EU law generally prohibits the transfer of personal data from the European Economic Area to the U.S., unless the transfer is made in accordance with an authorized data transfer mechanism or otherwise falls within an exception. The Safe Harbor framework was one of these authorized data transfer mechanisms, but it was declared invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union last October. Following months of negotiation between the U.S. and the EU, as of August 1, 2016, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield was launched, and companies can now self-certify with the Department of Commerce and join the program.
We therefore take a look at the current "state of play" with regard to the Privacy Shield and some of the decisions facing those considering whether to self-certify.
Given that companies were managing to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S. prior to August 1, 2016, why, then, should companies rush into Privacy Shield certification?
Nine-Month Grace Period: To incentivize use of the new Privacy Shield, if a company filed its self-certification by September 30, 2016, it was granted a nine-month grace period (from the date of certification) to conform its contracts with third-parties to the new onward transfer requirements under the Privacy Shield. This onward transfer requirement essentially means that certifying companies have to ensure that any subprocessors of the personal data (entities to which the personal data is transferred) have Privacy Shield-type safeguards in place. This grace period was seen as a big incentive to certify early.
Risk of Invalidation of Model Clauses: On May 25, 2016, the Irish DPA referred a matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, effectively challenging the legal validity of the Model Clauses (the other key authorized data transfer mechanism) on similar grounds as those on which the Safe Harbor was challenged. This left the market wondering whether they could continue to rely on Model Clauses, potentially making the Privacy Shield a more attractive alternative.
Some Added Certainty from the Regulators: Following the uncertainty created by the Irish DPA referral (above), on July 26, 2016, Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, the Chairwoman of the Article 29 Working Party of data protection regulators, announced that EU data protection regulators would not challenge the adequacy of the Privacy Shield until late 2017, providing some level of certainty to the Privacy Shield route – at least in the short term.
A Step Closer to GDPR Compliance: A thorough Privacy Shield gap analysis and compliance program has the benefit of moving a company a step toward the compliance requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will become effective in mid-2018. The GDPR extends the territorial reach of EU Privacy Law to U.S. companies providing services to the European market or profiling EU citizens, so Privacy Shield compliance may be seen by some as Phase 1 of a multiphased approach to GDPR compliance.
Early Adopters = Increased Scrutiny: The benefits of the nine-month grace period have to be weighed against the risks of the increased scrutiny that early adopters will face. There will be pressure on regulators and governments to ensure that the Privacy Shield is seen as a robust mechanism, protecting the fundamental freedoms of EU citizens. This will bring with it heightened sensitivities around compliance and transparency, meaning that those certifying early will likely be closely scrutinized. Now that the ability to take advantage of the grace period is over, it will be interesting to see how demand for certification is impacted.
"Better the Devil You Know:" Since the Safe Harbor invalidation, many companies have been scrambling to implement a Model Clause program, which would have required a level of analysis, assessment and implementation. Implementing a Privacy Shield compliance program will now require changes. Given that many companies have become comfortable with the risk profile and obligations of Model Clauses, they may opt to retain the Model Clause approach, and adopt a wait and see position concerning whether the regulators, the courts or their customers force their hand to certify under the Privacy Shield. A sensible approach would seem to be to have one eye on each regime.
Cost of Compliance Program: A criticism of the Safe Harbor was that self-certification was often not taken seriously enough by those certifying and those supervising. Under the new framework, the consequences of noncompliance are real, and warrant appropriate attention and resources. Some will simply wish to postpone this until the next quarter, calendar year or revenue cycle, or maybe even until early examples of strong enforcement justify the legal spend.
It therefore appears that a state of flux will continue, at least in the short term.
In the past two months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth and Eighth Circuits have issued significant decisions on the issue of standing in privacy cases. Taken together, these decisions are seemingly inconsistent, offering conflicting standards for what constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to confer standing at the pleading stage in privacy cases.
The district court dismissed Carlsen's complaint for lack of standing, holding that Carlsen had failed to allege that he suffered a cognizable injury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, not for lack of standing, but for failing to state a claim. In addressing the issue of standing, the court found that Carlsen's allegation that he suffered damages "in the form of devaluation of his Game Informer subscription in an amount equal to the difference between the value of the subscription that he paid for and the value of the subscription that he received, i.e., a subscription with compromised privacy protection," constituted an "actual" injury. Carlsen, at *7. In addition, the court found that "Carlsen's allegation that he did not receive data protection set forth in GameStop's policies" was sufficient to establish standing for his unjust enrichment claim. Id.
Braitberg v. Charter Communications, Inc.
A few weeks later, the Eighth Circuit issued a seemingly contradictory decision in Braitberg v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 14-1737 (Eighth Cir. Sept. 8, 2016), which limited standing to bring claims for the retention of personal information. In Braitberg, Alex Braitberg brought a class action lawsuit alleging that Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter) had violated the Cable Communications Protection Act (CCPA) by retaining the personally identifiable information of its customers after they had cancelled their subscriptions and after retention of that information was no longer necessary for Charter to provide services, collect payments, or satisfy any tax, accounting or legal obligations. In his complaint, Braitberg alleged that he and the other proposed class members had suffered two injuries. First, he alleged Charter's retention of subscribers' personal information directly invaded their federally protected privacy rights under the CCPA. Second, he alleged the class had not received the full value of the services that they had purchased from Charter. Specifically, Braitberg alleged that the class placed a monetary value on controlling and protecting their personal information and that when they subscribed to cable service, they paid for Charter to destroy their information when Charter no longer needed it. Charter's failure to do so deprived them of the service for which they had allegedly paid.
The district court dismissed the complaint upon Charter's motion challenging the plaintiff's Article III standing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that Braitberg's complaint had fallen short of the Spokeo v. Robbins standard by failing to allege a concrete injury arising from Charter Communications' alleged retention of the personal information. See Braitberg, No. 14-1737, at 8. Instead, Braitberg had only alleged "a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm." See id. (citation omitted). The court noted that Braitberg had failed to allege that the personal information that Charter had retained, allegedly in violation of the CCPA, had been disclosed to or accessed by a third party or that Charter had even used the information itself during the disputed period. See id. The Eighth Circuit observed that while there was an established common law tradition recognizing injury based on the invasion of privacy rights, there was no such tradition for the retention of personal information that was lawfully obtained. See id. The court similarly rejected Braitberg's economic injury argument, holding that "Braitberg has not adequately alleged that there was any effect on the value of the service that he [and the other class members] purchased from Charter." Id., at 9.
Galaria, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
Only four days after Braitberg, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Galaria, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 15-3386/3387 (Sixth Cir., Sept. 12, 2016), which expanded standing in data breach cases. In Galaria, Mohammad Galaria and Alex Hancock filed class action complaints against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (Nationwide) for negligence and other state claims after hackers broke into Nationwide's network and stole the personal information of 11 million Nationwide customers. The complaints alleged that the Nationwide data breach created an "imminent, immediate and continuing increased risk" that the plaintiffs and the other class members would be the victims of identity theft and that they had suffered and would continue to suffer both "financial and temporal" costs, such as having to purchase credit reporting and monitoring services, instituting and/or removing credit freezes, and closing or modifying financial accounts.
The district court dismissed the complaints, concluding that the plaintiffs had not alleged an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal, concluding that the plaintiffs' allegations that the theft of their personal information subjected them to a heightened risk of identity theft and caused them to incur mitigation costs, such as credit monitoring, was sufficient to establish standing at the pleading stage. Citing Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147, 1150 n.5 (2013), the Sixth Circuit explained that "threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact," and "standing [may be] based on a 'substantial risk' that the harm will occur, which may prompt plaintiffs to reasonably incur costs to mitigate or avoid the harm, even where it is not 'literally certain the harms they identify will come about.'"Galaria, Nos. 15-3386/3387, at 6. Turning to the allegations of the complaints, the court found that "[w]here a data breach targets personal information, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the hacker will use the victims' data for…fraudulent purposes[,]" and "although it might not be 'literally certain' that Plaintiffs' data will be misused…, there is a sufficiently substantial risk of harm that incurring mitigation costs is reasonable." Id. at 6-7.
At first glance, these three cases appear incompatible. However, upon closer inspection, they adhere to the proposition that injuries traditionally recognized by the common law are sufficient to confer Article III standing at the pleading stage, while novel theories of injury are less likely to be recognized. Carlsen was premised on a breach of contract claim in which the plaintiff alleged he did not receive the benefit of the bargain for which he had paid. The common law has long recognized that contract damages are concrete injuries for the purposes of establishing standing. Galaria involved circumstances involving criminal activity that led the court to conclude that the plaintiffs faced an imminent threat of identity theft and fraud, which would constitute concrete harm to those plaintiffs. In contrast, the common law does not recognize the existence of an injury based upon the retention of personal information that has been legally obtained, as in Braitberg.
On December 18, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA), which establishes a voluntary system for sharing cyber threat indicators1 and defensive measures2 for a cybersecurity purpose3 between federal entities4 and nonfederal entities.5 Examples of cyber threat indicators include web server logs showing that a particular IP address is testing a company's vulnerabilities on its website; techniques that permit unauthorized access to a control system; malware found on the company's network; domain names or IP addresses associated with botnet command and control servers; discovered vulnerabilities; and IP addresses sending malicious traffic in connection with a distributed denial of service attack. Examples of defensive measures include information about security devices that protects a company's network, such as the configuration of a firewall mechanism, and techniques to protect against phishing campaigns.
CISA provides a safe harbor from civil, regulatory and antitrust liability for nonfederal entities that share this information in accordance with its provisions. However, CISA's safe harbor protection does not shield nonfederal entities from potential liability for data breaches or other cybersecurity incidents. It only shields nonfederal entities from liability for their act of sharing or receiving such information.
CISA limits the government's use of the information shared under its provisions and the type of data to which the government has access. The government may only use the information provided under CISA for either a cybersecurity purpose; to identify cybersecurity threats or security vulnerabilities; to respond to, prevent or mitigate a specific threat of death or serious bodily and economic harm; or to investigate or prosecute specific criminal offenses. It may not use the information to bring an enforcement action.
In addition, CISA requires nonfederal entities that share cyber threat indicators and defensive measures to remove all information that the sharing entity "knows at the time of sharing" to be the personal information of a specific individual or information that identifies a specific individual unrelated to the cybersecurity threat.8 The guidance provides a spear-phishing email as an illustration of what should be done. The personal information of the sender of the spear-fishing email, such as the name, email address and content of the email, should be shared, but the personal information of the intended victims should not.
CISA centralizes cybersecurity information sharing between federal entities and nonfederal entities in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). On February 16, 2016, the DHS published interim guidance and policies for implementing CISA. On June 15, 2016, the DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ) released the final guidance on implementing CISA.
The final guidance for CISA contemplates the utilization of the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) initiative as the primary means of sharing information. The AIS initiative is an automated system that receives, processes and disseminates cyber threat indicators and defensive measures in real time with all AIS participants. The system works by having AIS participants connect to a DHS-managed system in NCCIC. A server housed at each AIS participant's location enables participants to exchange information with the NCCIC. Once the NCCIC has reviewed a submission to determine that there is no personally identifiable information (pii), the indicators and defensive measures will be shared with all AIS participants.
identifying information about children under the age of 13 subject to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
Nonfederal entities may continue to provide cyber threat indicators and defensive measures to federal entities through Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) and Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs), which are private entities that share cybersecurity information with federal entities through DHS. Private entities that share this information with ISACs and ISOCs in accordance with CISA still receive all the protections and exemptions under CISA. Similarly, ISACs and ISAOs that share information with other private entities in accordance with CISA also receive the same level of protection under CISA.
The implementation of CISA is still a work in progress. It remains to be seen how this information sharing will look and how effective it will be. If they are considering participating, companies should take appropriate steps to ensure the sharing is done in a manner that is consistent with CISA's provisions and maximizes CISA's protections.
(viii) any combination of (i)-(vii).
An action, device, procedure, signature, technique or other measure applied to an information system or information that is stored on, processed by or transiting an information system that detects, prevents or mitigates a known or suspected cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability; but does not include a measure that destroys, renders unusable, provides unauthorized access to or substantially harms an information system or information stored on, processed by or transiting such information system not owned by (i) the private entity operating the measure, or (ii) another entity that is unauthorized to provide consent and has provided consent to that private entity for operation of such measure.
3 CISA defines a "cybersecurity purpose" as "the purpose of protecting an information system or information that is stored on, processed by or transmitting an information system from a cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability." Section 102(4) of CISA.
4 CISA defines a "federal entity" as "a department or agency of the United Sates or any component of such department or agency." Section 102(9).
5 CISA defines a "nonfederal entity" as "any private entity, nonfederal government agency or department, or state, tribal or local government (including a political subdivision, department or component thereof)." Section 102(14) of CISA.
6 CISA defines "private entities" as including "any person or private group, organization, proprietorship, partnership, trust, cooperative, corporation or other commercial or nonprofit entity, including an officer, employee or agent thereof," and "State, tribal or local government performing utility services, such as electric, natural gas or water services." Section 102(15)(A)-(B) of CISA.
7 All of CISA's protections, including liability protection, are available to private entities. However, other state, tribal or local government entities that are not included in CISA's definition of "private entities" are not eligible for liability or antitrust protection, which is reserved for "private entities." These other entities are still eligible for CISA's other protections and exemptions.
8 In addition, CISA enables private entities to monitor and adopt defensive measures for their own information systems for cybersecurity purposes. CISA explicitly shields private entities from any liability for monitoring activities conducted in a manner consistent with its requirements.
The first rule permits employers to obtain health information regarding an employee's spouse in connection with the offering of financial and other incentives as long as the information is not used to discriminate against an employee.
The second rule permits employers to offer limited financial and other incentives for wellness programs that are part of a group health plan and that ask questions about employees' health or include medical examinations (such as tests to detect high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes).
Under each of the rules, the employer wellness programs must be reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease, and the employer and its wellness program provider must also make efforts to ensure that the medical information they collect is kept confidential. Employers should note that participation in the wellness program must be completely voluntary. In other words, employers cannot deny or limit employees' health coverage for nonparticipation, may not retaliate against or interfere with any employee who does not to participate and may not coerce, threaten, intimidate or harass anyone into participating.
An employer should further note that, while it may use aggregate information collected by the wellness program provider to design a program based on identified health risks in the workplace, the wellness program provider may never disclose an employee's personally identifiable health information to the employer, except as necessary to respond to a request from the employee for a reasonable accommodation needed to participate in the wellness program or as expressly permitted by law. Similarly, an employee's personally identifiable medical information cannot be provided to the employee's supervisors or managers and may never be used to make decisions regarding the employee's employment.
To provide additional guidance for employers, on June 16, 2016, the EEOC posted a sample notice to assist employers who have wellness programs in complying with their new obligations. Further discussion from the EEOC is also available online.
The EEOC's recent rules demonstrate the Commission's acknowledgement of the potential benefits of employer-sponsored wellness programs as well as the Commission's willingness to work with employers who want to collect health data that may enable them to promote employee health and well-being and create better workplaces. Assuming that the employer and its wellness program provider comply with the obligations set forth by the EEOC and its regulations, employers now have approved means for gathering confidential health information on employees and their spouses to promote health and prevent disease.
We often hear the following phrase from clients: "We are not collecting PII, we only collect IP addresses." Companies may be surprised to hear that the law does not always support that view, and businesses must be cautious in their assessment in this area, as multiple laws govern the use of personally identifiable information (PII), which are not always consistent with regard to the classification of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit takes a more expansive view of PII under the VPPA. In Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc., the court held that unique identifiers, such as cellphone identification number and GPS coordinates, that could theoretically identify a user are considered PII under the VPPA.5 Yet it is unclear whether the First Circuit would find IP addresses alone to be PII, as Yershov also involved geo-location data, which makes it easier to identify an actual individual.
The majority of federal courts that have addressed the issue of whether IP addresses are PII, however, side with the Third Circuit, finding that static identifiers do not "identify" anyone because they are strings of anonymous numbers, and the possibility of matching these identifiers with other data is too hypothetical.6 Application is therefore far from uniform.
Federal statutes also vary on their approach to IP addresses. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which regulates use of online information about children under the age of 13, classifies IP addresses as "personal information," although it does not use the term "PII."7 The Federal Trade Commission, which is responsible for defining personal information under COPPA, has expressly included persistent identifiers, such as IP addresses, in its definition of personal information under the statute.8 The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which regulates health information sharing, treats IP addresses slightly differently.9 HIPPA does not expressly define IP addresses as personal information, but instead states that only after IP addresses are stripped from health information can a "covered entity [under HIPPA]…determine that health information is not individually identifiable."10 Other statutes are even less clear. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), covering information held by financial institutions, defines PII as "nonpublic personal information."11 It is therefore uncertain whether nonpublic IP addresses may fall under this definition if they are tied to the information consumers provide to their financial institutions.
Businesses should also note that EU laws generally consider IP addresses to be PII, or "personal data," as defined under EU applicable law. There have been opinions from the Advocate General and the Article 29 Working Party (group of privacy regulators) seemingly supporting this position, and on October 19, 2016 the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that dynamic IP addresses can constitute "personal data," just like static IP addresses, affording them some protection under EU law against being collected and stored by websites. In addition, under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is set to replace the current law in May 2018, the definition of personal data includes "online identifiers," which, according to Recital 30, includes IP addresses. It appears, therefore, that the EU is moving toward a more uniform approach in this area.
In the United States, guidance concerning whether IP addresses are PII is piecemeal. Decisions such as In re Nickelodeon only determine whether IP addresses are protected as PII for specific statutes in specific federal circuits. Accordingly, businesses should be cautious in making sweeping conclusions about their collection and use of IP addresses, as it varies by business type, data type and legal jurisdiction.
1See 827 F.3d 262 (Third Cir., 2016).
2 Id., 827 F.3d at 278.
3 Id., 827 F.3d at 290.
4 See id., 827 F.3d at 283.
5 See 820 F.3d 482, 486 (First Cir., 2016).
6 See, e.g., In re Hulu Privacy Litigation, No. C 11-03764 LB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59479 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014); Robinson v. Disney Online, No. 14-cv-4146 (RA), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142486 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015); Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., No. C14-463 TSZ, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157106 (W.D. Wash. May 7, 2015); Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc., No. 14-cv-484 (TWT), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143078 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 8, 2014), aff'd on other grounds, 803 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2015); Locklear v. Dow Jones & Co., 101 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (N.D. Ga. 2015).


