We facilitate high-quality natural-sounding voices from different sources. There are male & female voices, in different accents and different languages. Choose the voice you like, insert text, click play to generate the synthesized speech and enjoy listening.
TTSReader extracts the text from pdf files, and reads it out loud. Also useful for simply copying text from pdf to anywhere. In addition, it highlights the text currently being read - so you can follow with your eyes. If you specifically want to listen to websites - such as blogs, news, wiki - you should get our free extension for Chrome
Publication 15PDF provides information on employer tax responsibilities related to taxable wages, employment tax withholding and which tax returns must be filed. More complex issues are discussed in Publication 15-APDF and tax treatment of many employee benefits can be found in Publication 15. We recommend employers download these publications from IRS.gov. Copies can be requested online (search Forms and Publications) or by calling 800-TAX-FORM.
We cannot process your application online if the responsible party is an entity with an EIN previously obtained through the Internet. Please use one of our other methods to apply. See How to Apply for an EIN. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
The Internet EIN application is the preferred method for customers to apply for and obtain an EIN. Once the application is completed, the information is validated during the online session, and an EIN is issued immediately. The online application process is available for all entities whose principal business, office or agency, or legal residence (in the case of an individual), is located in the United States or U.S. Territories.
Saltwater anglers who are not required to hold Maryland a Bay & Coastal Sport Fishing license and want to fish the Chesapeake Bay and tidal Potomac River must obtain a free Maryland Saltwater Angler Registration. By registering with Maryland, you will not need to register with NOAA.
Some of the anglers who are eligible for this free registration are guests on a boat with a Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Sport Boat Decal, waterfront property owner and their family members, have a Virginia saltwater license, have a Potomac River Fisheries sport fishing license and are fishing in a free fishing area or on a Maryland Free Fishing Day. A complete list can be found in the chart below.
In 2014, two changes were made to crabbing rules: 1.) free crab pot registration required for private waterfront property owners; 2.) you are required to have a license in order to use any of the following gear: crab traps, net rings, seines or trotlines. Both changes help the Department more accurately and efficiently estimate recreational crab harvest.
Registration is required if you are a private waterfront property owner, lessee or tenant and you want to use a crab pot from your property and you want to catch up to 2 dozen male hard crabs and 1 dozen soft or male peeler crabs or a combination of male peeler or soft crab. The maximum use is 2 crab pots regardless of the number or owners or lessees of the property. The registration is free and it does NOT count as a recreational crab license.
All licenses can be reprinted for free by accessing your COMPASS account online. After logging in, under My Licenses, click Print Recreational License. Please note an electronic version of your license is acceptable, but must be in your possession while engaged in the licensed activity.
Increasing the availability of lower energy-density foods is a promising intervention to encourage healthier food purchasing but few studies have examined the effect of increasing availability of meat-free meals to promote more sustainable purchasing. We report three studies, all examining the impact of altering the availability of meat-free meals on meal selection.
Study 1 (a natural experiment in one university cafeteria) examined the impact of altering the ratio of meat-free meals (one meat-free and two meat, to two meat-free and one meat) on weekly sales of meals containing meat. Study 2 (a natural experiment in 18 worksite cafeterias) examined the impact on meat-free meal sales of a menu change designed to increase the availability of meat-free meals. Study 3 (an online study of 2205 UK-representative adults) compared meal selections when participants were randomised to ranges comprised of (a) one meat-free, three meat options; (b) two meat-free, two meat; or (c) three meat-free, one meat.
Increasing the availability of meat-free options is effective at reducing meat selection and purchasing for different ratios of meat to meat-free options. The magnitude of the effect is uncertain, but with no evidence of differences in response by demographic groups when directly tested.
One promising intervention is to alter the availability of meat vs. meat-free meals. A recent Cochrane review found that altering the availability of a particular set of food options changes their selection , albeit with low overall certainty. However, no evidence was identified in this review targeting the availability of meat-free options. Similarly, a systematic review of the impact of interventions that aim to restructure physical micro-environments on selection of meat products did not identify any studies relating to increasing the availability of vegetarian food to reduce meat consumption . Since then, an experimental field study in one student cafeteria has suggested that increasing the percentage of vegetarian meals from 25 to 50% leads to an approximately 40% rise in vegetarian meal sales, with observational data from two further university cafeterias also showing increased meat-free meal availability was associated with increased meat-free purchasing .
Here we report the findings of three studies examining the impact of altering the availability of meat-free meals on meal selection. First, an evaluation of a natural experiment in a single university cafeteria over one university term. Second, a test of the impact of availability in a broader context, exploring the impact of a catering provider changing their menus to include more meat-free options in 18 worksite cafeterias across the UK. Third, a large experimental study conducted online to investigate whether the impact of meat-free availability on the selection of meat-free meals varies by participant characteristics.
This study in one university cafeteria aimed to estimate the effect on sales of meat-based hot meals after the relative availability of meat-free hot meals was increased over a 4-month period. The analysis plan was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework ( ).
Data were also obtained for the same period from 11 other University of Oxford cafeteria sites operated by the same caterer, where no changes had been made to the availability of meat-free meals. Sites varied in the number of meal options they offered, but selected the meals to offer from the same base menu.
An interrupted time series predicted the percentage of hot meals containing meat purchased per week from the intervention cafeteria, depending on the relative availability of meat-free meals (modelled using a dummy variable). Covariates included a dummy variable indicating whether it was during university term (vs. holidays).
From 7th September 2020, the catering provider changed their menus to (1) introduce meat-free Mondays; (2) increase their range of meat-free meals. While the catering provider designs the menus, chefs at each site can choose options off the menus to prepare each day (e.g. preparing 2 out of the 4 suggested options on the menu).
An additional (not pre-registered) sensitivity analysis was also conducted, exploring the impact of the menu change for those sites where the proportion of meat-free meals offered per week had increased by at least one percentage point following the menu change, using multilevel linear regression.
Online studies have been used in the context of manipulating the availability of healthier (vs. less-healthy) foods and non-alcoholic (vs. alcoholic) drinks [10, 11], but not (to our knowledge) for exploring altering the availability of meat vs. meat-free options.
The sample size was calculated assuming around 25% of selections would be meat-free in the reference condition with a small effect size for the effect of altering meat-free availability (increase with an odds ratio of 1.5; decrease with an odds ratio of 0.66). For power of 0.9 (alpha =0.05), the sample size per group to detect an increase (odds ratio of 1.5) was calculated to be 624, and to detect a decrease (odds ratio of 0.66) was 729. Allowing 735 for each of the three groups (in case of missing data) gave a total sample size of 2205.
This was a between-subjects, online study, comparing choices between main meal options from ranges comprised of (a) one meat-free, three meat options; (b) two meat-free, two meat; (c) three meat-free, one meat options [based on the standard number of options in observed in cafeteria offerings previously], run in August and September 2020.
Eight options were identified for the main meals: four meat-free (three bean chilli; veggie burger; cauliflower and broccoli bake; cheese, onion and potato pie) and four meat options (chilli con carne; beef burger; roast turkey; beef and mushroom pie). Meat and meat-free options were matched by meal type (e.g. chilli), and as closely as possible for accompanying sides (see supplementary materials for images used). Pictures of main meals were taken from a manual used by worksite cafeterias for a major supermarket chain. These pictures showed meals as made in these cafeterias, with their ingredients provided in the manual.
The primary measure was highest educational qualification, subdivided into two groups: higher (2+ A-Levels or equivalent, or above) vs. lower (up to GCSE-level education/1 A-level or equivalent). A-levels are typically taken at around age 18