in covered storage baskets furniture stores san francisco california n.
no sew covered fabric bins at sweet cs designs storage baskets furniture store near me that finance cute and thrifty solutions.
quick view a rectangular rattan storage basket honey brown covered baskets furniture stores san jose area organizing.
cloth storage drawers canvas medium size of genuine lids also covered baskets small furniture discounters indianapolis stora.
stacked knitting basket set silver dot covered storage baskets furniture row racing shop.
the basket lady deep pole handle wicker storage baskets in antique walnut brown 4 sizes covered furniture discounters indianapolis shelf.
large striped storage basket covered baskets furniture stores san jose costa rica hampers and.
large plastic storage basket x covered baskets furniture stores san francisco ca and.
set of 3 rectangle nesting 2 color storage baskets with built in handles covered furniture row credit card bins.
covered storage baskets furniture store near me open n.
natural willow square tray basket covered storage baskets furniture donation oakland organizers c 1.
covered storage baskets furniture stores san francisco products.
in x teal blended wool hamper covered storage baskets furniture stores san francisco n.
storage stripe laundry basket covered baskets furniture stores san jose costa rica.
rectangle burlap bordered decorative bin covered storage baskets furniture discounters reno nv n.
wicker storage trunk in antique walnut brown nested set of 2 the basket lady covered baskets furniture row capital one lidded.
knitting basket white checker covered storage baskets furniture store near me now.
stripe baskets small med set covered storage furniture rental startup.
square rattan storage basket black antique covered baskets furniture discounters indianapolis organizing.
set of 3 square nesting 2 color storage baskets natural grey covered furniture stores san jose area bins.
braided storage basket large covered baskets furniture donation santa rosa woven.
covered diaper box tutorial by exploits i did it have tons and of pampers boxes so lined them in mint green made a circus storage baskets furniture discounters reno.
covered storage baskets furniture row near me bathroom.
natural lined storage baskets covered furniture row.
caravan basket covered storage baskets furniture row.
white dip dyed nesting wicker baskets covered storage furniture stores near me and.
restore storage basket grey covered baskets furniture store near me san jose small fabric p.
2 pack round cotton rope storage soft basket covered baskets furniture outlets san jose best baby nursery.
the basket lady lift off lid wicker storage covered baskets furniture store near me oakland lidded.
storage baskets covered furniture store near me now fair trade.
king ran home should rattan laundry basket of clothes covered holding baskets finishing drawer storage box in from furniture row.
book baskets for classroom multi color set of 6 covered storage furniture outlet bay area plastic.
covered storage baskets furniture row racing shop wicker containers.
quick ship covered storage baskets furniture outlet stores shop decor decorative accents.
flat lid woven storage laundry basket covered baskets furniture discounters santa clara.
covered storage baskets furniture stores san francisco california boxes.
water hyacinth basket in brown covered storage baskets furniture rental san jose n.
house home arrow weave storage trunk covered baskets furniture store near me open now.
woven caged storage basket covered baskets furniture stores san jose flea market wicker.
laundry basket into storage box covered baskets furniture donation drop off boxes that will keep your house tidy and decorated in the same time.
set of 2 storage boxes covered baskets furniture stores san jose home furnishings organization.
set of three sand dune hamper baskets covered storage furniture outlet.


text:
Q: How to avoid implementing component over and over For example, I have 20 different JTextField and lets say I need to set text to all "random", so I don't want to do like:
field1.setText("Random");
field2.setText("Random");
field3.setText("Random");
.
.
.
field20.setText("Random");

Is there a way to avoid this?

A: This is quite a basic question. You can do this :
Stream.of(field1,field2,...,field3).forEach(f -> f.setText("Random"));

or without Java 8 :
JTextField fields = Arrays.asList(field1,field2,...,field3);
for (JTextField field : fields)
    field.setText("Random");

Or, if you don't need to keep a reference to your fields :
for (int i=0 ; i<20 ; i++) {
    JTextField field = new JTextField("Random");
    // place your field in the UI
}

A: Try something like:
JTextField[] textFields = new JTextField[20];
for (int i =0; i< fields.length; i++) {
    //init here text fields
    textFields[i].setText("Random");
}

A: Create the JTextFields in an array or a Collection and then iterate over the contents of the array.
For instance:
List<JTextField> myTextFields = new ArrayList<JTextField>();

for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
  myTextFields.add(new JTextField()); //Instantiate the textfields
  //Do whatever other initialization, if you can do it in a loop (like position, etc.)

  myTextFields.get(i).setText("Random"); //Set text on all of them.
}

A: Just to also cover the possibility which was not mentioned so far:
You could (although you really should not in most cases) inherit from JTextField and do your business e.g. in the constructor. Or you can use a factory-method.
(sample below is untested code written with one hand)
class MyTextField extends JTextField {
  public MyTextField() {
     setText("Random");
  }
}

/* in other file */
class MyTextFildFactory {
  public static JTextField createTextField() {
     JTextField field = new JTextField();
     field.setText("Random");
     return field;
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


And yes, many of these lessons I got from interacting with you students because I always make it a point to listen - to keep my finger on the collective pre-med pulse - so I can stay current on what your needs and concerns are.
Who experiences lots of self doubt in their journey to medical school or in their pursuit of a college degree?
For you non-traditional students, who has doubts about their ability to go back to school and do well, and survive and thrive?
You guys are extremely powerful and capable of doing anything you want to do. The world is your oyster - all you have to do is go dine.
b) once you do start to get a sense of how powerful and amazing you are, thoughts of all your past failures creep in and you are afraid to try because it might be just another failure.
When i was in New Jersey Sunday, I asked the students what was holding them back from being great. One of the students went on and on for what seemed like eternity about how he won't be able to get into an elite medical school because he is stuck attending his "crappy" state school instead of the private school that was his first choice.
He was so focused on this, and how it was the government's fault for not giving him the financial aid he needed, and it was his mom's fault for not having the money to pay for the private school. He had no choice or control in the matter.
I'll ask you, was this situation really out of his control?
Did you apply for scholarships? He said "No".
Did you apply for jobs or work-study? He said "No".
Did you do anything to try to finance your education? He again said "No".
We all know what our parents make - and he knew right from the start that his mom could not afford to pay for college. So why would you depend on a financial aid counselor to give you what you need instead of taking what you need?
He was so caught up in a dependent mindset that others needed to create his future that he stood by letting his dream school slip out of reach.
I then proceeded to spend 45 minutes running through all the ways he could have financed his education himself.
Apply for scholarships. Raise the money. Start a GoFundMe to get your first $200. Start a company, the list goes on and on.
But many of us don't see things that way. It starts with understanding that you are responsible for your dream.
It's not your mom's job to get the money. It's not your counselor's job to get you the money. It's your responsibility to go get it done.
Additionally, he was allowing himself to underperform at the state school because he didn't believe he could get into a great medical school from there.
I informed him that you can get into a great medical school from any college, no matter how small or limited the resources may be. But, again, it requires you being willing to do whatever it takes to create your future. (Check out my video on How School Prestige Affects Medical School Admissions).
To all of you out there, I hope you understand what I am saying here: You need to stop expecting other people to give you what you need and instead start doing whatever you have to do to get yourself what you need.
I hope this has inspired you to take action, overcome your doubts, and understand that you are responsible for your own success and happiness.
Check back on the blog over the next few weeks for the rest of the 4 valuable lessons about college and the pursuit of medical school.


text:
Oxford Music Online
Compositional Practice and Technique
Conducting Methods and Techniques
Ecocriticism and Ecomusicology
Music Business, Institutions and Organizations
Music Criticism and Journalism
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Music and Law
Musical Concepts, Genres, and Terms
Musical Sources and Bibliographies
Musicology and Music History
Organology
Peoples and Music Cultures
Performance Practice
Sound Studies
Aerophones (Blown Instruments)
Chordophones (Stringed Instruments)
Corporeal Techniques (Body Sounds)
Idiophones (Instrument Body Percussion)
Membranophones (Stretched Membrane Percussion)
Pre- and Early Medieval (before 800)
15th c./Early Renaissance (1400-1500)
16th c./High Renaissance (1500-1600)
17th c./Early to mid-Baroque (1600-1700)
Early 18th c./Late Baroque (1700-1750)
Late 18th c./Classical (1750-1800)
19th c. /Romantic (1800-1900)
20th c. (1900-2000)
21st c. (2000-present)
Collector or Curator
Composer or Arranger
Critic or Journalist
Donor or Patron
Instrument Maker
Librarian or Archivist
Librettist or Lyricist
Music Manager or Administrator
Music Technologist or Audio Engineer
Publisher or Editor
Religious or Ritual Musician
Scribe or Copyist
Printed from Grove Music Online. Grove is a registered trademark. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
American Indian Dance Theatre
Paula J. Conlon
https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2227064
Dance company. It was co-founded in 1987 in Colorado Springs by Kiowa/Delaware playwright, director and educator Hanay Geiogamah and New York concert and theatrical producer Barbara Schwei. The first professional all-Native American company of dancers, singers and musicians, it comprises roughly 20 members drawn from tribes across the United States and Canada. It has presented various styles of Native American and First Nations dancing—including the Zuñi Buffalo Dance, Eagle Dance, and Apache Crown Dance—without altering the basic structure of the dances. It has performed in all 50 states and has toured Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Australia. The troupe has also performed on television specials, in documentaries, at the Gathering of the Tribes music festivals held in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and as part of Ban the Dam Jam in New York City. Through benefit performances it has supported Native community agencies and foundations such as the American Indian College Fund and the American Indian Culture Center and Museum in San Diego. In ...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Average monthly visitors increased 33% in 2014 at the blog, Childhood Obesity News. If that doesn't grab your attention, maybe this will: Most of the traffic went to posts written *before* 2014. What's up with that?


