Popular Midwest folk band, Murphey's Midnight Rounders, have hit the ground running again in 2012. After a 2-year recording hiatus spent touring around the country, they have emerged from the studio, having produced 24 songs in just 6 months, most of which were written by Brad Murphey, the band's songwriter and guitarist.
Pearl Street is more main stream, if that term can be used for folk music. Brad Murphey wrote all of the songs, but one – Hard Times Come Again No More is an old Stephen Foster song that is still very relevant today. Most of the songs on Pearl Street have an underlying message that ranges from counter-culture to songs of protest, and yet their catchy melodies and witty lyrics keep them from being too somber. Third Bombay, Uncle Chronic and Upper Midwest Terrorist Society and Sewing Bee are good examples of counter-culture, while Started All Over Again and Soul of a Nation are straight up protest songs. Morning Come Too Soon is just a plain fun song about a hangover.
Swede Hollow explores Paganism and the Pagan lifestyle. Songs that Rounders fans have enjoyed listening to at open air gatherings, such as Wreck of the Modern Pagan and Maiden Warrior Mother Crone, are now represented on this CD. Newer songs, like Hey Mamma, I'm a Real Live Witch and New Age Pagan Rag are also included, together with traditional songs such as Pretty Annie, Soul Cake Song and Hot Crone Chant which benefit from sparkling new treatments.
Editor's note: The above information from submitted Press Release.
A local Pagan band with mainstream appeal, Murphey's Midnight Rounders, just finished recording a song in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The band performs the song, "Hard Times, Come Again No More," for the first time live tonight at 5pm for the OccupyMN demonstration at Government Plaza in downtown Minneapolis. The song was written by Stephen Foster in 1854.
Teresa Frank, vocals and percussion for the band, encourages others to get involved in the Occupy movement, "The revolution has started and we need you at the government center." MMR has a history of supporting political, religious rights, and social justice movements. They most recently marched in the Hemp Fest Walk for Freedom, assisted several Pagan groups in fundraising, and joined the pro-union protests in Wisconsin.
Hard Times, Come Again No More was written by Stephen Foster in 1854, but feels relevant today as Americans endure the difficult economic times sparked by the recession began in 2007. A recession that may technically be over, but is still felt in the high unemployment numbers and high food and gas prices. It has a depression-era sound and the word choices in the lyrics, especially in the chorus, likewise give a strong nod to that time period.
The song is available for free download along with samples of other songs from their upcoming CDs.
*Editor's note: The original version of this article incorrectly stated that the song was written by Murphey's Midnight Rounders.


15ml of your favourite moisturiser; 5ml of your favourite lipbalm in a lovely cotton bag for the road less travelled.
Choose one from: Lippy/Cinnawarm/Gently Lipbalms.
Lipbalms are also suitable as a first aid remedy for minor bites, stings and rashes..so Good to Go first aid too!