Set in the Private Estate Grand Vin, this luxurious Cowaramup wedding has it all. From a beautiful ceremony with views of the vineyard and lake, to an awesome marquee reception by the lake.
When we were contacted by wedding planner Kirstin Zan from Events by Kirstin to be on board for his day, we knew it was going to be great! Cowaramup locals were well represented with Makeup by Beautique Love, Styling by Empire Events, Blooms by Flowers for Mrs Harris.
Amy prepared for the day in Gracetown in a house with views of the bay. Jarrad styled himself at the Grand Vin main house.
The guest arrived at Grand Vin and were treated to a sweet acoustic set from local band Salt Tree. There were so many options for a ceremony location on this private estate and the couple nailed it. Exchanging their vows under the shade of the shade of the gum trees that overlooked the lake and the vineyard. It was a perfect backdrop.
Amy and Jarrad shared a love for Gracetown. On their wedding day, the wild wind did not stop them from walking the goat trails, and climbing rocks. We love a bride who isn't afraid of getting her hair messy. My fingers started to freeze so we decided to move to our next location.
On our way back to Grand Vin we passed one of our favourite paddocks. Shannon and I had always chatted about how awesome a bride and groom would look in the paddock and Amy and Jarrad were keen. Empty paddock, long grass, setting sun, kangaroos on the hill. The happy couple walked through the paddock, we took photos and it was bliss. Just as we had imagined.
Amy had one last surprise up her sleeve for us. She told us they had some dance moves and we were ready. What I didn't expect was to see Amy, gracefully flying through the air with Jarrad! For me, this has to be the best dance shot I have captured. It was the perfect finish to an amazing day.