The Grand Imperial specialises in authentic Cantonese cuisine. Emulating the decadence of the hotel, the high-ceilinged restaurant has been designed around the ancient practice of Feng-Shui, proving an attractive and inviting setting to enjoy the fine dishes on offer. The multitude of menus designed by head chef Rand Cheung all deliver his unique approach with particular focus on signature Dim Sum parcels.
Serving critically acclaimed Chinese food, Min Jiang is definitely worth a visit. Go during daylight to really enjoy the view over the park.
Enjoy a classic British menu created by Lee Streeton and Mark Hix in a dining room dotted with art by some leading British greats including Tracey Emin.
Filled with fairywing-wearing, cigar-smoking, tiara-topped taxidermy, you just can't help but fall under the spell of this absurd but wonderful, treasure-twinkling haven.


text:
Home > Local News
Funeral Services Set for Bishop Olson's Mother
Janice Fetzer Olson, a loving and vivacious wife, mother, grandmother and the mother of Bishop Michael F .Olson, went to the Lord on Sunday, June 15, 2014 at her home and surrounded by her family.
A funeral Mass for Mrs. Olson will be held at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 19, 2014 at St. Patrick Cathedral, located at 1206 Throckmorton Street in Fort Worth. A coffee reception will follow Mass in the St. Patrick Parish Hall. Burial will be at All Saints Catholic Cemetery in Des Plaines, Illinois on Saturday, June 21, 2014 at a time to be determined.
Visitation will be held from 5 to 7 p.m., Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at Thompson's Harveson & Cole Funeral Home, located at 702 8th Avenue in Fort Worth.
A native of Chicago, Illinois, Mrs. Olson was born Janice Marie Fetzer on March 11, 1939 to Joseph and Margaret Mayer Fetzer. In January 1962, Mrs. Olson married the love of her life, Ronald Gilbert Olson, at St. Stephen's Catholic Church in Des Plaines, Illinois.
After a 25-year career, she retired from GTE Directories in 1997 as a clerical administrator. Mr. and Mrs. Olson moved to Fort Worth in 1985 as part of a GTE job relocation. They were members of St. Michael Catholic Church where Mrs. Olson served in the Stephen Ministry.
Mrs. Olson and her husband enjoyed retirement and traveling with family. Mrs. Olson's warm personality made her a great friend to all. She is remembered for her sweet, fun nature, beaming smile and infectious laughter. One of her greatest joys was spending time with her grandchildren, Kate and Matthew Tucker. She and Kate were best friends. She adored Matthew and loved how he could always make her laugh. She was very proud of them.
Mrs. Olson is preceded in death by a daughter, Kimberlee Ann Olson.
Her survivors are her husband of 52 years, Ronald Olson; children, son Bishop Michael F. Olson; daughters Mitzi Rogers and husband, Richard; Patty Tucker and husband, Tom; Liz Schweizer and husband, Kurt, and grandchildren, Katie and Matthew Tucker and Alyssa and Kiersten Schweizer.
Memorials in lieu of flowers may be made to the Olson Family Seminary Burse, Advancement Foundation, Diocese of Fort Worth, 800 W. Loop 820 South, Fort Worth, Texas 76108 or to the Sisters of St. Mary of Namur, 909 W. Shaw, Fort Worth, Texas 76110.
Bishop Olson and his family thank everyone for their prayers and support. The Diocese asks everyone to include Mrs. Olson and her family in their prayers.
Funeral Services set for Bishop Olson's mother.
Published (until 12/12/2031)
More Local News:
by Matthew Smith ( 2 days ago )
by Mary Lou Seewoester ( 6 days ago )
by Susan Moses ( 14 days ago )
by Joan Kurkowski-Gillen ( Dec 16 2021 )