elevator manufacturer/supplier, China elevator manufacturer & factory list, find qualified Chinese elevator manufacturers, suppliers, factories, exporters & wholesalers quickly on Made-in-China.
China Building Lift Elevator for Sale Offered by Hstowercrane, Find details about China Construction Elevator, Elevator from Building Lift Elevator for Sale Offered by Hstowercrane - Jinan Hengsheng Engineering Machinery Co., Ltd.
Sourcing Guide for Elevator: Transportation is not just about moving an object from point A to point B, it's a process of value delivery: sending things all over the country, carrying customers to upper floors or building a warehouse for cargos, all of which require products in transportation.
The elevators have performed well in the Chinese market with sales growing annually since the initial product launch in 2010, and the models manufactured in China have become Hitachi's flagship elevator models in China accounting for more than 50% of orders by volume in 2015.
Add to Cart. Elevator and escalator product and service demand in China will grow 9.7 percent annually through 2011. Gains will be driven by strong new construction spending (especially on multifamily buildings) and on nonresidential establishments.
Building Elevator Sales In China Buy small building elevator - small building elevator for sale Buy small building elevator from China small building elevator manufacturers, 2390 small building elevator for sale.
China's demand for Elevators has grown at a fast pace in the past decade. In the next decade, both production and demand will continue to grow.
Elevator and escalator product and service demand in China will grow 9.7 percent annually through 2011. Gains will be driven by strong new construction spending (especially on multifamily buildings) and on nonresidential establishments.
Construction Elevator, Construction Building Elevator, Construction Machine manufacturer / supplier in China, offering Construction Site Lift for Sale by Hstowercrane, Portable Concrete Stone Impact Mobile Crushing Station Price for Sale, Real Manufacture Ce and ISO Approved Feed Mill Pellet and so on.
Elevator, Passenger Elevator, Elevator Machine manufacturer / supplier in China, offering 8 Persons 630kg Passenger Elevator, China Elevator Manufacturer, Passenger Elevator Lilft for Commercial Building and Shopping Center, Residential Hydraulic Passenger Elevator in China and so on.
In 2015, the real estate downturn and frequent elevator accidents led to the decline in China's elevator sales volume for the first time in recent years, from 500,000 in 2014 to 480,000, down 4% year on year.
Founded in 1853 by the inventor of the safety elevator, Otis offers products and services in more than 200 countries and territories, and maintains more than 1.9 million elevators and escalators worldwide. Otis is a unit of United Technologies Corp., a leading provider to the aerospace and building systems industries worldwide.
Mar 08, 2016· People expressed anger that lax building management could turn trivial acts, like riding an elevator, into fatal traps, news reports and Internet accounts said.
Glarie home elevator/lift adheres to the top-tech in the world's private elevator field. It inherits the classical international design concept and deducts a luxurious dream in your home art.It grants a full play of an overall supreme quality at your house.
GLARIE China manufacturing plant was put into use in 2014.There are Chinese manufacturing center and German R&D center. GLARIE owns class A Manufacturing License and class A Installation License, our annual production capacity is 20,000 units.


School holidays have once again come and gone. I coped better this time. Other moms talk about the relaxation of the school holidays, a break from the scheduled life, contented home days….it all sounds so nice. Except that it doesn't work for Milo. And what doesn't work for Milo won't work for me either. You see, a bored Milo very quickly becomes an incredibly naughty Milo. And a mother beset by a tyrannically rude six year old quickly reaches the end of her tether. This time I made a plan for every day that he and I were home together. We were lucky that the weather cooperated, so our plans involved some nice outtings.
This was our Hagley Park day, with friend Stella (and her little sister Nina). The leaves were perfect, sun dappled and dry. The girls hatched out of their egg nest repeatedly.
Japanese maple, in fall glory. I once when I was in college I sent a pressed Japanese maple leaf to my grandmother, and she wrote back wondering if I had sent her a marijuana leaf. The subsequent letter included both a maple leaf and a marijuana leaf (it doesn't take much figuring to guess which classmates to ask for said leaf). I still giggle every time I admire these frilly maples.
Naomi and Stella tucked themselves away in the tree crevice to hide. The botanical garden has some great specimens.
We basically spent the whole day roving from one climbing tree to the next, occasionally adding to our collection of pretty feathers and leaves and petals while stopping frequently to eat peanut-butter-honey sandwiches.
As we were heading at last to our car we passed an elderly couple strolling along. "Four?" the old lady asked. "Yes, but two are mine and two belong to a friend," I responded. "Oh, that's easy," she gloated. "I had five." I smiled and nodded, but inwardly fumed. What was that snide comment meant to accomplish? Does it make her feel more respected to make me feel less so?
One day we met friends down at the water-side walk near Govenor's Bay. Low tide exposed the rocks, and Milo turned those rocks to expose hundreds of little crabs. Imagine the six-year-old's joy in terrorizing the hapless critters, listening to their frantic scuttling to safety every time he lifted off their roof.
I'm sure we have posted a picture of this rock before, an ancient specimen from the time that the Lyttelton harbor was the center of an active volcano.
We splurged on treats from She Chocolate after our walk, always a nice ending to the morning. The only problem is that it leaves an electronic banking trail betraying to Jeremiah that we've been having decadent sweets.
We did get a tour of Daddy's office recently, and learned that he has a machine that can make him hot chocolates or barista coffees any time he wants at the touch of a button. There are some perks to being an engineer, apparently.
Naomi and I crowned the holiday with a trip to the cushion theater (Oz was playing). Milo was a bit sad to miss out on the theater trip, but he was busy earning player of the day at his ripper rugby match, which brought him great satisfaction as well.
Actually, the real crowning of the holiday was the last rainy Sunday afternoon where I set the kids up with paper mache on the bit of lino that we keep under our dining table, then left to do a bit of shopping. When I came back the lino had been rinsed but the carpet around it bore loads of gluey flour footprints. I knew I should have waited for an outside day to do paper mache. The kids were sent to a much needed early bed.
So many happy moments! And She Chocolate makes my mouth water with the remembering!