Is it like Eastern Martial Arts?
It is similar to the Eastern counterparts in the sense that it is a Martial Art, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. The term 'Martial Art' means the study of warfare and combat. European Martial arts is exactly that, the study of the styles developed and practiced in Medieval Europe.
Besides the fitness and strength aspect of swinging a sword around, weighing in excess of 2kg, for an hour or so at a time, you will learn control and stability. Not to mention muscle tone and suppleness.
How well organised is it as a sport in general?
Over the last couple of decades, there has been a marked move from it being a purely theatrical institution to now where it is practiced world wide as a form of Martial Arts and practiced as a contest sport on a national and international level. Here in South-Africa we have formed a national body of affiliate clubs called EMASA and our inaugural Nationals were held in and hosted by Durban Sword & Shield Club in 2006.
Is there a grading or ranking system within the Guild?
We have defined a ranking system within SAGMCS. As a novice, you will be assigned to the rank of squire, no rank insignia on display on the belt. From there, after successfully grading in a series of practical and theoretical tests, you will be assigned the rank of Man/or Lady-at-Arms (Red tassel). And so on to Sergeant-at-Arms (Red & Green tassel), Master-at-Arms (Red, green & blue tassel) and finally to the rank of Knight(Gold tassel). In conjunction with this, excellence will be recognised in specific weapons handling and skill, by the wearing of medallions, inscribed with the emblem of that particular weapon.


When upright the seven of wands tarot card indicate self-defense. In this situation it is important to know where you are and to stand up for your rights.
The seven of wands tarot card upright motivates you to explain himself in a neutral way. Don't get fired up but just tell your point because you are in your right to do so.
The number 7 is mainly about strategy in tarot, This strategy can differ from waiting to sneaking away to creating arguments for yourself or even to live in an illusion for a while.
With the 7 of wands there comes a lot of questioning one self.
If you are asking yourself if you are in the right career or job at the moment and the 7 of wands tarot card shows up, there are enough reasons for yourself to be in this job. You might still be passionate about the job you do because of these reasons.
After doing a task you sometimes need to argue to your manager why you did what you did and why. The 7 of wands card indicates the reasons you are sharing with this person.
Standing up for yourself in the workplace is presented by the 7 of wands. You will be clear in presenting your arguments when this card is showing up.
When you ask the cards: "Is this relationship still right for me?" and the 7 of wands upright shows up you have good reasons for yourself why you are in this relationship. It isn't over and done with this relationship because you still get a lot out of it.
As a relationship card it could indicate that the partners are thinking over if this is the right path together and the answer is " yes', there is still alot to fight for.
When the 7 of wands appear in a tarot reading for feelings there is a need for defend. There is somekind of process going on (take a look at the surrounding cards to find out) where there is a need for defence.
When reversed this card indicates it is necessary to be sure that other people are treating you with respect. Don't let yourself be treated badly and stand up for yourself.
It is important to believe in yourself, to stay loyal to yourself and to defend your point of view. Be decisive and stable.
For feelings the 7 of wands reversed could indicate not feeling able to stand up for yourself. You feel treated badly or you just don't feel you can defend your situation or defend yourself under your circumstances.


Original Flos Arco Lamp available at Gabriel Ross for $3,977.
A close replica called ZETA lamp for sale at Structube for $349. Similar design called CAST floor lamp through EQ3 for only $200, although the lamp base is not as solid and elegant as Arco or ZETA.
2. Barcelona Chair - Original: $6,470 at GabrielRoss with Stainless Steel Frame.
Costco's Lux Accent Chair offers excellent quality with genuine leather and steel frame for 1/10 of the price at $700.
3. Knoll Saarinen Large Round Dining Table - Original Design with Marble Table Top at $2,000.
Ikea's DOCKSTA Dining table with laminate table top has similar look and is for sale at a fraction of the original price.
Structube aluminum bowls from $39, made in India.


Abstract Securities is to begin its £60 million speculative office development at St Vincent Street in Glasgow.
The 170,000 sq ft office development, led by Abstract (Glasgow) Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mark Glatman's Abstract Securities Ltd, is starting more than a year late.
The company reported in February 2012 work on the 'St Vincent Plaza' development, close to Glasgow's International Financial Services District, would begin "in a few weeks" and was expected to be complete by the end of 2013.
Abstract is now able to start work on the development, which will be next to ScottishPower's new 220,000 sq. ft headquarters after reaching an agreement with neighbouring landowner Santander.
Christopher McPherson, development director of Abstract, added: "St Vincent Plaza will be the most competitive speculative grade A office development of its kind to be completed in Glasgow for several years and is likely to be one of only a few speculative office schemes of its size outside London.
"Starting construction underlines our commitment and confidence in the International Financial Services District and the city as a whole and we are confident that the scheme will let at an early stage.
"By coming to the market with a top-quality product at a time when there is a dearth of 'Grade A' office space and quoting rentals from just £23 a sq. ft, we are significantly undercutting the established Glasgow market without compromising on quality and offering exceptional value for money, as well as significantly reduced operational costs compared to existing city centre stock.
"St Vincent Plaza aims to attract big name corporates, thus creating more local employment and growth for Glasgow.