This book is by far the most sustained and intelligent critique of post-structuralist theory yet published in Britain or America. It is argued from an adversary stance, but with a vigour and passion all too rare among opponents of 'theory' in whatever threatening shape or guise. According to Rose, it is the fault of post-structuralism, not that it has become too much embroiled in theoretical issues, but that it has failed to think through the problems bequeathed by philosophers in the critical tradition descending from Kant. That tradition she sees as having set the main terms for a debate whose categories are centrally those of jurisprudence, or the individual subject and his or her standing before the law. Post-Kantian philosophy is heir to certain problems in the nature of its own grounding concepts which cannot be simply pushed aside in the name of some radical break with 'Western metaphysics'. Such gestures are a species of intellectual nihilism, a refusal to engage with hegemonic structures of reason, legality and ethical discourse alike. Taking issue with Foucault and Derrida especially, Rose argues that post-structuralism has not come out – as its proponents would claim – on the far side of those problems and antinomies that dominate classical reason. Rather, it has attempted to exclude them de jure from its own more 'radical' or liberated discourse, only to reveal how far it is in thrall to those same (unrecognised) critical motifs. In short, these thinkers have opted for a rhetoric of militant unreason, thereby depriving thought of any power to criticise its own concepts and categories.
The starting-point of Rose's argument is a series of highly persuasive analogies between the Kantian tribunal of philosophic reason and the process of law as administered in court. In each case a subject ('natural consciousness') is placed in the position of an unreliable witness whose claims are to be duly cross-questioned and judged by some higher, self-validating discourse of truth. But reflection on the status of the courtroom officials suggests that this authority of law (or reason) may be exposed to further complications. To inquire where the ultimate verdict derives from – the quaestio quid juris of legal philosophy – is also to ask what grounds exist for the Kantian distinction between 'natural' and 'critical' consciousness. 'For cross-examination reveals the purportedly impersonal authority of reason to be an ensemble of the three fictitious persons of the law: the judge, the witness and the clerk of the court.' Reason is forced back onto a series of antinomies where these roles are seen as perpetually shifting in relation to some ultimate verdict of truth.
Hence Rose's claim that philosophy in the critical (post-Kantian) tradition has developed in close and productive exchange with the discourse of jurisprudence. Philosophy makes trial of 'natural' (pre-reflective) consciousness from the standpoint of a higher, more rational or self-legitimating discourse of knowledge. Legal justice likewise rests its claims upon a careful separation of the courtroom roles of witness, clerk and judge. But in each case there remains the problem of preserving this authority of law or reason in face of the conflicting testimonies on offer and the practical business of courtroom administration. The statutes of the civil subject 'before the law' can thus be compared to the role of natural consciousness when required by Kant to give rational account of its own un-self-critical assumptions. The quaestio quid juris has the same effect in each case: to reveal further antinomies of reason and judgment which admit no final, authoritative verdict.
Rose sees no escape from these antinomies, at least so long as theory acknowledges the fact of its involvement with forms of civil and juridical reason, and hence with institutions of power. Her objection to post-structuralism is that it thinks to place itself beyond them, either by declaring (with Foucault) that power and knowledge are so closely intertwined as henceforth to elude all the claims of rational critique, or by heralding (like Derrida) a new dispensation where 'writing' comprehends – and renders undecidable – every last vestige of law and reason. The result in each instance is to yield up the powers of dialectical reason to a spurious radicalism devoid of any genuinely critical content or grasp. In Derrida, she writes, 'this licence is employed to undermine, not metaphysics, but political and social theory.' In Foucault, a monolithic concept of 'power', identified at root with the system of monarchical government, gives rise to a straightforward conflation of power and knowledge that in turn underwrites the Nietzschian drive toward a nihilist abandonment of reason itself. 'Once power is made prior to justification, whether legal or philosophical and scientific, the history of law and the history of knowledge are treated as a single process of "epistemologico-juridical" formation.' By this means Foucault collapses a number of crucial distinctions, as between the state and civil society, monarchical government and law, the interests of power and those of enlightened critique. In calling for a generalised 'political economy of the will to knowledge', he reduces the terms of any such analysis to 'the circulation of pre-political resources, a natural law of power'. Thus Foucault effectively elides the stages of progressive self-understanding inscribed in the tradition of critical thought from Kant, through Hegel to the Frankfurt School. The 'dialectic of nihilism' stigmatised in Rose's title is therefore very much a modern French phenomenon, for all that it finds an elective pre-history in Nietzsche's swerve from the rigours of Kantian critique.
What we are offered in place of this dead-end modernity is a scrupulous thinking-back through the problems thrown up by critical reason in its 'litigious' or legal-interrogative aspect. Here as in earlier books on Hegel and Adorno, Rose takes the path of an immanent critique in which the strategies of argument themselves reproduce the antinomies and blind-spots encountered in the texts she reads. That such obstacles cannot be avoided – unless by falling back on a spurious, self-deceiving rhetoric – is the burden of her case against those who would reject this labour of negative dialectics. The only way forward is to rethink tradition in the light of those set-piece juridical 'scenes' where reason brings experience to the bar of critical reflection. This accounts both for the unremitting argumentative drive and – inseparable from that – for the extreme stylistic density of Rose's writing. She has evidently taken Adorno's lesson to heart: that the rigours of immanent critique go along with a sternly self-denying ordinance in point of stylistic appeal.
Let me summarise Rose's main objections to post-structuralist theory. Post-structuralism takes it as a well-established fact that thought is always and everywhere governed by the systems of linguistic representation that make up a given discourse of knowledge. This position is arrived at by a joint application of Saussure's insistence on the 'arbitrary' nature of the sign and a Nietzschian critique of philosophic truth-claims as mere by-products of the will-to-power vested in figural language. The result is a thoroughgoing relativist stance that acknowledges no basis for the claims of truth or reason aside from their role in some particular cultural 'discourse'. Rose sets out to challenge this consensus in the name of an alternative (post-Kantian) tradition that resists the drift toward an all-embracing scepticism. Even in appropriating Nietzsche, she argues, the present-day theorists have had to disregard his residual 'conscience of method' – or critical thrust – in order to reduce his arguments to the play of ungrounded figural representation. This they have achieved only by ignoring the extent to which Nietzsche's ultimate scepticism came of his engagement with those same central problems that characterised Kantian thought. In retrospect, it may seem that reason was 'crippled' by Nietzsche's willingness to press these problems to the point where philosophy relinquished all claim to discriminate truth and error. But the modern recasting of Nietzschian rhetoric embraces his nihilist conclusions while failing to grasp the structured genealogy of concepts that lay behind it. 'Concentrating on Nietzschian perspectivism, on truth as rhetorical value, Foucault would blind us to the truth both of Nietzsche's and of his own rhetoric.' Post-structuralism is deluded if it thinks to arrive at this position 'beyond' metaphysics – or beyond the regime of truth and error – without working through the prehistory that led up to Nietzsche's symptomatic crisis of reason.
It is on these grounds that Rose takes issue with the nihilistic strain in current critical theory. Such thinking adopts the 'linguistic turn' – or the privilege accorded to rhetoric over reason – as a pretext for ignoring crucial problems in the way of enlightened social critique. Post-structuralism never questions the idea that our concepts and categories are entirely determined by the various signifying codes and systems that make up a given 'discourse'. Yet, as Rose points out, 'the claim that representation is a matter of linguistic convention, not a synthesis of concept and intuition, presupposes both the concept of language and the concept of convention.' That is to say, it substitutes a suasive rhetoric, a language devoid of philosophic rigour, for the Kantian tradition of hard-pressed argument on and around the categories of knowledge. Hence the main object of Rose's book: to recount the various stages of a long debate in which reason has constantly defended its role as arbiter of truth and justice. Hence also her two-pronged line of attack: dealing with post-Kantian philosophers from Hegel to Heidegger and Derrida, while raising issues in the sphere of juridical precept and practice.
In particular, she fastens on the differences of view between theorists of the Marburg and Heidelberg schools who produced some sharply conflicting versions of Kantian legal philosophy. Here again, their debate takes the customary form of a civil courtroom proceeding, with the plaintiffs called upon to justify their case and the reader standing in (for theoretical reason) as judge of their competing claims. Under five main headings – 'the concept of law, the method of law, the categories of law, the persons of law, and natural law' – reason sets out to adjudicate the rival arguments and thereby confirm its own status of impartial authority. But the upshot is always to question that authority, in so far as it rests on a division of roles (within law and reason alike) where categorical judgments are indefinitely open to appeal. Any verdict handed down by juridical fiat can always be challenged by disputing the grounds of its rational or legislative power.
Thus the law, like philosophy, constantly runs up against the problem of establishing its own claims-to-truth on the ground of impartial reason. Decisions of the court are repeatedly quashed and the case reopened for further cross-examination. But these attacks on the system from beyond its immediate jurisdiction always fail in their attempt to shift the debate onto a radically different terrain. 'New claimants to the heritage keep appearing, brandishing their own special right, and intent on compounding the matter – on settling out of court. Yet each attempt to fight consciousness and its possessions on non-litigious terrain does not dissolve but reinforces the antinomy of law, the battle over jurisdiction, and ends up back in court.' In the same way, a thinker like Foucault claims to have broken with the age-old hegemony of philosophic reason, only to leave his texts in thrall to a cruder, undifferentiated notion of ubiquitous power/knowledge. With Derrida also – as Rose reads him – the extension of 'writing' to cover every instance of socio-cultural inscription results in a failure to grasp the dialectic of law and juridical reason. 'Derrida would have us perish without knowing why, for he leaves the law as unknowable as it was before he raised the question of the graphein.' And this gives rise to a discourse whose 'radical' credentials are underwritten only by a Nietzschian rhetoric of out-and-out epistemological scepticism.
The Kantian antinomies of pure and practical reason – played out between the parties in successive juridical scenes – may admit of no final arbitrating judgment. But they do at least keep open the critical court of appeal, in so far as they allow reason to grasp the constitutive process that has engendered the individual subject and his or her standing before the law. Post-structuralism mystifies this process by dissolving the antinomies and recognising only a contest of wills between rival claimants to power. 'Critique has turned into discourse as the court of theoretical reason has turned into the court of practical reason.' Such is the consequence of Foucault's equating all forms of knowledge with the exercise of a power whose effects may be located in discourse but whose authority is subject to no kind of rational account. The original 'court of knowledge' whose procedures are established in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason has by now become a 'post-critical tribunal', concerned only to expound and classify the various arbitrary dictates of power. Thus in Foucault, according to Rose, 'the internal construction of knowledge changes to conform to the successive epochs of law which it serves.' Any attempt to think through the antinomies of law and, with them, the conflicts of critical reason is henceforth abandoned in the name of a scarcely yet conceivable break with all past and present forms of knowledge.
This apocalyptic strain finds an image in the figure of Nietzsche's Zarathustra, proclaiming his new dispensation from the mountain-top but lacking the disciples to convey or interpret his message. 'Behold, here is a new law table; but where are my brethren who will carry it with me into the valley and into the hearts of flesh?' For Rose, the radical injunction contained in this Nietzschian 'transvaluation of values' has lost all its force through being assimilated to a rhetoric that is merely indifferent as regards the truth-claims of law and reason alike. Foucault's genealogy of the will-to-power reverts to a stage of civil society anterior to everything established in the court of juridical reason. This regression is signalled by its falling back upon a language of military tactics and strategies, a discourse sustained by feudal metaphors of warfare and direct coercion. The result is to sever all connection between law and reason as joint representatives of bourgeois society in search of an ultimate legitimating ground. Thus thought is deprived of any purchase on the forms of administrative reason and justice, whose evolving relationship Foucault does little to explain.
Rose can also demonstrate convincingly that post-structuralism ignores the legal and historical implications of its own favoured metaphors and tropes. What is truth? asks Nietzsche, and responds with a series of illustrative figures often cited by his present-day disciples. Truth is 'a mobile, marching army of metaphors, metonyms and anthropomorphisms ... which after long use seem firm, canonical and obligatory to a people ... coins which have lost their insignia and now matter only as metals, no longer as coins'. The passage is commonly taken as a pure deconstructive allegory of reading, a reminder that 'truths' are merely another, more persuasive variety of error, and that reason always comes down in the end to a species of rhetorical imposition. But this is to ignore what Rose very acutely remarks: that Nietzsche's language involves a number of specifically civil and economic metaphors, images whose force goes largely unnoticed on the standard post-structuralist reading. The figure of 'truth' as a currency or coinage should remind us, not only that rhetoric pervades the discourse of reason, but also that reason is inescapably bound up with those relations of exchange and control that constitute a given social order.
Deconstructionists regularly interpret this passage as an allegory enforcing the undecidability of 'literal' versus 'figurative' meaning, and hence – by a barely legitimate extension – of 'truth' versus 'error'. To Rose this account seems the merest of sophistical evasions. What the metaphor should tell us is 'something about the power and weakness of rhetoric and illusion themselves'. The effacement of identifying marks on a coin may be taken more pointedly as signalling the way in which regulative concepts maintain their power despite our forgetting whence they derive. What we should therefore be alert to in Nietzsche's metaphor is 'something we may have forgotten, even though all our exchanges and contracts ("human relations") depend on memory: that the standard or law we implicitly rely on may have lost its authority but nevertheless continues to mediate our innumerable, immediate exchanges.' Thus Rose turns back the deconstructionist reading at precisely the point where it thinks to capitalise on Nietzsche's suggestive metaphor.
The image of truth as a 'mobile, marching army' of rhetorical figures can likewise be read in a diagnostic light very different from the usual post-structuralist gloss. To interpret it wholly in linguistic terms is to imagine – as Rose suggests – an army 'settled in to permanent occupation', since reason would then be powerless to transform the conditions of its own subject status. What is required is the effort to demystify this powerful irrationalist strain in modern thinking in order to demonstrate the motives at work in the turn toward language (or rhetoric) as an ultimate ground of explanation. Post-structuralism fails to meet this requirement, since it always discovers the same baffling end-point to rational thought: the idea that knowledge is everywhere subject to rhetorical forces beyond its power to grasp or effectively criticise. And this last-ditch scepticism goes along with a regressive tendency to bypass the antinomies of critical reason as they bear upon the discourses of law and politics. Hence, as Rose argues, the incapacity of post-structuralist reason to think its way beyond the terminology and concepts of a 'feudal', pre-critical order. The literalisation of Nietzsche's metaphor can therefore be seen as a reflex symptom of the drive to incapacitate critical reflection by reducing all knowledge to an epiphenomenon of power.
Rose's arguments will have to be reckoned with by anyone concerned to gauge the political implications of post-structuralist theory. One reason for Foucault's widespread following at present is the perceived failure of Althusserian Marxism to make good its claims for a 'scientific' discourse of ideological critique. As these claims began to look increasingly dubious – not least under the pressure of deconstructive reading – so theorists turned to another, less vulnerable source of ideas, one that preserved its radical credentials while yielding no hostages to 'science'. What Foucault seemed to promise was a means of demystifying the relationship between power and knowledge without thereby setting up his own discourse as an ultimate (or 'metalinguistic') source of authority and truth. But this move has turned out to have disturbing consequences. With Foucault as with Nietzsche, the adoption of a stance supposedly beyond truth and error has lent itself to a great variety of uses, all of them in some sense 'radical' but otherwise spanning the political range from New Right reaction to ultra-left activist rhetoric. And this ambivalence can be seen as the result of abandoning that tradition of enlightened critique which has characterised not only Marxist thinking but every attempt to separate truth from ideological illusion. Without at least an operative grasp of what it means to uphold this distinction, thinking is thrown back onto a relativist position where – quite simply – truth is up for grabs in the medley of competing discourses.
So reason has to steer a critical path between these opposing temptations. On the one hand, it needs to resist the allure of a scepticism rooted in the fetishised notion of a language that everywhere exceeds and disables the power of reason itself. On the other, it must hold out against any reductive sociology of knowledge that would seek to 'explain' such movements of thought entirely in terms of their socio-historical provenance. In short, there is no substitute for the kind of properly dialectical critique that thinks its way through the determinate stages of a certain intellectual history, without thereby abandoning reflection to the 'socio-logic' of relativist fashion. And this means returning to the 'unanswered question' of Kantian philosophy, the quaestio quid juris that still – according to Rose – conditions our most basic yet problematic categories: 'metaphysics and science; theory and practice; freedom and necessity; history and form'. There is no thinking 'beyond' these categories while ignoring the structures of legislative reason inscribed within them. Such projects may announce themselves as an end to metaphysics or a break with the old, repressive regime of univocal truth and authority. What in fact they reveal, as Rose would argue, is 'in each case a speculative jurisprudence: a story of the identity and non-identity of law and metaphysics retold by the rhetor in the mask of the histor'.
Rose's case against Foucault has an argumentative force and precision which fully bear out its dialectical claims. I am less convinced by what she has to say about Derrida, partly because she tends to pass over those texts and those aspects of his writing which do precisely engage with the antinomies of civil and legislative reason. This connection is made quite specifically in a number of recent essays where Derrida deconstructs (for want of a better, less prejudicial term) the historical relation between forms of knowledge and structures of 'juridico-discursive' power. Elsewhere he addresses the Kantian categories in just such a way as to bring out their bearing on the civil institutions of law and an emergent bourgeois public sphere. To some extent, no doubt, these texts reflect a growing unease on Derrida's part concerning the charges of political quietism levelled against deconstruction. But his writing has always been politically engaged in the sense of revealing those mythologies and systems of premature totalisation which reduce all history to so many episodes in the course of some grand teleological Idea.
Predictably, it is Derrida's reading of Hegel that provokes Gillian Rose's most hostile commentary. 'History for Derrida becomes the repetitive story of a "closed field of metaphysics" which he himself has closed, and within which his "indefinite exchange of Rousseauist and Hegelian positions ... obeys the laws inscribed within all the concepts that he has just recalled".' It takes a careful scrutiny (attending to the quotation-marks) to notice that Rose is here citing Derrida back against himself in order to suggest that he, and not Hegel, is guilty of such mystifying tactics. But a simple tu quoque, however neatly turned, is not sufficient to discountenance the extreme critical rigour that Derrida brings to his reading of Hegel. Since Rose lines up very much on the side of Hegelian dialectic, she fails to take the force of Derrida's argument, preferring to treat it as just another species of 'textualist' mystification. But this is to ignore both the textual specificity and the critical thrust of Derrida's reading: namely, that the marked political ambivalence of Hegel's discourse comes of its residual Idealist attachment to a myth of universal history.
Deconstruction is not just one more variety of a generalised 'post-structuralist' discourse. What is lacking in Rose's otherwise cogent critique is any sense of the distinction between Foucault's thoroughly relativist equation of power and knowledge and Derrida's more rigorous thinking-through of its problematic textual consequences. What is more, this rigour is by no means confined to epistemological subtleties, but extends into regions of political and (in Rose's own terms) of legal-administrative reason. Derrida's recent texts provide some striking examples of how this project may be carried through in the form of a deconstructive close-reading of philosophic arguments. But there are others – notably Paul de Man – whose writings can likewise be enlisted on behalf of a rigorous socio-political critique. De Man's chapters on Rousseau (in Allegories of Reading) are centrally concerned with issues in the province of law and civil constitution. His essay on The Social Contract is perhaps the most scrupulous reading to date of how politics enters the discourse of reason through effects of a legislative rhetoric none the less powerful for its lack of any ultimate epistemological authority. But the upshot of de Man's reading is that no genuine understanding is possible unless one presses the textual critique to a point where theory begins to grasp the antinomies of law and reason.
At the limit he finds that Rousseau's statements in the Contract are caught up in the strictly 'undecidable' play of its own textual constitution. Thus: 'the tension between figural and grammatical language is duplicated in the differentiation between the State as a defined entity (Etat) and the State as a principle of action (Souverain) or, in linguistic terms, between the constative and the performative aspect of language.' On a cursory reading it might seem that de Man is embracing a typecast 'Nietzschian' scepticism which would treat all issues of politics and knowledge as products of an arbitrary will-to-power within language. But this reading – like similar accounts of Derrida's work – must needs pass over the radical implications of thinking through the antinomies of law inscribed in the founding texts of Western tradition. Gillian Rose tends to ignore this aspect of the deconstructive enterprise in her will to prove that it finally rejoins the 'dialectic of nihilism' whose history runs – in symptomatic stages – from Nietzsche to Foucault. I would argue, on the contrary, that deconstruction is more properly aligned with that other tradition of enlightened critique where Rose locates the main sources of resistance to the latterday powers of unreason.
But this is not to quarrel with her broader diagnosis of the post-structuralist condition. Here she has argued a powerful case for doubting the self-styled 'radical' effects of a discourse that seemingly renounces all claim to adjudicate in matters of reason and truth. Her book should stimulate widespread discussion among critics, philosophers, and theorists of a post-structuralist persuasion.


