In the originally published version of this article, coauthor Andrew M. Intlekofer was listed incorrectly as Andrew M. Intlekoffer and coauthor Nicole R. LeBoeuf was listed incorrectly as Nicole LaBoeuf. These errors have now been corrected here and in the article online. The authors apologize for the errors and any inconvenience that may have resulted.

Abstract-Flood warning systems have been developed and applied worldwide in both developed and developing countries using different approaches and technologies. Nevertheless people in the flood risk areas continue to be affected by floods; these affects include extensive property damage and loss of life. In developing countries, the flooding impacts have been more harmful than in developed countries for the same severity of flood. A number of factors contribute to these losses such as the data collection process, the flood warning channels and an inappropriate technology adoptation. This paper reviews the techniques of a number of flood warning systems, discusses factors contributing to the extensive damage to property and loss of life in developing countries, and finally the paper makes recommendations, draws conclusions and suggests future work.Index Terms-Developing countries, flood methods, flood warning system.

Introduction: The aim was to determine reliability and validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) compared to dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Methods:  Participants (n=93) were fasted and euhydrated (confirmed with urine specific gravity, USG) and underwent anthropometrics, DEXA scan (GE Prodigy), and three repeated trials on each BIA device (i.e., InBody 770, SECA mBCA 514, and FitTrack). A subset of participants (n=36) re-tested 12-weeks later to investigate longitudinal changes. Results: All BIA devices had acceptable within-session reliability (coefficient of variation < 2%). Agreement with DEXA was unacceptable, poor, and moderate for FitTrack (Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient, CCC=0.61), InBody (CCC=0.88), and SECA (CCC=0.91). FitTrack did not demonstrate systematic bias but had wide limits of agreement and larger underestimations occurring at higher BF%. InBody showed systematic underestimations with proportionate bias demonstrating more error at lower BF%. SECA demonstrated no bias but tended to underestimate BF% according to Bland-Altman Plots. Errors in BIA BF% estimates were not related with USG but were associated with DEXA measured BF%. The subtle 12-week changes in BF% did not agree between BIA and DEXA. Conclusions: Caution should be taken when using BIA devices to assess BF% as devices demonstrated unacceptable agreement compared to DEXA.

Although widely recognized for his oratorical prowess, the collection of intellectual works that Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE) has generated on persuasive interchange is almost unknown to those in the human sciences. Building on six texts on rhetoric attributed to Cicero (Rhetorica ad Herennium, De Inventione, Topica, Brutus, De Oratore, and Orator), I claim not only that Cicero may be recognized as a pragmatist philosopher and analytic ethnographer but also that his texts have an enduring relevance to the study of human knowing and acting. More specifically, thus, Cicero's texts are pertinent to more viable conceptualizations of an array of consequential pragmatist matters. These include influence work and resistance, impression management and deception, agency and culpability, identity and emotionality, categorizations and definitions of the situation, and emergence and process.