text:
La Direttiva 2004/48/CE sul rispetto dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale è una direttiva dell'Unione Europea approvata il 29 aprile 2004, che riguarda la proprietà intellettuale, ed in particolare gli strumenti giuridici a disposizione dei titolari dei diritti.

La direttiva, in inglese Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, è nota anche con l'acronimo IPRED o anche come Direttiva enforcement.

Finalità e contenuto
La Direttiva richiede, a tutti gli Stati membri, di applicare norme dissuasive ed efficaci contro coloro che commettono reati di contraffazione e pirateria. Di conseguenza non é focalizzata sui diritti stessi di proprietà privata, bensì sul regolarne la loro applicazione. Lascia sostanzialmente invariati i provvedimenti e obblighi internazionali degli Stati membri in materia di proprietà intellettuale, aggiunge quindi soltanto delle misure di sicurezza extra per quanto riguarda il copyright digitale.

L'Articolo 1 definisce gli argomenti trattati: "La presente direttiva concerne le misure, le procedure e i mezzi di ricorso necessari ad assicurare il rispetto dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale. Ai fini della presente direttiva i termini «diritti di proprietà intellettuale» includono i diritti di proprietà industriale".

L'Articolo 2 ne definisce i fini: "Fatti salvi gli strumenti vigenti o da adottare nella legislazione comunitaria o nazionale, e sempre che questi siano più favorevoli ai titolari dei diritti, le misure, le procedure e i mezzi di ricorso di cui alla presente direttiva si applicano, conformemente all'articolo 3, alle violazioni dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale come previsto dalla legislazione comunitaria e/o dalla legislazione nazionale dello Stato membro interessato. [...] La presente direttiva fa salvo:

 a) le disposizioni comunitarie che disciplinano il diritto sostanziale di proprietà intellettuale, la direttiva 95/46/CE, la direttiva 1999/93/CE, o la direttiva 2000/31/CE in generale e le disposizioni degli articoli da 12 a 15 della direttiva 2000/31/CE in particolare;

 b) gli obblighi incombenti agli Stati membri in forza di convenzioni internazionali, in particolare dell'accordo sugli ADPIC, inclusi quelli concernenti i procedimenti e le sanzioni penali;

 c) le eventuali disposizioni nazionali degli Stati membri concernenti i procedimenti e le sanzioni penali per quanto riguarda le violazioni dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale.

Elementi di Prova
La seconda sezione della Direttiva si occupa della prove. In particolare, l'Articolo 6 tutela il diritto della parte interessata di richiedere prove, che dovranno essere prodotte dalla controparte, in caso di sospetta violazione di diritti di proprietà intellettuale.

In caso di violazione su scala commerciale uno Stato membro deve prendere azione in modo che le "documentazioni bancarie, finanziarie o commerciali" della controparte siano presentate.

L'Articolo 7 prevede inoltre che questi tipi di azione possano essere applicate prima ancora di aver ascoltato la controparte, onde evitare che ritardi nella raccolta di tali prove arrechino danni irreparabili al titolare dei diritti.

Implementazione
La Direttiva stata implementata nel Regno Unito nel 2006 e in Francia il 27 Giugno 2008. In Svezia è stata votata dal Parlamento nel Febbraio 2009 ed è entrata in atto il 1 Aprile 2009.

In Italia tale direttiva è stata recepita dal decreto legislativo 140/2006; nel 2007 è stata emendata dalla direttiva riguardo alle misure penali in merito all'applicazione dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale (IPRED2)

La Comunicazione n. 708 del 29.11.2017 della Commissione al Parlamento e al Consiglio d'Europa fornisce Orientamenti in merito ad alcuni aspetti della direttiva 2004/48/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sul rispetto dei diritti di proprietà intellettuale.