Murder. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge McKenzie.
Coachman appeals from a murder conviction and life sentence. He was indicted, tried and convicted along with his co-defendants Hill and Gatlin.
On May 24, 1974, Jean Eberhardt, who lived with the murder victim Green, accepted a ride in Gatlin's car. Coachman was also in the car. While in the car, Gatlin gave Eberhardt a pistol which she placed in her purse. Later Green observed her leaving the car and began arguing with her about the ride with Gatlin and Coachman. Green took Gatlin's pistol from Eberhardt during the altercation. Green's brother and cousin then took Green and Eberhardt to their home. When the brother and cousin returned to the area where the altercation had taken place they found all three defendants there. Hill had a "long shiny gun" which he carried by his side and asked what was wrong. Gatlin replied "He's got my gun, man." Hill said "Let's go," and he, Gatlin and Coachman drove off in Gatlin's car.
At the house where they lived, Green hit Eberhardt with Gatlin's pistol and then placed the weapon in a hole in the ceiling. A few minutes later the three defendants arrived at the house in Gatlin's car. All three went up on the porch with Hill in the center and with Coachman and Gatlin flanking him. Green went to the door and ordered them to leave. All of them talked at the door for about five minutes. Hill held a gun in his hand, and as Eberhardt ducked behind a chair, she heard a shot. She found Green shot and bleeding. The car was observed leaving the driveway without its lights and with three persons inside. Green was taken to the hospital and died two days later as a result of the gunshot wound. Gatlin and Hill were arrested a short time after the incident. Coachman surrendered on June 6. The defense presented no witnesses at the trial.
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to order a severance as to Coachman because of a continuous verbal altercation during the trial between counsel for a co-defendant and the prosecuting attorney which caused Coachman's counsel and case to be totally ineffective. His reliance on the decision of this court in Cain v. State, 235 Ga. 128, 129 (218 SE2d 856) (1975) is misplaced. The right to a severance under both the Georgia law and the American Bar Association Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice arises only upon an appropriate motion. No motion to sever having been made in the trial court, the contention is without merit. Furthermore, we find no prejudice under Cain, supra, in the trial of this case.
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay evidence, namely, Hill's and Gatlin's statements made in the hearing of Green's brother and cousin, to be introduced and attributed to Coachman as a co-conspirator, when there was no prima facie showing made that he was a part of any conspiracy which might have existed. No objection was made to the admission of this testimony, and the question may not be raised for the first time in this court. Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) (67 SE2d 221) (1951). Moreover, even assuming the statements were hearsay, they were admissible against Gatlin and Hill either as declarations by their co-conspirators or as part of the res gestae. Code Ann. 38-306; Elkins v. State, 222 Ga. 746, 747 (152 SE2d 377) (1966). Because the statements were admissible against two defendants, there can be no error as to Coachman without objection or request for a limiting instruction and none was made. Munford v. State, 235 Ga. 38, 43 (218 SE2d 792)(1975); Poston v. State, 233 Ga. 828, 830 (213 SE2d 686) (1975).
3. The trial court was not in error in refusing to compel a police officer to turn over a copy of a statement made by Eberhardt to the police. Appellant's counsel was allowed to cross examine the police officer concerning Eberhardt's recitation of the events surrounding the shooting.
Rini v. State, 235 Ga. 60 (218 SE2d 811) (1975) is inapposite for the reason that there the motion related to prior inconsistent statements by prosecution witnesses. In Hicks v. State, 232 Ga. 393, 395 (207 SE2d 30) (1974), this court held that even where the trial court refuses to make an in camera inspection, a defendant bears the burden of showing prejudice to his case resulting from the prosecution's refusal to turn over documents or evidence. The appellant makes no showing whatever of any prejudice.
4. In the absence of an appropriate request, there is no error in the failure to charge on mere presence at the scene of the crime and his failure to testify. Woodward v. State, 234 Ga. 901, 905 (218 SE2d 629) (1975); Dixon v. State, 224 Ga. 636, 638 (163 SE2d 737) (1968).
5. There was sufficient evidence of Coachman's participation in the conspiracy to authorize the trial court's charge on conspiracy and the verdict of guilt. Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 375 (219, SE2d 743) (1975); Sheppard v. State, 235 Ga. 89 (218 SE2d 830) (1975); McConnell v. State, 235 Ga. 366 (220 SE2d 5) (1975). "It is not necessary . . . in order to sustain a verdict of conviction, that the evidence exclude every possibility or every inference that may be drawn from the proved facts, but only necessary to exclude reasonable inferences and reasonable hypotheses." Dunson v. State, 202 Ga. 515, 521 (43 SE2d 504) (1947).
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Carole E. Wall, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Spence, Garrett & Spense, D. William Garrett, Jr., for appellant.
ARGUED JANUARY 20, 1976 -- DECIDED MARCH 11, 1976.


FIITON: RELENTLESS: Clinton email witnesses go under oath: Next: Judicial Watch Deposition of Jacob "Jake" Sullivan, Hillary Clinton's former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff.
Back of me on roof of our Judicial Watch HQ in SW DC.
Tom Fitton is one of the unsung heroes of our country.
Our future seems to rest on those shoulders. Thank God they are broad enough to support America.
Tom, are you going to be bringing back NSA whistleblower William Binney to retestify that the clinton emails were taken via a portable memory device and Not hacked by Russians, as the corrupt DNC has claimed?


Futon Mattress Sizes Stealing Home.
Futon mattress sizes full Posted in imuasia.us. If you want to use futon mattress sizes full , take your time and find the best images and pictures posted here that suitable with your needs and use it for your own collection and personal use only.
Futon mattress sizes full is one of wonderful image reference about designs and ideas. we present this image with the best to you which will make you comfortable and give you many details of futon mattress sizes full.
There are so many design ideas in the post futon mattress sizes full that you can find, you can find ideas in the gallery.
Dimensions Of Full Size Futon Ehindtimescom.
How Take Care Full Futon Mattress Futon Mattress Sferahoteles.
Amazoncom Mozaic Full Size 8Inch Futon Mattress Ivory Kitchen.
full size futon mattress dimensions BM Furnititure.
Top 10 Best Futon Mattresses Honest Review 2018.
Best Futon Mattress Full Size Our 5 Best Futon Mattresses Reviewed.
102 best Futon Covers images on Pinterest Futon covers Quilt.
futon mattress sizes Outdoor Furniture.
Clay Alder Home Owsley Fullsize 8inch Futon Mattress Free.
Alwyn Home 6 Coil Full Size Futon Mattress Reviews Wayfair.
Mattress Queen Size Futon Mattress And Frame Setqueen Set 91 Comfy.
Full Size Futon Mattress Pleasing Futon Platform King Size Futon Bed.
ACME 02802 6 FULL SIZE FUTON MATTRESS Cheny FurnitureChicago.
Futonland Sizing Charts for Mattresses and Futon.
Amazoncom Mozaic Twin Size 6inch Cotton Twill Futon Mattress.
Standard Futon Size Popular Matress Sizes Architecture Options In 24.
Futons Flanagan MATTRESS and FURNITURE.
Sofas Sofa Beds With Storage Compartment Cheap Futon Mattress.
6 FullSize Futon Mattress Multiple Colors Walmartcom.
Queen Futon Mattress Dimensions BM Furnititure.
Futon Mattress Sizes Image Of King Size Futon Futon Mattress Sizes.
Japanese Futon Mattress Sizes Courtney Home Design What Futon.
Cheap Futon Mattress Sizes Courtney Home Design What Futon.
Amazoncom Mozaic Full Size 8inch Cotton Twill Gel Memory Foam.
Sofas Sofa Futon Full Size Futon Twin Futon Futon Mattress Single.
Emoor Japanese Traditional Futon Mattress Double Cotton100 White.
Blazing Needles Full Size 10inch Quality Futon Mattress Free.
Full Size Futon Mattress Dimensions Mattresses Team R4V.
Futons Flanagan Mattress And Furniture With Regard To Full Size.
Amazoncom Mozaic Full Size 8Inch Cotton Twill Gel Dual Memory.
Serta Futons Futon Accessories Sears.
Simmons Beautyrest 8 in Pocketed Coil Innerspring Futon Mattress.
Full Size Futon Bed Image Of Queen Size Futon Mattress Warehouse.
Snazzy Foundation Set Value City In Click To Change Strathfield Firm.
Sofa Sofa Futon Mattress Sale Full Size With Pillow Top Cover.
Ikea Full Size Futon Mattress Karobarmartcom.
Futons Asheville NC Futon Mattress Sale 8282545555.
futon mattresses full size Barebearsbackyardco.
Full Size Tango Armless Futon Bed Package by Night Day.
King Size Futon Mattress BMPATH Furniture.
Mattress Cheap Full Size Futon Mattress Interesting Photos 96.
Futon Mattress Sizes Futon Mattress Sizes I Linkedlifescom.
363 best Futon images on Pinterest Futons Mattresses and Futon.
Attractive Futon Bed Size Futon Size Chart Roselawnlutheran Posh.
Cot Size Futon Mattress Tags 59 Set Of Futon Mattress Size.
King Size Futon Mattresses Full Size Of Large Size Of Medium Size Of.
Futon Mattress Sizes Queen Size Futon Mattress Toppers Sizes E.
BUY NOW Amazing Deals on Futon Mattresses.
Futon Mattress Sizes Simple Full Size Futon Mattress Cover Sizes U.
Queen Size Futon Mattress Full Futon Mattress Inch Futon Mattress.
Faux Leather Futon Mattress Futons Furniture Cover Black Full Size.
20 Beautiful Full Size Futon Mattress Pictures Jeseniacoant.
Futon Dimensions Futon Mattress Sizes Traditional Futon Mattress.
Ikea Full Size Futon Mattress 4 Ikea Futon Mattress Size.
EMOOR Japanese Traditional Futon Mattress Classe Japanese Full.
Futon Mattress Measurements BM Furnititure.
Queen Size Futon Set Cheap Intended For Futon Beds Queen Size.
Full Size Futon Mattress Futon Mattress Pad Best Futon Mattress.
What Futon mattress sizes Futon Mattress Sferahoteles Mattress.
Bedroom Futon Mattress Sizes What Size Are Futon Mattresses.
Seaside Pocket Coil Mattress Night and Day Full Queen Futon Mattress.
how big is a futon mattress Furniture Shop.
full size futon bed Barebearsbackyardco.
Better Homes Gardens 6 Quilted Top Futon Mattress Full Size.
DHP 8 Tufted Full Futon Mattress Navy Blue Walmartcom.
Twin Size Futon Mattresses FutonCreations.
Mattresses Full Size Futon Mattress Ikea Sultan Sealy Posturepedic.
Amazoncom Mozaic Twin Size 8Inch Futon Mattress Ivory Kitchen.
You Must Know Futon Mattress Sizes Roof Fence Futons.
twin size futon mattress Deanroutechoiceco.
Queen Size Futon Mattress King Full Cover Sizes What Canada Team R4V.
Double Full Size Futons Convertible Sofas Hayneedle.
Serta Futons 6 Spring Comfort Futon Mattress Multiple Sizes.
Amazoncom Mozaic Full Size 12inch Cotton Twill Futon Mattress.
Futon 49 Contemporary Queen Size Futon Mattress Ideas Queen Size.
Futon Mattress Size Full Futon Frame With Mattress Futon Mattress.
Futon Mattresses Freight Liquidators Discount Furniture.
Beneficial Full Size Futon Mattress Futon Mattress Sferahoteles.
Incredible Futon Bed Size Beds Sofa Folding Futon Bed Foam Sleeper.
Alwyn Home Independently Encased Coil Premium 8 Full Size Futon.
Sleep Concepts Mattress Futon Factory Amish Rustics Mattress.
King Futon Mattress Amazing Memory Foam Double Full Viscose Deluxe.
Futon Sizes Inch Futon Best Twin Size Mattress Dimensions Ideas On.
Futon Mattress Sizes Futon Planet Mars Futon Mattress VCF Ideas.
9 best Bunk Bed With Futon Bottom images on Pinterest 34 beds.
King Size Futon Frame Full Size Of Chairs Style Chair Futon Pad.
Futon Planet Fraggle Futon Sizes Futon Planet.
Choose the Best Futons at IKEACapricornradio Homes.


