three years of treaty implementation and to monitor specified missile-production facilities to guarantee that no new missiles were being produced.

On Dec. 8, 2017 the Trump administration announced a strategy to respond to alleged Russian violations, which comprised of three elements: diplomacy, including through the Special Verification Commission, research and development on a new conventional ground-launched cruise missile, and punitive economic measures against companies believed to be involved in the development of the missile.

The report said the missile in dispute is distinct from two other Russian missile systems, the R-500/SSC-7 Iskander GLCM and the RS-26 ballistic missile. The R-500 has a Russian-declared range below the 500-kilometer INF Treaty cutoff, and Russia identifies the RS-26 as an intercontinental ballistic missile treated in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The report also appears to suggest that the launcher for the allegedly noncompliant missile is different from the launcher for the Iskander. In late 2017, the United States for the first time revealed both the U.S. name for the missile of concern, the SSC-8, and the apparent Russian designation, the 9M729.

On Feb. 2, 2019 President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the United States suspended its obligations under the INF Treaty and would withdraw from the treaty in six months if Russia did not return to compliance. Shortly thereafter, Russian President Vladimir Putin also announced that Russia will be officially suspending its treaty obligations.

The United States has officially withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, an agreement with the Russian Federation that limited the types of weapons systems the nations involved could pursue.

"Russia has failed to comply with its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and as such, the United States has withdrawn from the INF Treaty effective today, Aug. 2, 2019," Defense Secretary Dr. Mark T. Esper said in a statement today. "This withdrawal is a direct result of Russia's sustained and repeated violations of the treaty over many years and multiple presidential administrations."

3a8082e126