text:
New Covers
Mac DeMarco shares "The Christmas Song" cover benefitting California wildfire relief: Stream
It follows his 2017 cover of Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmas Time".
by Randall Colburn
Smashing Pumpkins debut cover of The Cure's "Friday I'm In Love": Watch
With James Iha on lead vocals.
on November 30, 2018, 9:30am
Weezer covers Blink-182's "All the Small Things" at Riot Fest
Weezer stepped in for Blink after the punks had to back out of their announced headlining set.
Father John Misty covers Link Wray's "Fallin' Rain" in new teaser for Hulu's Castle Rock: Watch
Well, here's a pairing we didn't know we needed.
"Weird Al" Yankovic covers Foo Fighters' "This Is a Call" live: Watch
A faithful rendition of the Foos' 1995 single.
Lucius share harmonious acoustic cover of Tame Impala's "Eventually": Watch
From their upcoming acoustic album, Nudes, due out on March 2nd.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
"Report for the period from July 22 to September 30, 1942"
Courtesy of the Jewish Historical Institute, Warsaw
View this Report
tags: belongings bureaucracy deportations food & hunger ghettos
Between late July and late September 1942, German authorities deported more than 260,000 Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to Treblinka, a newly-built killing center some 60 miles from the city. The mass deportation was part of Operation Reinhard, the German plan to murder all Jews in the part of occupied Poland known as the Generalgouvernement. On the second day of the deportations, the chairman of the Judenrat (the Jewish Council appointed by the Nazis to administer life in the ghetto), Adam Czerniaków, committed suicide.
After the deportations, the Warsaw ghetto became a radically different place from what it had been in mid-July. In July 1942, the ghetto still resembled a city—albeit a walled-in city without the basic facilities of a major urban area, designed to segregate, humiliate, and persecute a population defined as racially "inferior." Even so, the ghetto featured apartment buildings, ghetto institutions, transportation, various kinds of social and political groups, as well as the appearance of a public sphere.1 In the postwar accounts of many survivors, the Warsaw ghetto of the pre-deportation period still provided a sense of normalcy, however strained and precarious. In the aftermath of the deportations, the ghetto shed any remaining similarities to a "normal" city, and turned into an ominous collection of restricted enclaves scattered around a depopulated ghost town.2
During the course of one week in early September 1942, the ghetto took on a shape that it preserved until its final destruction after the 1943 uprising.3 On Saturday, September 5, 1942, the Warsaw Judenrat circulated a German order that all ghetto inhabitants should report for registration the following day. From Sunday through Friday (September 6–11, 1942), about 32,000 work IDs were distributed to the Jews in the ghetto. The remaining ghetto inhabitants called them "cards to live" (Lebenskarte), as the recipients of these documents were allowed to stay in the ghetto as "employees" of German-owned businesses. The rest were deported to their deaths in Treblinka. During that week, which subsequently became known as "the cauldron on Miła street," after one of the main streets in the ghetto where the Jews were ordered to assemble, 54,269 people were deported, 2,648 were shot, 60 committed suicide, and another 339 died of "natural" causes. Aftwerward, only 35,000 residents remained in the ghetto "legally," and about 25,000 "illegally."4
Of approximately 380,000 Jews living in the ghetto in July 1942, only some 60,000—the combined number of "legal" and "illegal" residents, the latter called the "wild ones" by the survivors of this selection—remained within its walls at the end of September. The ghetto became a network of territorially disparate factories—the so-called "shops"—organized around street blocks in which the workers lived, and in between which any kind of existence was now illegal.5 The deportations thus transformed the ghetto from a walled-in collection of city neighborhoods for Jews into a de facto labor camp for a radically reduced number of Jewish laborers.
This official report of the Warsaw Judenrat, composed soon after the end of the deportations, sheds light on the events of the summer of 1942. As a document of the new Judenrat, one reconstituted after Czerniaków's suicide, it marks the change of Jewish leadership in the ghetto. Consisting mostly of a series of pasted German orders and Judenrat announcements, it provides a timeline of the deportations and major developments in the ghetto. The few narrative parts that are actually not quotations of official documents are still characterized by the bureaucratic language of the main Jewish administrative body in the ghetto.
Although the first five pages of the document—the important introduction framing the actual report—have not been preserved, the most telling part of the text may be the thread about the "laying off" or "reduction" (both euphemisms for murder) of 50 percent of the Judenrat staff. The consequences of this restructuring by murder are illustrated by the new organizational chart of the Warsaw Judenrat appended to the report.
Since the report was written in Polish, it was not intended for submission to the German authorities. What, then, was its purpose? Was it in part to legitimize the new Judenrat leadership and structure? Or, was it an attempt to explain how they had emerged—by exposing the German authorities' murder of the previous Judenrat's members and the remaining Jewish population in the ghetto?
For more on life in the Warsaw ghetto before the deportations, see the related sources in Experiencing History, Rabbi Shimon Huberband, "On Religious Life", "Food, Money, and Human Life," and Władysław Szlengel, "Bread."
For more on local reactions to the deportations—and knowledge of their destinations—see the related item in Experiencing History, "Warsaw's Jews are being murdered in Treblinki."
For a detailed history and chronology of life in the Warsaw ghetto, see Barbara Engelking and Jacek Leociak, The Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009). For a structure of the Warsaw Judenrat and its members in 1940 and later, see Engelking and Leociak, The Warsaw Ghetto, 147-89. See also Czerniaków's diary in Adam Czerniaków, The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow: Prelude to Doom, trans. Stanislaw Staron, ed. Raul Hilberg, Stanislaw Staron and Josef Kermisz (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1999).
Engelking and Leociak, The Warsaw Ghetto, 727-29. A number of "illegal" Jews also hid outside the ghetto, on the so-called "Aryan side." See Gunnar Paulsson, Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002).
On the geographical boundaries and the new layout of the ghetto, see Yisrael Gutman, The Jews of Warsaw, 1939-1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 268-70.
The "Plenipotentiary for Resettlement" was the Jewish official in charge of delivering and implementing the German orders regarding the deportations from the ghetto. This "office" was held by Józef Szeryński (1892-1943), the commander of the Jewish ghetto police. He commited suicide in early 1943.
The "Jewish Order Service" was the official name for the Jewish ghetto police.
This is an inelegant translation of the original German, Umschlagplatz. This was the area in the ghetto from which the Jews were loaded onto the trains and shipped off.
Sicherheitspolizei, German for "security police." This was a state security police, in effect controlled by the Nazi party and its security arm, the Sicherheitsdienst (SD, "security service").
These were the German companies taking advantage of Jewish slave labor in the ghetto.
This was a warehouse where the Germans collected the Jewish personal property left behind the deported. The property was sorted and the valuables shipped to Germany (or, often, stolen by the local Nazis).
This and other workshops listed below are private and state German enterprises.
Marek Lichtenbaum (1876-1943) was an engineer who succeeded Czerniaków as the chairman of the Judenrat after the latter's suicide. He was executed by the Germans during the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
for the period 22 July to 30 September 1942
A. Resettlement
On 22 July, the following guidelines were transmitted by the Plenipotentiary for Resettlement1 at the meeting of the Jewish Council:
"The following has been declared to the Jewish Council:
1. All Jews residing in Warsaw, regardless of age or gender, will be resettled in the East.
2. Excluded from resettlement are:
a. all Jews employed by the authorities or by German companies who can present corresponding evidence of this;
b. all Jews who are members or employees of the Jewish Council as per their status on the day of publication of this directive;
c. all Jews employed by companies belonging to the German Reich who can present corresponding evidence of this;
d. all Jews able to work who thus far have not been involved in the employment process; these should be placed in barracks in the Jewish sector;
e. all Jews belonging to the Jewish Order Service;2
f. all Jews belonging to the personnel of Jewish hospitals as well as those belonging to Jewish disinfection columns;
g. all Jews who are immediate family members of the persons designated in a to f. Family members are exclusively wives and children;
h. all Jews who on the first day of resettlement are in one of the Jewish hospitals and who do not qualify for release. The inability to be released must be certified by a physician, who will be designated by the Jewish Council.
3. Each resettled Jew is entitled to take with him from his property 15 kg as luggage. Luggage weighing more than 15 kg will be confiscated. All valuables such as money, jewelry, gold, etc. may be taken away. Food for 3 days should be taken along.
4. The resettlement will start on 22.7.1942 [July 22, 1942] at 11 AM.
For the duration of the resettlement, the Jewish Council has been given the following guidelines, for whose strict observance the members of the Jewish Council vouch with their lives:
1. The Jewish Council receives instructions for resettlement exclusively from the Plenipotentiary for Resettlement or his deputy. During the period of resettlement, the Jewish Council may select a special commission for resettlement whose chairman is to be the chairman of the Jewish Council, and the chairman's deputy is to be the Chief of the Jewish Order Service.
2. The Jewish Council is to ensure that Jews designated for loading report each day.
For the purpose of carrying out this task, the Jewish Council employs the Jewish Order Service (1,000 persons). Starting on 22.7.1942, the Jewish Council ensures that 6,000 Jews are delivered to the assembly point every day by 4 p.m. at the latest. The assembly point for the entire duration of the evacuation is the Jewish hospital on Stawki St. On 22.7.1942, 6,000 Jews are to be delivered directly to Transshipment Square3 at the transfer station. For the time being, the Jewish Council can draw upon contingents of Jews who are to be delivered daily from among the general population, then the Jewish Council will receive a definitive recommendation in accord with which sections of streets or blocks of houses will be designated for evacuation.
3. On 23.7.1942 [July 23, 1942] the Jewish Council is to evacuate the Jewish Hospital on Stawki St. and transfer the residents and inventory to another suitable building inside the ghetto, so that by the evening of 23.7.1942 the hospital is prepared to receive the Jews delivered daily for the purpose of resettlement.
4. The Jewish Council must then ensure that the objects and goods left behind by the resettled Jews, provided that they are not contaminated, are collected and registered at assembly points that are still to be designated. For this purpose, the Jewish Council is to make use of the Jewish Order Service and a suitable quantity of the Jewish labor force. This activity shall be supervised by the Sicherheitspolizei,4 which shall provide the Jewish Council with special instructions in this regard. Illegal appropriation of these objects and goods shall be punished by death.
5. Furthermore, the Jewish Council ensures that Jews employed by German companies or German authorities continue to perform their work during the resettlement. In order to implement this order, the Jewish Council shall issue a corresponding announcement to the Jewish population, under the threat of the severest penalties. The Jewish Council shall also see to it that there is continuous operation of Jewish supply enterprises in such numbers as will ensure the sustenance of the Jews at the assembly point and of the remaining Jews.
6. The Jewish Council is also responsible for burying Jews who pass away during the period of resettlement on the day of their death.
7. The Jewish Council shall post the following announcement for the Jewish population of Warsaw:
"On the order of the German authorities, all Jews will be resettled in the East .... (etc. from Item 1-4)"
8. Penalties:
a. Any Jew who is not among the persons designated in item 2, parts a and c, who up to the present has not been so authorized and who, starting from the moment resettlement begins, leaves the Jewish sector will be shot;
b. any Jew who undertakes an activity that may circumvent or hinder execution of the resettlement orders will be shot;
c. any Jew who aids an activity that may circumvent or hinder execution of the resettlement orders will be shot;
d. all Jews encountered in Warsaw following completion of the resettlement who are not among the persons designated in item 2, parts a to h, will be shot.
The Jewish Council is notified herewith that in the event of less than 100% execution of the orders and guidelines imparted to it, an appropriate number of hostages detained in the interim will be shot in each case.
Warsaw, 22 July 1942 Dictated by the Plenipotentiary for Resettlement"
At the same meeting, the directive was supplemented with a remark that was set out in the announcement, which was posted in accord with the above guidelines. The remark reads as follows:
"At the meeting on 22.7.1942 in the main building of the Jewish Council in Warsaw, the Plenipotentiary for Resettlement issued an order to the effect that all institutions in the Jewish sector such as the Supply Company, Jewish Social Self-Help, Association for Deliveries, Cooperative Bank, Chamber of Health, Craftsmen's Union, Garbage Removal Company St. Heyman and Partners, etc. are subordinated to the chairman of the Jewish Council in Warsaw. Employees of these institutions are treated as employees of the Jewish Council in Warsaw. This also applies to persons employed by the Receivership of Secured Real Estate in Warsaw on the territory of the Jewish Sector in Warsaw."
In addition, the following announcement was posted:
"By order of the Plenipotentiary for Resettlement, this will serve notice that all Jews working in German companies or on behalf of German business interests for German businesses must carry out their work during the resettlement single-mindedly. Whoever does not comply with this directive can expect to receive the severest punishment.
The Jewish Council in Warsaw"
On the same day, the resettlement began and it lasted until mid-September of this year.
On 29.VII. [July 29] the following appeal to the population, signed by the director of the Order Service, was posted:
"I hereby inform residents subject to resettlement that, as ordered by the authorities, each person who on the 29th, 30th and 31st of July of this year reports voluntarily for the purpose of resettlement will be supplied with provisions comprising 3 kg of bread and 1 kg of marmalade.
The assembly point and the location where the provisions will be issued is Stawki Square, corner of Dzika St."
Among other major directives from the authorities on this subject are the following:
1. Allotment of an additional quota of 180,000 kg of bread and 36,000 kg of marmalade.
2. Allotment of normal quotas for the months of August and September.
3. Allotment of a quota of 200,000 kg of vegetables per week.
4. Discontinuation of mail traffic—all correspondence (packages, money, letters, etc.) was to be placed at the disposal of the authorities. This directive was subsequently rescinded.
On 1 August, further appeals to the population appeared in the Jewish Sector (for the third time):