Whether you're a contractor looking for a complex bid bond or a business owner in need of a simple license and permit bond, Hopp Insurance is here to help.
Hopp Insurance partners with only the best sureties to give you outstanding products supported by value-added services to contractors and businesses.
To find out more about our surety products and services, contact Hopp Insurance today at 503-538-3421.


text:
#pragma once

#if defined(_MSC_VER)
// disable /W4 MSVC warnings that are benign
#pragma warning(disable:4127) // conditional expression is constant
#pragma warning(disable:4100) // unreferenced formal parameter
#pragma warning(disable:4214) // bit field types other than int
#pragma warning(disable:4201) // nameless struct/union
#endif

// Windows API default is uppercase - ugh!
#if !defined(bool)
#define bool BOOL
#endif
#if !defined(true)
#define true TRUE
#endif
#if !defined(false)
#define false FALSE
#endif

// Missing from MSVC6 setupapi.h
#if !defined(SPDRP_ADDRESS)
#define SPDRP_ADDRESS	28
#endif
#if !defined(SPDRP_INSTALL_STATE)
#define SPDRP_INSTALL_STATE	34
#endif

#if defined(__CYGWIN__ )
// cygwin produces a warning unless these prototypes are defined
extern int _snprintf(char *buffer, size_t count, const char *format, ...);
extern char *_strdup(const char *strSource);
// _beginthreadex is MSVCRT => unavailable for cygwin. Fallback to using CreateThread
#define _beginthreadex(a, b, c, d, e, f) CreateThread(a, b, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)c, d, e, f)
#endif
#define safe_free(p) do {if (p != NULL) {free((void*)p); p = NULL;}} while(0)
#define safe_closehandle(h) do {if (h != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) {CloseHandle(h); h = INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE;}} while(0)
#define safe_min(a, b) min((size_t)(a), (size_t)(b))
#define safe_strcp(dst, dst_max, src, count) do {memcpy(dst, src, safe_min(count, dst_max)); \
	((char*)dst)[safe_min(count, dst_max)-1] = 0;} while(0)
#define safe_strcpy(dst, dst_max, src) safe_strcp(dst, dst_max, src, safe_strlen(src)+1)
#define safe_strncat(dst, dst_max, src, count) strncat(dst, src, safe_min(count, dst_max - safe_strlen(dst) - 1))
#define safe_strcat(dst, dst_max, src) safe_strncat(dst, dst_max, src, safe_strlen(src)+1)
#define safe_strcmp(str1, str2) strcmp(((str1==NULL)?"<NULL>":str1), ((str2==NULL)?"<NULL>":str2))
#define safe_strncmp(str1, str2, count) strncmp(((str1==NULL)?"<NULL>":str1), ((str2==NULL)?"<NULL>":str2), count)
#define safe_strlen(str) ((str==NULL)?0:strlen(str))
#define safe_sprintf _snprintf
#define safe_unref_device(dev) do {if (dev != NULL) {libusb_unref_device(dev); dev = NULL;}} while(0)
#define wchar_to_utf8_ms(wstr, str, strlen) WideCharToMultiByte(CP_UTF8, 0, wstr, -1, str, strlen, NULL, NULL)
static inline void upperize(char* str) {
	size_t i;
	if (str == NULL) return;
	for (i=0; i<safe_strlen(str); i++)
		str[i] = (char)toupper((int)str[i]);
}

#define MAX_CTRL_BUFFER_LENGTH      4096
#define MAX_USB_DEVICES             256
#define MAX_USB_STRING_LENGTH       128
#define MAX_GUID_STRING_LENGTH      40
#define MAX_PATH_LENGTH             128
#define MAX_KEY_LENGTH              256
#define MAX_TIMER_SEMAPHORES        128
#define TIMER_REQUEST_RETRY_MS      100
#define ERR_BUFFER_SIZE             256
#define LIST_SEPARATOR              ';'
#define HTAB_SIZE                   1021

// http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff545978.aspx
// http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff545972.aspx
// http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff545982.aspx
#if !defined(GUID_DEVINTERFACE_USB_HOST_CONTROLLER)
const GUID GUID_DEVINTERFACE_USB_HOST_CONTROLLER = { 0x3ABF6F2D, 0x71C4, 0x462A, {0x8A, 0x92, 0x1E, 0x68, 0x61, 0xE6, 0xAF, 0x27} };
#endif
#if !defined(GUID_DEVINTERFACE_USB_DEVICE)
const GUID GUID_DEVINTERFACE_USB_DEVICE = { 0xA5DCBF10, 0x6530, 0x11D2, {0x90, 0x1F, 0x00, 0xC0, 0x4F, 0xB9, 0x51, 0xED} };
#endif
#if !defined(GUID_DEVINTERFACE_USB_HUB)
const GUID GUID_DEVINTERFACE_USB_HUB = { 0xF18A0E88, 0xC30C, 0x11D0, {0x88, 0x15, 0x00, 0xA0, 0xC9, 0x06, 0xBE, 0xD8} };
#endif

/*
 * Multiple USB API backend support
 */
#define USB_API_UNSUPPORTED 0
#define USB_API_HUB         1
#define USB_API_COMPOSITE   2
#define USB_API_WINUSB      3
#define USB_API_MAX         4

#define CLASS_GUID_UNSUPPORTED      GUID_NULL
const GUID CLASS_GUID_LIBUSB_WINUSB = { 0x78A1C341, 0x4539, 0x11D3, {0xB8, 0x8D, 0x00, 0xC0, 0x4F, 0xAD, 0x51, 0x71} };
const GUID CLASS_GUID_COMPOSITE     = { 0x36FC9E60, 0xC465, 0x11cF, {0x80, 0x56, 0x44, 0x45, 0x53, 0x54, 0x00, 0x00} };

struct windows_usb_api_backend {
	const uint8_t id;
	const char* designation;
	const GUID *class_guid;  // The Class GUID (for fallback in case the driver name cannot be read)
	const char **driver_name_list; // Driver name, without .sys, e.g. "usbccgp"
	const uint8_t nb_driver_names;
	int (*init)(struct libusb_context *ctx);
	int (*exit)(void);
	int (*open)(struct libusb_device_handle *dev_handle);
	void (*close)(struct libusb_device_handle *dev_handle);
	int (*claim_interface)(struct libusb_device_handle *dev_handle, int iface);
	int (*set_interface_altsetting)(struct libusb_device_handle *dev_handle, int iface, int altsetting);
	int (*release_interface)(struct libusb_device_handle *dev_handle, int iface);
	int (*clear_halt)(struct libusb_device_handle *dev_handle, unsigned char endpoint);
	int (*reset_device)(struct libusb_device_handle *dev_handle);
	int (*submit_bulk_transfer)(struct usbi_transfer *itransfer);
	int (*submit_iso_transfer)(struct usbi_transfer *itransfer);
	int (*submit_control_transfer)(struct usbi_transfer *itransfer);
	int (*abort_control)(struct usbi_transfer *itransfer);
	int (*abort_transfers)(struct usbi_transfer *itransfer);
	int (*copy_transfer_data)(struct usbi_transfer *itransfer, uint32_t io_size);
};

extern const struct windows_usb_api_backend usb_api_backend[USB_API_MAX];

#define PRINT_UNSUPPORTED_API(fname)              \
	usbi_dbg("unsupported API call for '"         \
		#fname "' (unrecognized device driver)"); \
	return LIBUSB_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED;