Controversie
La Direttiva è stata duramente opposta e paragonata al Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Le critiche sono state così forti, soprattutto da parte di esponenti dell'industria delle telecomunicazioni, che la prima bozza venne pesantemente modificata. Secondo l'organizzazione dei diritti civili internazionali IP Justice rimangono ancora questioni problematiche nella versione finale.

Note

Collegamenti esterni
 Testo della direttiva 2004/48/CE sul sito EUR-Lex

Diritto d'autore
Direttive dell'Unione europea

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


threshold accent tray table side table target living room side table cool accent tables target.
threshold accent tray table target gold accent table accent table target threshold accent table.
threshold accent tray table we want everything from targets spring line.
threshold accent tray table round metal side table target black drum tray tables white butlers.
threshold accent tray table wrought iron accent tables target threshold accent table marble top.
threshold accent tray table accent tray safari leather threshold table.
threshold accent tray table door threshold accent wood audience original tabletop gold target.
threshold accent tray table target gold accent table circular accent table brown marble gold.
threshold accent tray table wall tray white decor frame console wood table audience threshold.
threshold accent tray table wall mirror console tray natural full threshold.
threshold accent tray table round aluminum hammered serving tray gold threshold check back soon.
threshold accent tray table threshold marble serving tray black gray w gold handles bar cheese.
threshold accent tray table decoration threshold accent table target attractive square gold.
threshold accent tray table console vanity round she table length decor threshold tray.
threshold accent tray table round gold accent table gold round tray uttermost elegant textured.
threshold accent tray table threshold accent table accent tables target 4 steps to choosing the.
threshold accent tray table marble top side table target threshold accent.
threshold accent tray table marble side table target furniture fascinating top ideas.
threshold accent tray table storage drum table coffee west elm threshold accent silver tables.
threshold accent tray table target gold coffee table round coffee table target trend round end.
threshold accent tray table metal side table target drum black round teal accent kitchen scenic.


text:
package com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;

import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.Logger.Log;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstSemArrayReference;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstSemAssignment;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstSemConst;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstSemParameter;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstSemRegister;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstSemStatement;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstructionSemantic.InstSemLHS;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstructionSemantic.InstSemOperand;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstructionSemantic.InstSemType;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstructionSemanticizer;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.augmentation.instsem.InstructionSemanticizer.MethodSemantics;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.model0.DexArrayType;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.model0.DexClass;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.model0.DexCodeItem;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.model0.DexInternalClass;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.model0.DexMethod;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.model0.DexProgram;
import com.giyeok.dexdio.model0.DexType;

/**
 * data flow analysis 결과를 이용하여 각 오퍼랜드의 타입을 유추한다
 *
 * @author Joonsoo
 *
 */
public class OperandTypeInferer extends Augmentation {

	public static OperandTypeInferer get(DexProgram program) {
		return (OperandTypeInferer) Augmentation.getAugmentation(OperandTypeInferer.class, program);
	}

	@Override
	protected String getAugmentationName() {
		return "Operand type inferer";
	}

	private InstructionSemanticizer semantics;
	private DataFlowAnalyzer dataflow;

	private Map<DexCodeItem, OperandTypesInMethod> methods;
	private Map<InstSemOperand, DexType> inferred;

	public OperandTypeInferer(DexProgram program) {
		super(program);

		semantics = InstructionSemanticizer.get(program);
		dataflow = DataFlowAnalyzer.get(program);

		methods = new HashMap<DexCodeItem, OperandTypesInMethod>();
		inferred = new HashMap<InstSemOperand, DexType>();

		visit(program);
	}

	public DexType getInferredType(InstSemOperand operand) {
		return inferred.get(operand);
	}

	public Set<DexType> getPossibleTypes(InstSemOperand operand) {
		OperandTypesInMethod m = methods.get(operand.getBelongedCodeItem());
		assert m != null;
		return m.progress.get(operand);
	}

	private void visit(DexProgram program) {
		visitMethods(program, new MethodVisitor() {