"In accordance with the authorities' directive of 22 July 1942, all persons not employed in institutions and enterprises will be subject to resettlement.
Mandatory resettlement shall be continued without interruption. I again call upon the population that is subject to resettlement to report voluntarily to Transshipment Square, whereby I extend for another 3 days, i.e., to 2, 3 and 4 August 1942 the issuing of 3 kg of bread and 1 kg of marmalade to each person who reports voluntarily. Families who report voluntarily shall not be separated. Assembly point for volunteers: 3 Dzika St.- 27 Stawki.
The Director of the Order Service"
The directive of 9 September concerning the reduction and resettlement of some of the personnel of the Jewish Council has been provided below (p.11). By order of the authorities, the following announcement concerning changes in the boundaries of the Jewish Sector was posted by the Jewish Council:
"On order of the authorities, the Jewish Council announces that all Jews residing in the southern part of the Jewish Sector (i.e., south of Chłodna St.) are to leave the apartments they are occupying by 6 PM Monday, 10 August 1942. This directive does not apply to employees of the companies W.C. Többens and Wilhelm Döring.5
Whoever does not comply with this directive will be shot."
The next directive concerning the exclusion of further parts of the sector appeared on 13 August:
"On order of the authorities, the Jewish Council announces that all Jews residing in the housing blocks specified below are to leave the apartments they have heretofore occupied by 15 August of this year at 6 PM. Jews not subject to resettlement are to move to the remaining parts of the Jewish Sector located north of Leszno St.
List of the blocks from which the Jews are to move:
Elektoralna St. 4 to 34, Chłodna St. 2 to 26, Orla St. 1 to 14, Solna St. 1 to 21, Ogrodowa St. 1 to 35, 2 to 10, 16 to 34, Leszno 1 to 3, 7 to 51, 57 to 77, Żelazna 72 to 86, Biała."
On 15 August, a third announcement was issued pertaining to exclusions within the confines of the northern part of the sector:
"On order of the Authorities, the Jewish Council announces that all Jews residing in the housing blocks specified below are to leave the apartments they have heretofore occupied by 6 PM Thursday, 20 August of this year.
Nowolipki 22-98, 2, 4, 6, 5-17, Nowolipie 4-22, 64-80, 1-17, Dzielna 15-75, 2-60, Smocza 12-32, 1, 3, 5, 15-39, Pawia 1-51, 36-100, Więzienna St. 2-4, Lubecki 1, 3, 5, Gęsia St. 39-105, 32-50, Gliniana St. 1-6, Okopowa 40-56, Zamenhof 2-28, 7, 9, Nalewki 3-29, 10-24, Wałowa St. 1-15, 8-10, Franciszkańska 21-39, Mylna 2-10, Leszno 2-14, 18, 28."
Finally, on 16 August the following announcement was posted by order of the authorities:
"On order of the authorities, the Jewish Council in Warsaw announces:
1. Only Jews employed in the enterprises located in the part of the Jewish sector in Warsaw located south of Leszno St., can reside there. Whoever unlawfully resides in an area of the sector located farther north will be shot.
2. All unemployed Jews are to report voluntarily to the Transshipment Square—under penalty of cancellation of their food rations and forced resettlement.
The above also applies to family members of employed persons."
The Jewish population employed in the enterprises, posts, and administration of the Jewish Sector was placed in housing blocks and buildings located in the immediate vicinity of the enterprises (with the exception of those employed at posts outside the Jewish sector). The action for quartering this population began at the beginning of August and lasted until the end of this month. The allotment of blocks or buildings to individual enterprises was carried out on the basis of rulings from the Resettlement Authorities, which ordered the residents living in them up to that point to evacuate the buildings. The blocks as well as the buildings in which the workshops were supposed to be located or in which the employees of the workshops were to live were fenced off with a wooden fence or barbed wire.
The Jewish Council, whose headquarters was at 26 Grzybowska St. up to that point, had to abandon it—in accordance with the order of 9 August—and relocate its headquarters to the building at 19 Zamenhof (which up to this point was the headquarters of the Office of Reception of Mail Parcels), to where the files and furnishings soon had to be moved. Along with the branches of the Jewish Council, the employees and workers of the J.C. were moved as well, being placed in the Pawia-Lubecki-Gęsia-Zamenhof residential block that was assigned to them. Some branches of the Jewish Council were also placed in that block.
Among the most important objectives of the Jewish Council in regard to the directive on resettlement was implementation of the directive on delivering 7,000 persons from among the employees of the Jewish Council as well as members of their families. A report on steps taken to that end with the following content was subsequently submitted to the authorities:
A specially convened commission carried out a reduction of the personnel of individual departments and institutions of the Jewish Council, whereby the reduction amounted to 50% of the total in the vast majority of departments and institutions.
In the afternoon of the day preceding the deadline designated by the authorities and on the morning of 10 August, the individual departments and institutions received lists of names of persons who remained in the Jewish Council. At the same time, the department heads were ordered to inform the employees who were affected by the reduction of their duty to report along with their family members for resettlement, whereby the following announcement was posted:
"On this day, by virtue of a directive from the authorities, a reduction in 50% of the total number of employees of the Jewish Council in Warsaw has been enacted.
Lists of employees affected by the reduction are posted in the offices of the individual departments and institutions of the Jewish Council in Warsaw and at headquarters.
Employees affected by reduction in accordance with the above directive are required to report with their families on Monday 10 August 1942 at 12 PM at the assembly point, 3 Dzika St., for the purpose of resettlement. Food aid will be given to all resettled persons. Those who do not comply with the above will be penalized in accordance with the directive of 22 July 1942.
The above also applies to institutions subordinate to the Jewish Council in Warsaw and designated in respect to the announcement from 1942."
In the morning hours of 10 August, functionaries of the Order Service received an order to carry out inspections in the offices of the Jewish Council and to block from work those persons who did not have certificates proving that they would remain employees of the Jewish Council.
The number of employees of the Jewish Council who were subject—in accordance with the completed reduction—to resettlement fluctuated around 2,500; this was going to be augmented by the family members of these employees.
Aside from the reduction completed within the Jewish Council, the subordinate institutions were also given corresponding instructions for the reduction and resettlement of the laid-off employees.
The Jewish Council is no doubt aware that a substantial number of the persons affected by the J.C. reduction were resettled or voluntarily reported for resettlement.
Precise data on this matter could not be obtained because of technical and communication difficulties.
It should be pointed out that the decrease in the number of employees of the Jewish Council continued through all of August, as illustrated by the following table:
Designation Before 10 August Aug. 10 Aug. 18 Aug. 27
directly subordinate
to the Jewish Council
(except those designated
below) 3,113 1,488 989 965
Department of Health 470 235 224
Hospital Service 1,530 1,019 903 1,069
Department of Labor 312 312 250 206
[Intermediate total] 5,425 3,054 2,366 2,240
Departments currently
subordinate to the Jewish
Council:
Supply Company 502 502 338 331
K.O.M. 2,980 700 180 180
Craftsmen's Union 123 36 6 6
Quarantine (organized
on order of the
authorities) - - - 40
Total 9,030 4,292 2,890 2,797
Changes in the numbers of employees took place simultaneously and as a result of internal organizational revamping of the Jewish Council.
The purpose of the revamping was to differentiate the branches of the Jewish Council into administrative units and enterprises. In this manner, the Jewish Council intended to adapt to the necessity of creating, on its own, workshops and posts that could primarily implement the directives of the authorities and also fulfill orders for its own needs.
Connected with this, exact numbers on the reduction and the new division of the Jewish Council's branches were presented to the authorities for confirmation.
Among the remaining tasks of the Jewish Council connected with the resettlement was also the storage of objects and goods left behind in apartments and shops abandoned by their previous owners. These objects—in accordance with the instructions of the authorities—were to be deposited with the Werterfassungstelle6 at 20 Niska St. The associated work involved a number of difficulties resulting from the fact that the employed workers were taken to the Umschlagplatz as the resettlement roundups were ongoing.
During the night of 5 to 6 August, the following announcement—on order of the authorities—was issued by the Jewish Council:
"On order of the Plenipotentiary for Resettlement, the Jewish Council announces the following:
1. By 10 AM Sunday 6 August 1942, all Jews within the boundaries of the large ghetto are without exception to assemble for registration purposes in the area bounded by the streets:
Smocza, Gęsia, Zamenhof, Szczęśliwa, Parysowski Square.
2. Transit of Jews during the night of 5 to 6 August 1942 is also permitted.
3. Food for two days and containers for drinking should be taken along.
4. Apartments should not be locked.
5. Whoever does not comply with this order and remains in the ghetto (outside the area designated above) will be shot."
The registration lasted two days, 6 and 7 August, during which part of the population was sent away to the workshops in which they were employed and to the blocks where they had heretofore resided. Upon completion of the action, the remaining part of the population was led to Transshipment Square for resettlement.
According to semiofficial statistics, the successive numbers of resettled persons were as follows (cf. table on the next page):
The gradual changes in the boundaries of the Jewish sector during the months of July and August were followed in September by further directives, on the basis of which the line of future boundary walls around the quarter would run along the following streets:
Smocza, Gęsia, Franciszkańska, Bonifraterska, Muranowska, Pokorna, Stawki, Dzika, Szczęśliwa, Parysowski Square.
Accordingly, the enterprises and institutions located outside the boundaries of the new Jewish sector—with only a few exceptions—along with their workers and employees were to move to the new territory of the sector. This included, among others, the evacuation of the office facilities and apartments occupied by certain divisions of the Jewish Council located outside the building at 19 Zamenhof and by workers and employees of the Jewish Council resident up to this point in the Pawia-Lubecki-Gęsia-Zamenhof block. Offices, workers and employees located within the boundaries of the new territory of the sector were moved.
The move was completed—in accordance with the order of the authorities below—on 27 September at 4 PM.
1. The move will be completed on 27 September at 4 PM. Whoever has not moved by that time will lose his possessions.
2. Starting on 27.9 [September 27], the Order Service is to receive at Nalewki St. and Leszno the workers' columns arriving from the Aryan section of the city and lead them in closed formations to their residential blocks.
3. Starting on 27.9, the Order Service is to send out patrols to the section of the large ghetto located south of Gęsia and Franciszkańska. The mission of these patrols is to preserve order and ensure that no unauthorized persons are present on the streets.
4. Starting on 28.9 [September 28], the Order Service will station sentries along the line of the future walls of the Jewish residential quarter, i.e., along Smocza, Gęsia and Franciszkańska Sts.
5. Starting on 27.9, the Order Service will station sentries at sewer outlets in the larger ghetto in order to prevent illegal trading.
6. The Order Service is to attend to regulation of street traffic within the confines of the new residential quarter.
7. The walls along the Jewish residential quarter are to be completed in the first phase of construction to a height of 1.50 m, and after this height is achieved they are to be raised to 3 m along their entire length. Implementation of the first six directives is the responsibility of the director of the Order Service.
Outside the boundaries of the Jewish sector, there remained a number of workshops that—in accordance with the authorities' orders—were to be walled in. Among others, the following workshops were to be walled in:
The workshops of the Heeresunterkunftverwaltung7—along the streets Wałowa, Franciszkańska, Bonifraterska, Stojerska;
The workshops of the companies Többens, Schultz, Röhrich, Hoffmann, Schilling—along the streets Leszno, Karmelicka, Nowolipki, Smocza, Nowolipie, Żelazna;
The workshops of the Hallmann company—across from Nowolipki St.;
The workshops of the Toebbens company—along the streets Ciepła, Twarda, Prosta, Ceglana
The Labor Office building—around the building at 84 Leszno.
ORGANIZATIONAL DIAGRAM OF THE JEWISH COUNCIL
adopted at the meeting of the executive committee of the Jewish Council on 15 August 1942
Section I, Executive Committee
Engr. Marek Lichtenbaum, Chairman8
Warsaw, 8 August 1942
The Supply Company of the Jewish Sector in Warsaw announces that starting today, the consumer's obligation to register cards at retail stores has been rescinded.
Each consumer can pick up the food rations to which he is entitled at any retail store by presenting his ration card.
Chairman of the Jewish Council in Warsaw
Engr. M. Lichtenbaum
On order of the authorities, the Jewish Council announces that starting on 10 [?] August 1942, all stores in the Jewish Sector are to be open daily from 8 AM to 7 PM.
Jewish Council in Warsaw
Warsaw, 25 August 1942
On order of the authorities, the Jewish Council announces the following:
Starting today, 25 August 1942, from 8 PM, no rickshaw driver is permitted to move in the street, and from 9 PM, no Jew is permitted to be in the street with the exception of the Jewish Order Service, which is on duty at that time.
On order of the Labor Office in Warsaw, the Jewish Council announces
Labor Office, Warsaw
Jewish Sector Department
"A change in place of employment may occur exclusively with the prior permission of the Warsaw Labor Office, Jewish Sector Section.
Whoever leaves his place of work will be immediately deported."
Ziegler, Superintendent of the Administration
Warsaw, 8/24/1942
All 13 Items in the Jewish Community Documents Collection
Circular Letter from the Jewish Community of Zagreb to the Jewish Communities of the Independent State of Croatia
tags: bureaucracy community food & hunger money
"Report on the Activities of the Order Service Department of the Board of Representatives of the Jewish Population in Bendsburg"
tags: bureaucracy collaboration court and legal documents ghettos law enforcement
Petition of Meir Halle
tags: children & youth family food & hunger ghettos
Petition of Asna Zhurkovska
Circular Letter of the Aid Center for Jews
tags: bureaucracy deportations forced labor
Bylaw of the Audit Office
tags: bureaucracy ghettos
type: Legislation
Report on the Situation of Jews in France
tags: bureaucracy collaboration deportations
Letter of the President of Jewish Community of Split to Colonel Vincenzo Cuiuli
tags: refugees & immigration relief & rescue
"To the Jews of the World"
tags: community
Letter of Selig Brodetsky and Leonard Stein to the British Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
tags: bureaucracy children & youth food & hunger refugees & immigration
Note Regarding the German Policy of Deliberate Annihilation of European Jewry
tags: deportations food & hunger forced labor ghettos
"The Massacre of the Jews of Jassy"
tags: deportations group violence
RG Number 15.079M
July 22, 1942 to September 30, 1942
Jewish Council of the Warsaw Ghetto
Document Type Report