/*
 * private structures definition
 * with inline pseudo constructors/destructors
 */
typedef struct libusb_device_descriptor USB_DEVICE_DESCRIPTOR, *PUSB_DEVICE_DESCRIPTOR;
struct windows_device_priv {
	uint8_t depth;						// distance to HCD
	uint8_t port;						// port number on the hub
	struct libusb_device *parent_dev;	// access to parent is required for usermode ops
	char *path;							// device interface path
	struct windows_usb_api_backend const *apib;
	struct {
		char *path;						// each interface needs a device interface path,
		struct windows_usb_api_backend const *apib; // an API backend (multiple drivers support),
		int8_t nb_endpoints;			// and a set of endpoint addresses (USB_MAXENDPOINTS)
		uint8_t *endpoint;
	} usb_interface[USB_MAXINTERFACES];
	uint8_t composite_api_flags;		// composite devices require additional data
	uint8_t active_config;
	USB_DEVICE_DESCRIPTOR dev_descriptor;
	unsigned char **config_descriptor;	// list of pointers to the cached config descriptors
};

static inline struct windows_device_priv *_device_priv(struct libusb_device *dev) {
	return (struct windows_device_priv *)dev->os_priv;
}

static inline void windows_device_priv_init(libusb_device* dev) {
	struct windows_device_priv* p = _device_priv(dev);
	int i;
	p->depth = 0;
	p->port = 0;
	p->parent_dev = NULL;
	p->path = NULL;
	p->apib = &usb_api_backend[USB_API_UNSUPPORTED];
	p->composite_api_flags = 0;
	p->active_config = 0;
	p->config_descriptor = NULL;
	memset(&(p->dev_descriptor), 0, sizeof(USB_DEVICE_DESCRIPTOR));
	for (i=0; i<USB_MAXINTERFACES; i++) {
		p->usb_interface[i].path = NULL;
		p->usb_interface[i].apib = &usb_api_backend[USB_API_UNSUPPORTED];
		p->usb_interface[i].nb_endpoints = 0;
		p->usb_interface[i].endpoint = NULL;
	}
}

static inline void windows_device_priv_release(libusb_device* dev) {
	struct windows_device_priv* p = _device_priv(dev);
	int i;
	safe_free(p->path);
	if ((dev->num_configurations > 0) && (p->config_descriptor != NULL)) {
		for (i=0; i < dev->num_configurations; i++)
			safe_free(p->config_descriptor[i]);
	}
	safe_free(p->config_descriptor);
	for (i=0; i<USB_MAXINTERFACES; i++) {
		safe_free(p->usb_interface[i].path);
		safe_free(p->usb_interface[i].endpoint);
	}
}

struct interface_handle_t {
	HANDLE dev_handle; // WinUSB needs an extra handle for the file
	HANDLE api_handle; // used by the API to communicate with the device
};

struct windows_device_handle_priv {
	int active_interface;
	struct interface_handle_t interface_handle[USB_MAXINTERFACES];
#if defined(AUTO_CLAIM)
	int autoclaim_count[USB_MAXINTERFACES]; // For auto-release
#endif
};

static inline struct windows_device_handle_priv *_device_handle_priv(
	struct libusb_device_handle *handle)
{
	return (struct windows_device_handle_priv *) handle->os_priv;
}

// used for async polling functions
struct windows_transfer_priv {
	struct winfd pollable_fd;
	uint8_t interface_number;
};

// used to match a device driver (including filter drivers) against a supported API
struct driver_lookup {
	char list[MAX_KEY_LENGTH+1];// REG_MULTI_SZ list of services (driver) names
	const DWORD reg_prop;		// SPDRP registry key to use to retreive list
	const char* designation;	// internal designation (for debug output)
};

/*
 * API macros - from libusb-win32 1.x
 */
#define DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(api, ret, prefix, name, args)    \
	typedef ret (api * __dll_##name##_t)args;                 \
	static __dll_##name##_t prefix##name = NULL

#define DLL_LOAD_PREFIXED(dll, prefix, name, ret_on_failure)  \
	do {                                                      \
		HMODULE h = GetModuleHandleA(#dll);                   \
	if (!h)                                                   \
		h = LoadLibraryA(#dll);                               \
	if (!h) {                                                 \
		if (ret_on_failure) { return LIBUSB_ERROR_NOT_FOUND; }\
		else { break; }                                       \
	}                                                         \
	prefix##name = (__dll_##name##_t)GetProcAddress(h, #name);\
	if (prefix##name) break;                                  \
	prefix##name = (__dll_##name##_t)GetProcAddress(h, #name "A");\
	if (prefix##name) break;                                  \
	prefix##name = (__dll_##name##_t)GetProcAddress(h, #name "W");\
	if (prefix##name) break;                                  \
	if(ret_on_failure)                                        \
		return LIBUSB_ERROR_NOT_FOUND;                        \
	} while(0)

#define DLL_DECLARE(api, ret, name, args)   DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(api, ret, , name, args)
#define DLL_LOAD(dll, name, ret_on_failure) DLL_LOAD_PREFIXED(dll, , name, ret_on_failure)

/* OLE32 dependency */
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, HRESULT, p, CLSIDFromString, (LPCOLESTR, LPCLSID));

/* SetupAPI dependencies */
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, HDEVINFO, p, SetupDiGetClassDevsA, (const GUID*, PCSTR, HWND, DWORD));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, BOOL, p, SetupDiEnumDeviceInfo, (HDEVINFO, DWORD, PSP_DEVINFO_DATA));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, BOOL, p, SetupDiEnumDeviceInterfaces, (HDEVINFO, PSP_DEVINFO_DATA,
			const GUID*, DWORD, PSP_DEVICE_INTERFACE_DATA));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, BOOL, p, SetupDiGetDeviceInterfaceDetailA, (HDEVINFO, PSP_DEVICE_INTERFACE_DATA,
			PSP_DEVICE_INTERFACE_DETAIL_DATA_A, DWORD, PDWORD, PSP_DEVINFO_DATA));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, BOOL, p, SetupDiDestroyDeviceInfoList, (HDEVINFO));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, HKEY, p, SetupDiOpenDevRegKey, (HDEVINFO, PSP_DEVINFO_DATA, DWORD, DWORD, DWORD, REGSAM));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, BOOL, p, SetupDiGetDeviceRegistryPropertyA, (HDEVINFO,
			PSP_DEVINFO_DATA, DWORD, PDWORD, PBYTE, DWORD, PDWORD));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, LONG, p, RegQueryValueExW, (HKEY, LPCWSTR, LPDWORD, LPDWORD, LPBYTE, LPDWORD));
DLL_DECLARE_PREFIXED(WINAPI, LONG, p, RegCloseKey, (HKEY));

/*
 * Windows DDK API definitions. Most of it copied from MinGW's includes
 */
typedef DWORD DEVNODE, DEVINST;
typedef DEVNODE *PDEVNODE, *PDEVINST;
typedef DWORD RETURN_TYPE;
typedef RETURN_TYPE CONFIGRET;

#define CR_SUCCESS                              0x00000000
#define CR_NO_SUCH_DEVNODE                      0x0000000D

#define USB_DEVICE_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE              LIBUSB_DT_DEVICE
#define USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE       LIBUSB_DT_CONFIG
#define USB_STRING_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE              LIBUSB_DT_STRING
#define USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE           LIBUSB_DT_INTERFACE
#define USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE            LIBUSB_DT_ENDPOINT

#define USB_REQUEST_GET_STATUS                  LIBUSB_REQUEST_GET_STATUS
#define USB_REQUEST_CLEAR_FEATURE               LIBUSB_REQUEST_CLEAR_FEATURE
#define USB_REQUEST_SET_FEATURE                 LIBUSB_REQUEST_SET_FEATURE
#define USB_REQUEST_SET_ADDRESS                 LIBUSB_REQUEST_SET_ADDRESS
#define USB_REQUEST_GET_DESCRIPTOR              LIBUSB_REQUEST_GET_DESCRIPTOR
#define USB_REQUEST_SET_DESCRIPTOR              LIBUSB_REQUEST_SET_DESCRIPTOR
#define USB_REQUEST_GET_CONFIGURATION           LIBUSB_REQUEST_GET_CONFIGURATION
#define USB_REQUEST_SET_CONFIGURATION           LIBUSB_REQUEST_SET_CONFIGURATION
#define USB_REQUEST_GET_INTERFACE               LIBUSB_REQUEST_GET_INTERFACE
#define USB_REQUEST_SET_INTERFACE               LIBUSB_REQUEST_SET_INTERFACE
#define USB_REQUEST_SYNC_FRAME                  LIBUSB_REQUEST_SYNCH_FRAME

#define USB_GET_NODE_INFORMATION                258
#define USB_GET_DESCRIPTOR_FROM_NODE_CONNECTION 260
#define USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME            261
#define USB_GET_HUB_CAPABILITIES                271
#if !defined(USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_INFORMATION_EX)
#define USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_INFORMATION_EX  274
#endif
#if !defined(USB_GET_HUB_CAPABILITIES_EX)
#define USB_GET_HUB_CAPABILITIES_EX             276
#endif

#ifndef METHOD_BUFFERED
#define METHOD_BUFFERED                         0
#endif
#ifndef FILE_ANY_ACCESS
#define FILE_ANY_ACCESS                         0x00000000
#endif
#ifndef FILE_DEVICE_UNKNOWN
#define FILE_DEVICE_UNKNOWN                     0x00000022
#endif
#ifndef FILE_DEVICE_USB
#define FILE_DEVICE_USB                         FILE_DEVICE_UNKNOWN
#endif

#ifndef CTL_CODE
#define CTL_CODE(DeviceType, Function, Method, Access)( \
  ((DeviceType) << 16) | ((Access) << 14) | ((Function) << 2) | (Method))
#endif

typedef enum USB_CONNECTION_STATUS {
	NoDeviceConnected,
	DeviceConnected,
	DeviceFailedEnumeration,
	DeviceGeneralFailure,
	DeviceCausedOvercurrent,
	DeviceNotEnoughPower,
	DeviceNotEnoughBandwidth,
	DeviceHubNestedTooDeeply,
	DeviceInLegacyHub
} USB_CONNECTION_STATUS, *PUSB_CONNECTION_STATUS;

typedef enum USB_HUB_NODE {
	UsbHub,
	UsbMIParent
} USB_HUB_NODE;

/* Cfgmgr32.dll interface */
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, CONFIGRET, CM_Get_Parent, (PDEVINST, DEVINST, ULONG));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, CONFIGRET, CM_Get_Child, (PDEVINST, DEVINST, ULONG));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, CONFIGRET, CM_Get_Sibling, (PDEVINST, DEVINST, ULONG));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, CONFIGRET, CM_Get_Device_IDA, (DEVINST, PCHAR, ULONG, ULONG));

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_HUB_CAPABILITIES_EX \
  CTL_CODE( FILE_DEVICE_USB, USB_GET_HUB_CAPABILITIES_EX, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_HUB_CAPABILITIES \
  CTL_CODE(FILE_DEVICE_USB, USB_GET_HUB_CAPABILITIES, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_DESCRIPTOR_FROM_NODE_CONNECTION \
  CTL_CODE(FILE_DEVICE_USB, USB_GET_DESCRIPTOR_FROM_NODE_CONNECTION, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_ROOT_HUB_NAME \
  CTL_CODE(FILE_DEVICE_USB, HCD_GET_ROOT_HUB_NAME, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_NODE_INFORMATION \
  CTL_CODE(FILE_DEVICE_USB, USB_GET_NODE_INFORMATION, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_INFORMATION_EX \
  CTL_CODE(FILE_DEVICE_USB, USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_INFORMATION_EX, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_ATTRIBUTES \
  CTL_CODE(FILE_DEVICE_USB, USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_ATTRIBUTES, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

#define IOCTL_USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME \
  CTL_CODE(FILE_DEVICE_USB, USB_GET_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME, METHOD_BUFFERED, FILE_ANY_ACCESS)