Silicone storage covers come in 6 different sizes meet most your needs.
They're environmentally-friendly, eliminating the need to repeatedly buy the expensive plastic wrap.
Silicone tops are round yet stretchy enough to fit snugly over odd-shaped mugs, pots, cups & bowls.
Microwave-safe & heat-resistant to 450˚F so you can quickly reheat & enjoy delicious leftovers.
Features non-toxic, BPA Free, dishwasher-safe & leak-proof, air-tight seal so foods stay fresh.


The Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California has served notice of a breakup of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's NOAA-16 spacecraft.
Orbital debris related to the breakup is being cataloged. Potential close approaches to other satellites are being assessed.
Although pinpointing the cause of the breakup is under investigation, there is no indication that a collision caused the NOAA-16 breakup. SpaceTrackOrg has noted that, at this time, there is no danger to any other satellite as result of NOAA 16 breakup.
JSpOC detects, tracks, and identifies all artificial objects in Earth orbit.
NOAA-16 Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES) was also tagged as NOAA-L and was built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., Sunnyvale, Calif.
NOAA-16 was launched on September 21, 2000 under technical guidance and project management by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. The spacecraft was placed into a 470- nautical mile afternoon orbit.
The spacecraft was decommissioned after it suffered a serious anomaly on June 6, 2014.
NOAA announced on June 9, 2014 that the spacecraft was turned off.
In early February, a Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Flight 13 was involved in a debris-causing event. It too was built by Lockheed Martin.
DMSP satellite also suffered a debris-creating event earlier this year.
A subsequent review of the incident determined there were no actions that could have been taken to prevent the incident. The mission was operated by NOAA on behalf of the U.S. Air Force.
The review into the unexpected loss of this satellite determined a failure of the battery charger as the likely cause.
Analysis indicated that one of the wiring harnesses lost functionality due to compression over a long period of time in the battery charge assembly.
Once the harness was compromised, the exposed wires potentially caused a short in the battery power, leading to an overcharge situation with eventual rupture of the batteries.
I saw large fireball West of Tampa last night about 9pm. White with orange and green near the nucleus and 3 explosions at the end. It was over the Gulf of Mexico.


moving stuff back and forth between hospital and house (I had Jack on a Bank Holiday Weekend so I was there from Thu night to Mon morn...) 2nd time I still took more than I needed for even a 1 night stay. 3rd time, I went minimalist! And it worked! So I'm sticking to the same packing list for this, my last baby.
I'm planning on a holdall or small overnight case for me, and a well packed change bag for baby. If I can't fit it into 2 bags, I don't need it!
1 lovely going home out fit!
Phone, charger & call list!


This three-quarter length sleeve polyester vintage dress is by Linsey Barrett and was made in the USA.
It has a pink-raspberry color background with bows, lines, and freeform triangles in black, white, and lavender.
There are fabric matching mini shoulder pads and a fabric covered button on each sleeve end.
The upper section (not the sleeves) has a white synthetic lining and there is a wide neckline.
The upper fabric folds over itself as it meets the waistband.
The tag says 10, but it fits more like a size 6.
The skirt area has six vertical panels, which gives it some fullness (movement) toward the bottom.
shoulder to end of sleeve 18 1/4"
bottom hem side to side 68"


text:
ABOUT CITYx
REGISTER YOUR INTEREST 2020
View all speakers:
Day 1 Day 2
Ed McCann
Vice President, Institution of Civil Engineers
Ed graduated from Imperial College in 1989 with a degree in Civil Engineering. After twelve years with Binnie & Partners he joined Expedition in 2002 where he was the Director for many projects including the multi award winning Infinity Bridge and the Olympic 2012 Velodrome. Ed was instrumental in the growth of Expedition from a "back-bedroom start-up" to Building Magazine's Engineering Consultant of the Year in 2011. He is known as an innovative designer specializing in complex multi-disciplinary projects and leads Expedition's Innovation Services Group. He is a Vice President of the ICE and recently led a review into professional skills. He is a RAEng Visiting Professor of Innovation and a member of the i3P Strategic Leadership Group. He co-created the Constructionarium, the Get It Right Initiative and the Expedition Workshed. Along the way he appeared in 35 Television programs on engineering and apparently has a fan in Japan!
Cityx is run by Connected Places Catapult. A company limited by guarantee. Registered in England & Wales with company number 11837978. Registered office: The Pinnacle, 170 Midsummer Boulevard, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire MK9 1BP, United Kingdom
Connect with Connected Places Catapult
Website Designed by OvernightSite
Please leave your details below and a member of the team will be in touch as soon as possible.
[gravityform id="1″ title="false" description="false" ajax="false"]


If you, a friend, or family member ever find yourselves in a situation where you have nowhere to stay and you are in need of help, contact the Back Bay Mission. They have created the Home At Last (HAL) program which provides permanent housing and supportive services to homeless people who are also disabled. Through the HAL program Back Bay Mission goes above and beyond to provide those in need with an apartment that is leased and furnished by Back Bay Mission. For more information on the HAL program contact a HAL caseworker at (228)432-0301. Along with HAL, Back Bay Mission also has a community resource facility that includes a day center, showers, laundry services, mailboxes, computer and telephone access amongst other services. However, it is NOT an overnight shelter. The facility is open Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 9:30-11:30 a.m. and 1:30-3:30 p.m. For more information you may contact them or stop by at 1012 Division Street • Biloxi, MS 39530 • Phone: (228)432-0301.
You are here: Home Blog There's No Place Like Home!


text:
Home > News > Selena Gomez
Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato and Rihanna Fan Club Sites In Big Trouble
By:OK! Staff
Oct. 4 2012, Published 11:31 a.m. ET
If your'e a member of fan club sites for Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato and/or Rihanna, listen up!
A unit of Warner Music Group that operates the sites has agreed to pay $1 million because it illegally collected data from users under the age of 13, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
OK! GALLERY: CALLING ALL BELIEBERS! CHECK OUT OK!'S ULTIMATE JUSTIN BIEBER PHOTO GALLERY
There's nothing for tween fans to do now. The websites ran afoul of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which makes it a no-no for sites to collect personal data from users under age 13 without parental consent.
OK! GALLERY: SEE JUSTIN BIEBER AND SELENA GOMEZ'S SHOCKING MAUI MAKEOUT SESSION
The sites — BieberFever.com, SelenaGomez.com, RihannaNow.com and DemiLovatoFanClub.net — are the ones in question. In the settlement, the company agreed to cough up the million bucks for a civil penalty, and to delete data that violated the law.
SELENA GOMEZ GETS NEW TATTOO ON HER NECK
JUSTIN BIEBER SUPPORTS SELENA GOMEZ AT TORONTO FILM FESTIVAL
Fans Call Out 'Snobby' Kendall Jenner For Complaining About Lavish Trips To Dubai
Selena Gomez & Drew Taggart Hold Hands On Second Public Date After Actress Declared She's 'Single'
Selena Gomez Shuts Down Drew Taggart Romance Rumors: 'I Am Single'
COMING SOON! Want To Keep Up On All The Celebrity News? Sign Up For Our Newsletter HERE!