// Most of the structures below need to be packed
#pragma pack(push, 1)

typedef struct USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR {
  UCHAR  bLength;
  UCHAR  bDescriptorType;
  UCHAR  bInterfaceNumber;
  UCHAR  bAlternateSetting;
  UCHAR  bNumEndpoints;
  UCHAR  bInterfaceClass;
  UCHAR  bInterfaceSubClass;
  UCHAR  bInterfaceProtocol;
  UCHAR  iInterface;
} USB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR, *PUSB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR;

typedef struct USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR {
  UCHAR  bLength;
  UCHAR  bDescriptorType;
  USHORT wTotalLength;
  UCHAR  bNumInterfaces;
  UCHAR  bConfigurationValue;
  UCHAR  iConfiguration;
  UCHAR  bmAttributes;
  UCHAR  MaxPower;
} USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR, *PUSB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR;

typedef struct USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR_SHORT {
	struct {
		ULONG ConnectionIndex;
		struct {
			UCHAR bmRequest;
			UCHAR bRequest;
			USHORT wValue;
			USHORT wIndex;
			USHORT wLength;
		} SetupPacket;
	} req;
	USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR data;
} USB_CONFIGURATION_DESCRIPTOR_SHORT;

typedef struct USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR {
  UCHAR  bLength;
  UCHAR  bDescriptorType;
  UCHAR  bEndpointAddress;
  UCHAR  bmAttributes;
  USHORT  wMaxPacketSize;
  UCHAR  bInterval;
} USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR, *PUSB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR;

typedef struct USB_DESCRIPTOR_REQUEST {
	ULONG  ConnectionIndex;
	struct {
		UCHAR  bmRequest;
		UCHAR  bRequest;
		USHORT  wValue;
		USHORT  wIndex;
		USHORT  wLength;
	} SetupPacket;
//	UCHAR  Data[0];
} USB_DESCRIPTOR_REQUEST, *PUSB_DESCRIPTOR_REQUEST;

typedef struct USB_HUB_DESCRIPTOR {
	UCHAR  bDescriptorLength;
	UCHAR  bDescriptorType;
	UCHAR  bNumberOfPorts;
	USHORT  wHubCharacteristics;
	UCHAR  bPowerOnToPowerGood;
	UCHAR  bHubControlCurrent;
	UCHAR  bRemoveAndPowerMask[64];
} USB_HUB_DESCRIPTOR, *PUSB_HUB_DESCRIPTOR;

typedef struct USB_ROOT_HUB_NAME {
	ULONG  ActualLength;
	WCHAR  RootHubName[1];
} USB_ROOT_HUB_NAME, *PUSB_ROOT_HUB_NAME;

typedef struct USB_ROOT_HUB_NAME_FIXED {
	ULONG ActualLength;
	WCHAR RootHubName[MAX_PATH_LENGTH];
} USB_ROOT_HUB_NAME_FIXED;

typedef struct USB_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME {
	ULONG  ConnectionIndex;
	ULONG  ActualLength;
	WCHAR  NodeName[1];
} USB_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME, *PUSB_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME;

typedef struct USB_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME_FIXED {
	ULONG ConnectionIndex;
	ULONG ActualLength;
	WCHAR NodeName[MAX_PATH_LENGTH];
} USB_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME_FIXED;

typedef struct USB_HUB_NAME_FIXED {
	union {
		USB_ROOT_HUB_NAME_FIXED root;
		USB_NODE_CONNECTION_NAME_FIXED node;
	} u;
} USB_HUB_NAME_FIXED;

typedef struct USB_HUB_INFORMATION {
	USB_HUB_DESCRIPTOR  HubDescriptor;
	BOOLEAN  HubIsBusPowered;
} USB_HUB_INFORMATION, *PUSB_HUB_INFORMATION;

typedef struct USB_MI_PARENT_INFORMATION {
  ULONG  NumberOfInterfaces;
} USB_MI_PARENT_INFORMATION, *PUSB_MI_PARENT_INFORMATION;

typedef struct USB_NODE_INFORMATION {
	USB_HUB_NODE  NodeType;
	union {
		USB_HUB_INFORMATION  HubInformation;
		USB_MI_PARENT_INFORMATION  MiParentInformation;
	} u;
} USB_NODE_INFORMATION, *PUSB_NODE_INFORMATION;

typedef struct USB_PIPE_INFO {
	USB_ENDPOINT_DESCRIPTOR  EndpointDescriptor;
	ULONG  ScheduleOffset;
} USB_PIPE_INFO, *PUSB_PIPE_INFO;

typedef struct USB_NODE_CONNECTION_INFORMATION_EX {
	ULONG  ConnectionIndex;
	USB_DEVICE_DESCRIPTOR  DeviceDescriptor;
	UCHAR  CurrentConfigurationValue;
	UCHAR  Speed;
	BOOLEAN  DeviceIsHub;
	USHORT  DeviceAddress;
	ULONG  NumberOfOpenPipes;
	USB_CONNECTION_STATUS  ConnectionStatus;
//	USB_PIPE_INFO  PipeList[0];
} USB_NODE_CONNECTION_INFORMATION_EX, *PUSB_NODE_CONNECTION_INFORMATION_EX;

typedef struct USB_HUB_CAP_FLAGS {
	ULONG HubIsHighSpeedCapable:1;
	ULONG HubIsHighSpeed:1;
	ULONG HubIsMultiTtCapable:1;
	ULONG HubIsMultiTt:1;
	ULONG HubIsRoot:1;
	ULONG HubIsArmedWakeOnConnect:1;
	ULONG ReservedMBZ:26;
} USB_HUB_CAP_FLAGS, *PUSB_HUB_CAP_FLAGS;

typedef struct USB_HUB_CAPABILITIES {
  ULONG  HubIs2xCapable : 1;
} USB_HUB_CAPABILITIES, *PUSB_HUB_CAPABILITIES;

typedef struct USB_HUB_CAPABILITIES_EX {
	USB_HUB_CAP_FLAGS CapabilityFlags;
} USB_HUB_CAPABILITIES_EX, *PUSB_HUB_CAPABILITIES_EX;

#pragma pack(pop)

/* winusb.dll interface */

#define SHORT_PACKET_TERMINATE  0x01
#define AUTO_CLEAR_STALL        0x02
#define PIPE_TRANSFER_TIMEOUT   0x03
#define IGNORE_SHORT_PACKETS    0x04
#define ALLOW_PARTIAL_READS     0x05
#define AUTO_FLUSH              0x06
#define RAW_IO                  0x07
#define MAXIMUM_TRANSFER_SIZE   0x08
#define AUTO_SUSPEND            0x81
#define SUSPEND_DELAY           0x83
#define DEVICE_SPEED            0x01
#define LowSpeed                0x01
#define FullSpeed               0x02
#define HighSpeed               0x03

typedef enum USBD_PIPE_TYPE {
	UsbdPipeTypeControl,
	UsbdPipeTypeIsochronous,
	UsbdPipeTypeBulk,
	UsbdPipeTypeInterrupt
} USBD_PIPE_TYPE;

typedef struct {
  USBD_PIPE_TYPE PipeType;
  UCHAR          PipeId;
  USHORT         MaximumPacketSize;
  UCHAR          Interval;
} WINUSB_PIPE_INFORMATION, *PWINUSB_PIPE_INFORMATION;

#pragma pack(1)
typedef struct {
  UCHAR  request_type;
  UCHAR  request;
  USHORT value;
  USHORT index;
  USHORT length;
} WINUSB_SETUP_PACKET, *PWINUSB_SETUP_PACKET;
#pragma pack()

typedef void *WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, *PWINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE;

DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_Initialize, (HANDLE, PWINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_Free, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_GetAssociatedInterface, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, PWINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_GetDescriptor, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, UCHAR, USHORT, PUCHAR, ULONG, PULONG));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_QueryInterfaceSettings, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, PUSB_INTERFACE_DESCRIPTOR));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_QueryDeviceInformation, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, ULONG, PULONG, PVOID));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_SetCurrentAlternateSetting, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_GetCurrentAlternateSetting, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, PUCHAR));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_QueryPipe, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, UCHAR, PWINUSB_PIPE_INFORMATION));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_SetPipePolicy, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, ULONG, ULONG, PVOID));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_GetPipePolicy, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, ULONG, PULONG, PVOID));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_ReadPipe, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, PUCHAR, ULONG, PULONG, LPOVERLAPPED));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_WritePipe, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR, PUCHAR, ULONG, PULONG, LPOVERLAPPED));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_ControlTransfer, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, WINUSB_SETUP_PACKET, PUCHAR, ULONG, PULONG, LPOVERLAPPED));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_ResetPipe, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_AbortPipe, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR));
DLL_DECLARE(WINAPI, BOOL, WinUsb_FlushPipe, (WINUSB_INTERFACE_HANDLE, UCHAR));