Keak Da Sneak recounted the night he was shot 8 times while sitting in his car, and he explained that when he tried to drive away from the scene, he couldn't feel his legs. Keak went on to reveal that he passed out when the ambulance arrived, and he woke up in the hospital with his mother praying over his bed. To hear more, including the progress he's made in therapy.


Green Bank President Alfred Griffin.
NY Green Bank, the state's $1 billion energy financing arm, has completed four new deals that will encourage job creation and private investment. Combined, the efforts are expected to facilitate 6,200 residential rooftop solar installations across New York, as well as eight ground-based solar installations for commercial and industrial use.
The Green Bank – part of the 10-year, $5 billion Clean Energy Fund, the state's commitment to clean-energy market growth – is participating in two nine-digit deals with an assortment of international financers, the governor's office said, while taking the lead on a pair of domestic deals.
In one deal, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority-managed bank is part of a "consortium of capital providers" led by London-based asset manager Investec providing $340 million to Sunrun, a San Francisco-based solar designer, installer and financer in the midst of a national expansion. The transaction is expected to generate up to $140 million in New York State solar development projects, according to the governor's office.
The Green Bank is also participating in a transaction with DZ Bank of Germany, with $200 million going to California-based Solar Mosaic, a finance firm that specializes in no-money-down solar-project financing. That deal is predicted to generate $40 million in residential rooftop installations across New York.
The bank has also established a "standardized approach to construction and post-construction project finance" with BQ Energy, a Poughkeepsie-based renewable-energy developer that specializes in solar development on landfills. The idea is to "broaden the availability of solar to businesses that have had limited access to financing," according to a statement from Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and the first project in a projected $30 million portfolio is already planned for a landfill in the mid-state Town of Patterson.
The fourth new deal, a $7.5 million financing arrangement with New York City-based energy software company Sealed Inc., will affect both the tech company's expansion efforts and some 400 energy-conscious homeowners, according to Cuomo's office.
Since launching in 2014, the Green Bank has closed several similar deals, including an investment that helped Ronkonkoma-based Level Solar complete 840 residential installations, hire more than 50 employees and expand its customer base off Long Island, according to the governor's office.
The bank has also had a hand in helping Brooklyn-based United Wind raise more than $200 million in private capital, allowing the company to begin construction of new turbines in five upstate counties.
With those and other success stories already funded, the four new transaction will help "make energy cleaner and less expensive for New York homeowners and businesses," according to Green Bank President Alfred Griffin, especially by spurring further investments.


Researchers from the University of Surrey and Royal Surrey County Hospital are undertaking exciting new research to help improve survival rates of men with metastatic prostate cancer.
Funded by the Movember Foundation, and working alongside global partners (led by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco and Edith Cowan University, Australia) researchers in Surrey will investigate the impact of high intensity aerobic and resistance training combined with psychosocial support on men with prostate cancer. During this worldwide study, the team will provide an exercise programme for 866 men with prostate cancer over a 3-year period at sites across Australia, North America and Europe.
The team at Surrey is led by Professor Hardev Pandha (Medical Oncology), Professor Sara Faithfull (Cancer Nursing Practice) and Dr Ralph Manders (Exercise Physiology).
During the study, participants will be split into two groups, those who will embark on an exercise training programme with supplementary behavioural and psychosocial support (intervention arm) and those who will receive psychosocial support only (control arm) but can follow their usual exercise and lifestyle routine.
Those in the intervention arm of the programme will complete exercise training three times a week, which will be initially supervised prior to becoming more self-managed, while receiving text messages to provide behavioural support and tailored newsletters to provide psychosocial support. Participants in the control arm will receive psychosocial support via the newsletters. All participants will remain on the study for 24 cycles, each lasting 28 days.
Throughout the study, researchers will be measuring survival time, disease progression, symptomatic skeletal-related events, pain medications, symptoms, metabolic and inflammatory makers to assess the impact of exercise on men with prostate cancer.
For more information regarding the project please click here or get in touch with the Surrey research team via INTERVAL@surrey.ac.uk or 079 66152028.


China's top-level internet watchdog, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), published new draft regulations for blockchain-based information service providers Oct. 19.
The draft, open for public consultation until Nov. 2, proposes twenty three articles for the regulation of all companies or entities providing blockchain-based information services to the Chinese public. Under the proposed rules, all such entities would be required to register with the CAC within ten days of launching their platforms.
The regulations would also require service providers to censor content that is deemed to pose a threat to national security or to "disrupt the social order," and to allow authorities to inspect user data stored on their systems.
Notably, one article would make it mandatory for service providers to ask users to register using their real names, phone numbers and national ID card numbers, in order to mitigate the perceived risks of a pseudonymous blockchain-based system that operates without a centralized entity's oversight.
As local media the South China Morning Post (SCMP) today further reports, the identity requirement reportedly comes in the wake of a high-profile incident in April, in which a Chinese activist is said to have published an "open letter" onto the Ethereum (ETH) public blockchain regarding the alleged cover-up of sexual harassment at a prestigious local university.
The activist's choice to attach the letter onto a publicly-visible transaction on Ethereum reportedly came after internet censors had attempted to restrict the post's circulation on the popular Chinese social media platforms WeChat and Weibo.
SCMP further cites Beijing-based lawyer Xu Kai's perspective on the draft rules, who has reportedly highlighted the fact that the document does not address the immutable nature of data on blockchain-based systems, and specifically the fact that this immutability is in conflict with Chinese laws on user data. Xu reportedly further notes that the rules do not outline enforcement procedures to "protect the rights" of blockchain platforms.
As reported August 21, WeChat permanently blocked a number of crypto and blockchain related accounts that were suspected of publishing Initial Coin Offering (ICO) and crypto-related "hype" in violation of new regulations that had been introduced by the CAC earlier this summer. The content restrictions were introduced as part of a wider sweep of tightened anti-crypto measures, both online and offline.


With Windows 10 19H1 Preview builds 18305 Microsoft revealed Windows Sandbox environment feature that will allow you to safely run suspected software in a throw-away virtualized sandbox to saving the main system from the potential threats. Getting excited about this Windows Sandbox feature? We too, here this post discusses more details of this feature and how to enable Windows Sandbox environment feature on windows 10.
1 What is Windows Sandbox?
Windows Sandbox is a lightweight virtual machine that builds on the technologies used in Windows Containers. According to Microsoft, Windows Sandbox uses a new technology called "integrated scheduler," which allows the host to decide when the sandbox runs. And provides a temporary desktop environment where Windows admins can safely test untrusted software.
"Any software installed in Windows Sandbox stays only in the sandbox and cannot affect your host. Once Windows Sandbox is closed, all the software with all its files and state are permanently deleted," Microsoft explained in the blog post.
Pristine – every time Windows Sandbox runs, it's as clean as a brand-new installation of Windows.
Disposable – nothing persists on the device; everything is discarded after you close the application.
Secure – uses hardware-based virtualization for kernel isolation, which relies on Microsoft's hypervisor to run a separate kernel which isolates Windows Sandbox from the host.
Efficient – uses integrated kernel scheduler, smart memory management, and virtual GPU.
Windows Sandbox includes microphone access and audio input device configuration capabilities.
Microsoft enabled the Shift + Alt + PrintScreen key sequence in Windows Sandbox which activates the ease of access dialogue for enabling high contrast mode.
And ctrl + alt + break key sequence in Windows Sandbox which allows entering/exiting fullscreen mode.
In order to enable and use Windows Sandbox feature make sure that you are running Windows 10 Pro or Enterprise Editions and that too running build 18305 or newer.
Power on the machine and open the BIOS (Press Del key).
Enable Intel Virtualization Technology (also known as Intel VT) or AMD-V depending on the brand of the processor.
Now follow instructions below to enable Windows Sandbox from Windows Features.
Type Windows Features On Start menu search and click on the Turn Windows features on or off the result.
Here on Turn Windows Features on or off box scroll down and check mark option next to Windows Sandbox.
And click to allow windows 10 enable Windows Sandbox feature on your PC.
After it has finished installing, click on the Start button and search for Windows Sandbox and click on it when it appears.
That's all now to use Windows Sandbox feature/create sandbox environment on windows 10 open the Start menu, enter Windows Sandbox and select the top result. Here the Brand new Windows Sandbox for you.
Note: As the Sandbox is a fully featured version of Windows, it's first run will boot Windows as normal. And to avoid each time booting Windows Sandbox will create a snapshot of the virtual machine's state after its first boot. This snapshot will then be used for all subsequent launches in order to avoid the boot process and substantially decrease the time it take for the Sandbox to become available.
Simply copy an executable from the host operating system and paste it onto the desktop of Windows Sandbox. Now you can run the untrusted/suspicious program without fear of it affecting your normal Windows install. When you are done with this, simply close the Sandbox, And everything you test there all is erased from your system.