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
All-time greatest Test XI of Team India
Even after the rising popularity of T20 cricket, red-ball cricket is still considered as the format with the highest standards in the game of cricket. Test cricket is the ultimate challenge for a player as it tests both the physical and mental strength of players. Playing the game for five continuous days is very challenging, and one has to use his highest degree of his skill to survive in the longest format of the game.
Team India started its Test cricket journey on 25 June 1932 and has played 545 test matches in total with 157 wins, 167 defeats, 217 draws and one tie in its 88 years of their sojourn. A total of 296 players have earned the glory of representing India in Test cricket.
India are currently standing at the top position of the ICC Test Championship table, showing how much dominant they can be. In this article we tried our best to pick the best Test XI among the 296 players who donned the Indian white jersey.
So, without any further delay, let us see the players who make into the greatest Indian test-XI: –
1. Sunil Gavaskar
Sunil Gavaskar. (Photo by David Munden/Popperfoto via Getty Images/Getty Images)
Arguably the greatest Test opener of all time, Sunil Gavaskar will be the best to open batting for India on any given day due to his ability to play long innings at the top. He possessed all the qualities a batsman requires to have, to open the innings. He is the first player in the world to reach 10000 runs in Test cricket and also held the record for highest number of centuries (34) for nearly two decades in his time.
In an era of fearsome and ruthless Caribbean pace attack, Gavaskar faced them with enormous courage even without a helmet and had an astonishing average of 65.45 against them. He also scored his highest score (236*) in Test cricket against them which tells us about his extraordinary consistency against the most dangerous bowling attack of all time.
In 125 Test matches he played for his nation, Gavaskar scored 10122 runs at an average of 51.12 with the help of 34 100s and 45 50s. He had an extraordinary strike rate of 66.04 which is a very healthy one considering the deadly bowling attacks in those days.
2. Virender Sehwag
Virender Sehwag of India. (Photo Source: Getty Images)
Virender Sehwag will be the best choice to open the innings with Gavaskar as he was one of the most destructive players, India have ever produced. The destructive opener is famous for his critical stroke play, with which he can slaughter any bowling attack across the globe. Sehwag redefined the role of an opener in Test cricket by playing some long innings maintaining a healthy strike rate.
The Multan of Sultan became the first Indian Cricketer to score a triple century in Test cricket, the feat he achieved by destroying one of the best Pakistani bowling attack. He also went on to score another triple century, which is still the fastest triple century in the history of world cricket. He scored a 278 ball 319 slaughtering the South African bowling line up.
In 104 Test matches he played for India, Sehwag scored 8586 runs at a strike rate of 82.23 and an average of 49.34 with the help of 23 100s and 32 50s. He was popular for his crafty off breaks and had 40 Test wickets to his name.
3. Rahul Dravid
Rahul Dravid. (Photo Source: Getty Images)
The no.3 role in Test cricket is a very challenging one and Dravid will be an apt player to fit in this role. His class, grace, discipline and dedication towards the game made him one of the best batsmen ever to play the game. Often called as The Wall of Indian Cricket, Dravid was the main pillar of the team in the early days of this century.
Dravid used to frustrate the opposition bowling attacks mentally more than physically with his slow innings. The opponents used to come up with many plans to get his wicket as he is a master of defence and can defend a ball with any pace making his wicket more prized than that of Sachin. He was a very good fielder at slip position grabbing 210 catches in his career, the highest for a non-wicketkeeper.
Dravid could thrive in all conditions and was a master in handling both pace and spin. In his 164 Test matches for India, Dravid scored a whopping 13288 runs with an average of 52.31 with the help of 36 centuries and 63 50s. He also had five double centuries to his name.
4. Sachin Tendulkar
Sachin Tendulkar. (Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
There can't be an Indian all time XI without him and one doesn't need to explain the reasons for this selection. He is the player you would want to be a part of your team as he has all the shots of the cricket book. In his 24-year long career, Sachin left a legacy of his own shattering many records across all the formats of the game.
He was a multi-dimensional player, who has the ability to play in any situation. He can build innings, score rapidly and can even bat patiently to save matches. Sachin ended his career as the highest run-scorer in Test cricket and also has the most no. of centuries to his name. His straight drive and cover drive are a treat to watch and we can say that very few can match his class in the future.
He played 200 Test matches for India scoring whopping 15921 runs with an average of 53.79 with the help of 51 centuries and 68 50s. Adding to his unmatched batting skills, he is also a good spin bowler having 46 Test wickets to his name.
5. Virat Kohli (C)
Virat Kohli. (Photo by MARTY MELVILLE/AFP via Getty Images)
VVS Laxman is also a strong contender for this spot but Virat Kohli's consistent performances on foreign pitches in recent times made him a way into this team ahead of VVS. Initially considered as a limited overs specialist, Virat showed some astonishing temperament playing some match winning knocks, becoming an integral part of the team in no time.
Kohli is also the apt person to lead this team as he is the most successful captain for India in Tests, surpassing Dhoni with a win percentage of 60% in his 55 matches, he led. He is the only captain to win the Border Gavaskar Series in Australia. He also became the only Asian captain to win a Test series against Australia in their backyard.
So far, he has played 86 Test matches for India in which he scored 7240 runs at an average of 53.63 and a strike rate of 57.68 with the help of 27 centuries and 22 50s.
6. MS Dhoni (wk)
MS Dhoni. (Photo Source: Getty Images)
MS Dhoni is the greatest wicketkeeper batsman to have played for India and can be considered as the lone contender for this spot. Dhoni has played a crucial role in India's success in the longest format, wining many matches with his willow and gloves. He used to score many important partnerships with the tail, being rock solid at one end.
On the journey to his only double century in Test cricket, Dhoni made a record 9th wicket partnership with Bhuvneshwar Kumar and is the only wicketkeeper batsman to score a double ton for India. Even in pressure situations he remains calm and that is the reason behind his tremendous success in cricket. His valuable suggestions from behind the stumped played a major role in some Test match triumphs.
In 90 ODIs played for the nation he managed to score 4876 runs at an average of 38.0 with six centuries and a double century. The veteran has the most Test runs and dismissals by an Indian wicket keeper batsman having 294 dismissals to his name.
7. Kapil Dev
Kapil Dev. (Photo Source: Getty Images)
This is another automatic selection to this list. We can't think of an all-time Indian XI in any format without the name Kapil Dev in it. While he is largely celebrated for his heroics in 1983 World Cup win, his contribution in the red ball cricket was no less. He still holds the record for the most no. of wickets by an Indian pacer in Test cricket.
He is one of the best all rounders ever to play cricket and remains as the only man in the history of Test cricket to have scored 5000 runs and taken more than 400 wickets in his career even after 25 years of his retirement. He led the Indian pace attack for most of his career and was am attacking lower order batsman who scored some important runs with the tail.
In 131 Tests he played for the country, he scored 5248 runs with a strike rate of 94.76 with an average of 31.05. He also had 434 wickets with an average of 29.65.
8. Ravichandran Ashwin
Ravichandran Ashwin. (Photo Source: Twitter)
Harbhajan Singh who has more test wickets than Ashwin is a very strong contender for this spot. But Ashwin's amazing bowling average and his ability to play long innings down the order made him to this list. Ashwin initially came into limelight as a specialist T20 bowler, but his consistent performances for the team at the highest level forced the selectors to include him in the Indian Test team.
The Chennai man is one of the main reasons behind team's latest success. He is the fastest to reach 250, 300 and 25 fifers in Test cricket and also holds the record for most wickets in a four-match series, with 28 wickets. His ability to bat in the lower order is a bonus to the team and he was even sent to bat before Saha in recent times.
Due to his consistent performances, he was named as the ICC Test Cricketer of the Year in 2016. So far, he has played 71 Test matches for the nation and took 365 wickets with an average of 26.47. He also scored 2389 which includes four centuries to his name.
9. Anil Kumble
Anil Kumble of Northamptonshire in 1995. (Photo by Bob Thomas/Getty Images)
The Karnataka leg-spinner is the highest wicket-taker for India in both Tests and ODIs as is an automatic selection in this XI. Although the unorthodox spinner doesn't turn the ball much, Kumble tortured batsman with his flipper and quick deliveries. With class and elegance mixed, he was a true gentleman of the game.
In a match against Pakistan in 1999, Kumble became only the second bowler to take all the ten wickets of an innings beside Jim Laker. Then captain Ganguly once refused to travel Australia without him in the squad and the later didn't disappoint his captain by becoming the leading wicket-taker for the team in that tour.
In his 132 matches for India, Kumble picked 619 wickets at an average of 29.65 and an economy of just 2.7. He also had a century to his name and scored 2506 runs in his Test career.
10. Zaheer Khan
Zaheer Khan. (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
Current Indian fast bowler Ishant Sharma is a strong contender for this spot. But Zaheer's ability to swing the new ball and reverse the older ball even in the subcontinent conditions made him into this list. India are currently having one of the best bowling attacks in the world. But back in 2000, When Zaheer debuted in international cricket India were struggling in their bowling department and Zaheer used to be the lone warrior for them.
Injuries kept Zaheer out of the team for a considerable amount of time. If not for those injuries, Zaheer is all set to become one of the greatest bowlers ever to play the game with his lethal pace and swing with the ball.
In his 92 appearances for India in Test matches, Zaheer managed to pick 311 wickets at an average of 32.95. He was also a handy batsman at the end and scored 1230 runs for the team in the longest format of the game.
11. Bishen Singh Bedi
Bishen Bedi. (Photo by Patrick Eagar/Patrick Eagar Collection via Getty Images)
Adding this orthodox bowler to the group brings some left-arm spice to the team. Bedi played most of his games in the 70s and was an important member of the team at that time. He had also captained the Indian team for a considerable amount of time between 1975 to 1978.
Bedi's action while bowling is a bit different to normal as he had a limited run up and used to flight the ball with a reasonable speed. People who faced his bowling claimed that it was not an easy task to predict his length and score runs against him.
In 67 Tests he represented India, Bedi took 266 wickets at an average of 28.71 and with an economy of just 2.22. He still holds the record of most no. of first-class wickets by an Indian with 1560 wickets to his name.
~Uday Gurugubelli


A Shepherd's Life centres on Jenny Armstrong, born in 1903 at the farm of Fairliehope, who spent her life working as a shepherd in the Pentland Hills. In a series of remarkable paintings made over twenty years, Victoria Crowe, one of Scotland's foremost painters, paid tribute to the life and work of this exceptional woman. Here the authors, Julie Lawson and Mary Taubman, introduce two seminal landscapes: Jenny Armstrong's rugged Pentland Hills and Victoria Crowe's powerful paintings.
Artists who explore the theme of a shepherd's life and landscape could be seen to relate to a tradition that has itself been a constant in Western art and thought. To contemplate the shepherd is to reflect upon a person and a way of life left behind by progress or change. The tending of sheep in its slow rhythms is a scene to console and reassure us when society is rapidly changing. The 'Pastoral', from Virgil and Ovid to Handel and Wordsworth, is the genre that has provided artists with the means of contemplating the mythical origins of society, the development of civilisation, and the relationship of man to nature. In the 'ideal', Italianate Arcadian landscape, exemplified by the paintings of Claude (1604–1682), the shepherd represents the innocence of our early human condition, living a life of contented – if limited – rustic simplicity, tending his sheep in an essentially benign nature. This image was transformed, but not forgotten, in the nineteenth century by painters like Jean-François Millet (1814–1875). He depicted workers on the land in a way that gave the repetitive and physically exhausting tasks they perform the significance of a religious ritual. The shepherd was transformed from exemplar of innocence to that of tenacity and stoicism in nature conceived as a place of moral challenge. Millet's paintings of the French peasantry are symbolically potent statements about the cycles of nature, life, death and regeneration. He depicts the Christian shepherd, the shepherd of wild places, tending flocks in the harsher realities beyond the Alps. It is not a huge imaginative journey from Millet's France to twentieth-century Scotland, whose terrain is also often cold and inhospitable.
Victoria Crowe, Large Tree Group, 1975, © Victoria Crowe Oil on board, 91.4 x 101.6 cm. Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Edinburgh. Presented by Mr and Mrs John Butters through the Patrons of the National Galleries of Scotland 2015.
The landscape of broken moorland and hills surrounding her home was to have a major impact on Victoria Crowe. She talks of 'the enormity of the sky, the ever-present wind, long winters, and hills bitten into with snow and ice, and the long light of summer days and nights'. How, as an artist, was she to put that to use? Characteristically, she stood back from it for a while, watching and absorbing it. Eventually a time came during her children's early years (her son Ben was born in 1973 and her daughter Gemma in 1976) when, conscious of a dearth within herself of inventive energy, she turned to the strange new landscape and began to record it.
Her approach to the landscape was more than a mere prosaic investigative exercise. Filled with that spirit of place which means so much to her, the pictures resulting from her quest in themselves make up an important section of her oeuvre. They mark also a noteworthy stage in her development as an artist. Increasingly, she became fascinated by the extent to which the look of a landscape arises from what goes on in it and her pictures began to include signs of the animal and human life which contribute so much to its form and texture. First, footprints in the snow crop up in one painting; in another, a distant figure appears in the shape of a tiny silhouette – at first glance seeming hardly more than a scale indicator but soon recognisable, to those who have ever seen her, as the unmistakable form of Jenny Armstrong traversing the inhospitable terrain with a loping stride. This distant shape, at once impersonal cypher and specific personage, sparks a tension that shimmers across the picture's vast landscape, creating an atmosphere of grandeur ringed with menace.
A Shepherd's Life: Paintings of Jenny Armstrong by Victoria Crowe, by Julie Lawson & Mary Taubman, is published by the National Galleries of Scotland priced £9.95. It is available to purchase from their shop.