text:
HomeNewsInternational NewsSAUDI ARABIA: SAUDI ARABIA CANCELS HAJJ FOR INTERNATIONAL PILGRIMS.
SAUDI ARABIA: SAUDI ARABIA CANCELS HAJJ FOR INTERNATIONAL PILGRIMS.
Saudi Arabia will allow Hajj pilgrimage for a 'limited number' of people this year, due to the continued risk of the coronavirus pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said on Monday.
Those people will be of different nationalities and will be people who reside in Saudi Arabia.
The ministry stressed in its statement that the Kingdom has always set the safety of Muslim pilgrims aiming to perform Hajj and Umrah as a top priority.
"In light of continuation of the pandemic and the risks of Coronavirus spreading in crowded spaces and large gatherings, and its transmission between countries, and the increase in average infections globally, it has been decided that Hajj for this year will be held whereby a very limited number of pilgrims from various nationalities who already reside in Saudi Arabia, would be able to perform it," MOFA said.
"This decision is taken to ensure Hajj is performed in a safe manner from a public health perspective while observing all preventative measures and the necessary social distancing protocols to protect human beings from the risks associated with this pandemic and in accordance with the teachings of Islam in preserving the lives of human beings."
#Statement issued by the Ministry of Hajj and Umrah regarding Hajj of 2020
This year's expected to start towards the end of July.
In late February, Saudi Arabia announced the temporary suspension of entry for individuals seeking to perform Umrah pilgrimage in Mecca or visiting the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, as part of the measures to contain the spread of COVID-19.
On March 4, the Kingdom also suspended Umrah pilgrimage for its citizens and residents. By mid-March, the Kingdom had suspended performing group Friday and daily prayers in all of its mosques as a precaution against the coronavirus as well.
However, the Kingdom had started at the end of May implementing its phased re-opening plan.
It shortened curfew, allowed the resumption of some economic activities, allowed performing group prayers in mosques, the return of public and private employees to work from their offices, the resumption of dine-in services in restaurants and cafes, the operation of domestic flights, among others.
The third stage of the Kingdom's re-opening plan started on Sunday, which dictated that Saudi Arabia will return to "normalcy" in all areas in the Kingdom, except in Mecca, and restore conditions to how life was before implementing curfews.
Source: https://english.alarabiya.net/en/coronavirus/2020/06/22/Coronavirus-Saudi-Arabia-to-hold-limited-Hajj-pilgrimage.html
The FAROUK DAWAH MOVEMENT (FDM) AND THE FAROUK MEDIA TEAM RECEIVED CERTIFICATE FROM THE SIERRA LEONE ISLAMIC WEB (SLIWEB).
The Man Who Designed Makkah & Madina Masajid
Africa Muslim Agency donates over 200 Islamic books to Muslim students at FBC.
Top Sierra Leone Islamic events you wouldn't want to miss.


text:
Tourism: What other countries do...
Raymond Hainey, Senior Reporter
Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:20 PM
Chilling out in the Bahamas, where tourism staff are not civil servants. *Photo courtesy of www.fotoseeker.com / The Out Islands of the Bahamas
Methods of selling tourism vary, but a mix of public and private initiatives have gained popularity in recent years.
The Bahamas relies on a mix of private and public tourism bodies to sell the island chain to vistors.
The Bahamian Department of Tourism, under a Director General, works closely with the Minister of Tourism, but staff are not civil servants or public officers.
According to the Bahamas tourism website, that means staff "have more freedom than otherwise would be the case."
In addition, there are entirely private bodies, like the Nassau/Paradise Island Promotions Board, funded by a room toll on large hotels, and the Grand Bahama Island Tourism Board, which is described as "an unofficial amalgam" of the private Grand Bahama Island Promotion Board and the on-site Ministry of Tourism staff.
Other parts of the island chain also have privately-operated tourism boards, some of which operate with part-funding from the Bahamian government.
The Cayman Islands uses a tourism model similar to the existing Bermuda one – a Department of Tourism which is run by the Ministry of Financial Services, Tourism and Development.
England's national tourist board, VisitEngland, was established in April 2009 as a key recommendation of the British Tourism Framework Review.
After several years without its own agency, it was considered that England required a national tourist board in line with similar bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It is a non-governmental organisation supported through a grant from the UK government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport. n
Tourism: Deja vu, Dr Brown?
Tourism: Will staff sink or swim?
Tourism: Handling of news dubbed 'PR disaster'
Tourism: Radical shake-up
Tourism staff to be displaced but minister promises 'no redundancies' (update)
Dodwell: Tourism Authority is the new way forward
Tourism jackpot! 800 travel agents to visit Bermuda
Tourism staff updated on Tourism Authority
Tourism: Information vacuum fuelled social media
Tourism: 'Change is vital'
Tourism Authority in transition


text:
Home - Ube vs. Taro – What's The Difference?
Ube vs. Taro – What's The Difference?
One of the most famous purple color ice cream flavors is raspberry and huckleberry. But did you know that there's a purple-colored ice cream flavor called ube? Typically pronounced as ooh-bae, it is a purple-colored vegetable.
Ube is many times confused with another purple vegetable known as taro. Both of these vegetables belong to the same regions and look very much alike. This is the primary reason these two are confused with being the same.
So, what is the difference between ube and taro? Although both of these vegetables look to be the same, they have many key differences. Taro has tiny purple specks with beige flesh while ube is bright purple from the inside.
Ube is sweeter and used widely in desserts, while taro is more commonly used as an alternative for potatoes. Ube has its origins in the Philippines, while taro has its origins somewhere around southeast Asia. The differences and similarities do not just end there but are many more.
So, keep on reading this article to learn more about these two incredible vegetables.
Ube has its origins in the Philippines and is a purple yam. It works as a tuber which is used to preserve nutrients by plants during the wait for the regular growing season to come. Potatoes are also one of the commonly known tubers you may know about.
Ube has been widely used in Filipino cuisine as it is used to flavor and color cakes, puddings, and so much more. Filipino dessert is one of the most known farms for the production of ube. It has been widely bused with other plant-based diets in the Philippines and outside the Philippines.
Ube commonly comes with a mildly sweet flavor, and its flavor primarily depends on the region it was grown. It has a nutty and earthy flavor and tastes much like pistachio or vanilla. Due to this reason, it is one of the favorite ice creams that people love.
Finding a whole tube may be difficult without a local Asian grocer nearby; however, it can be ordered frozen or powdered, which works just well. Ube can be added to just about any sweet, and you will definitely like the distinct flavor it will add to the dish. One of the very popular applications would be ice cream.
It goes well with any frozen snack and turns the sweet into bright purple. You just have to make sure to add your powdered or frozen ube into the cream before the churning procedure. As a result of ube added, you will find yourself with delicious ice cream, which will have a totally distinct flavor.
Ube halaya, translated to ube jam, is the traditional way to turn ube into dessert. As the name already points that, it is a jam; however, it tastes more like a pudding cake with raspberry preserves. The process starts by adding condensed milk and mashed up in a saucepan with butter.
After all the ingredients are added, the mixture is stirred to thicken and then cooled and refrigerated. Toppings like grated coconut lactic and condensed milk are further added. Moreover, many other kinds of toppings can also be added, such as halo, a Filipino sundae, or any other.
The serving size of one cup of cooked ube has the following nutritional value:
Calories: 140 Kcal
As we have learned about ube in details regarding its nutritional facts, benefits and basic information now let's move towards getting information related to taro.
Taro is the vegetable that is commonly confused with ube; however, taro is nowhere near to be a tuber. The part of taro, corn, is the most commonly eaten that works similar to a tuber. Taro has larger leaves which are in its corm part, and is used to make a dish similar to spinach.
Taro is grown from Hawaii to China and all across the Pacific Ocean. Its origins are not really known, but it came from near southeast Asia. Unlike ube, taro is not sweet but has more of a savory flavor.
Although taro is mildly sweet, it has a more savory taste after cooking. It is known for its ability to soak flavors and add other vegetables and sweeteners. Taro has a nutty flavor and has many applications.
One of the most common applications is taro chips. Taro chips are similar to potato chips by first slicing taro into small slices with a knife. Then the slices are fried for about 20 minutes at 400 degrees, and you have crispy fried taro chips in the end.
Another great way to eat taro is making taro latkes. The cheese grater is used to slice taro into small pieces, and starch is squeezed out of the slices. Cheesecloth is wrapped around taro and fried in vegetable oil, and then salt is added to make taro latkes.
Taro can be used as a savory dish and has sweet applications as well. Taro is added to the cake in the form of small slices to the mixture. The mixture is then baked to form a delicious purple-colored taro cake.
One of the most traditional ways to consume taro is Poi. A food processor is used to liquefy taro and water to have a smooth consistency. This dish is very simple to make but dates back many years, having a rich history.
One cup of taro roots consists of the following nutritional value:
Total Calories: 187 Kcal
Sugar: 1 gram
So, What's The Difference Between Ube and Taro?
Concluding the above-mentioned article into key points:
Taro has tiny purple specks with beige flesh while ube is bright purple from the inside.
Ube is sweeter and used widely in desserts, while taro is more commonly used as an alternative for potatoes.
Ube has its origins in the Philippines, while taro has its origins somewhere around southeast Asia.
Foodsguy
Honestfoodtalks
Bonteacafe
Moringa vs. Whey Protein – What's The Difference?
Tomato Paste Vs. Sauce – What's The Difference?
Oranges vs. Mandarins – What's the Difference?
Baking vs. Cooking: What's The Difference?
Wine Yeast vs. Bread Yeast – What's The Difference?
Spelt Flour Vs. White Flour – What's The Difference?
Cardamom vs. Coriander – What's The Difference?
Trout vs. Salmon – What's The Difference?
Zojirushi vs. Cuckoo – What's The Difference?