			@Override
			public void visit(DexProgram program, DexMethod method) {
				DexCodeItem codeitem = method.getCodeItem();

				if (codeitem != null) {
					methods.put(codeitem, new OperandTypesInMethod(codeitem, semantics.getMethodSemantics(codeitem)));
				}
			}
		});
	}

	private class OperandTypesInMethod {
		private Map<InstSemOperand, Set<DexType>> progress;

		public OperandTypesInMethod(DexCodeItem codeitem, MethodSemantics methsem) {
			progress = new HashMap<InstSemOperand, Set<DexType>>();

			process(codeitem, methsem);
		}

		private Set<DexType> getProgressOf(InstSemOperand operand) {
			Set<DexType> set = progress.get(operand);

			if (set == null) {
				set = new HashSet<DexType>();
				progress.put(operand, set);
			}
			return set;
		}

		/**
		 * 각 operand에 대해서 gen의 타입을 use에 추가한다
		 * 변화가 생기면 true를 반환하고 그렇지 않으면 false를 반환한다
		 * @return
		 */
		private boolean propagate(DexCodeItem codeitem) {
			boolean updated = false;
			for (InstSemOperand operand: progress.keySet()) {
				InstSemOperand showing = null;

				if (operand instanceof InstSemRegister) {
					showing = dataflow.getReplacementOf((InstSemRegister) operand);
					if (showing == null) {
						showing = operand;
					}
					if (! (showing instanceof InstSemConst)) {
						Set<DexType> prog = getProgressOf(operand);
						for (InstSemOperand gen: dataflow.getGensOf(codeitem, operand)) {
							if (operand.getInstSemType() == InstSemType.REGISTER_PAIR && gen.getInstSemType() == InstSemType.REGISTER) {
								Logger.addMessage(OperandTypeInferer.this, Log.line(new Log[] {
										Log.log("Register pair depends on a register-non-pair: "),
										Log.log(" " + getLoggingString(operand) + " at "),
										Log.log(codeitem.getBelongedMethod())
								}));
							}
							Set<DexType> genset = getProgressOf(gen);
							updated |= prog.addAll(genset);
						}
					}
				}
				// TODO needs verify
				for (InstSemOperand use: dataflow.getUsesOf(codeitem, operand)) {
					if (use instanceof InstSemRegister) {
						if (use.getInstSemType() == InstSemType.REGISTER_PAIR && operand.getInstSemType() == InstSemType.REGISTER) {
							Logger.addMessage(OperandTypeInferer.this, Log.line(new Log[] {
									Log.log("Register pair depends on a register-non-pair: "),
									Log.log(" " + getLoggingString(operand) + " at "),
									Log.log(codeitem.getBelongedMethod())
							}));
						}
						updated |= getProgressOf(use).addAll(getProgressOf(operand));
					}
				}
			}
			return updated;
		}

		private boolean processArrayReference(InstSemArrayReference arrayref) {
			// getProgressOf(arrayref.getArray());	=> 여기에는 array type이 들어 있어야 하고, 이 타입들로부터
			// getProgressOf(arrayref)				=> 여기에 array type들의 element type을 넣어 주어야 한다
			for (DexType type: getProgressOf(arrayref.getArray())) {
				if (type instanceof DexArrayType) {
					getProgressOf(arrayref).add(((DexArrayType) type).getElementType());
					// System.out.println(((DexArrayType) type).getElementType().getTypeFullNameBeauty());
				} else {
					// System.out.println("Why! " + type.getTypeFullNameBeauty());
				}
			}
			return false;
		}

		private void process(DexCodeItem codeitem, MethodSemantics methsem) {
			InstSemStatement sem[];
			sem = methsem.getStatements();

			// 모든 오퍼랜드를 수집하고 기본 타입 정보를 저장한다
			for (InstSemParameter param: methsem.getParametersIncludingInstanceRegister()) {
				Set<DexType> set = getProgressOf(param);
				DexType type = param.getOperandTypeData();
				if (type != null) {
					set.add(type);
				}
			}
			for (int i = 0; i < sem.length; i++) {
				InstSemStatement statement = sem[i];
				InstSemOperand ops[] = statement.getContainingOperands();

				for (InstSemOperand op: ops) {
					Set<DexType> set = getProgressOf(op);
					DexType type = op.getOperandTypeData();
					if (type != null) {
						set.add(type);
					}
				}
			}
			// TODO check-cast 인스트럭션이 실행된 이후부터 ClassCastException 예외 처리 핸들러에서 다시 돌아올 때까진 타입이 지정되었다고 볼 수 있다

			// propagation과 정의 과정에선 처리되지 못한 instsem에 대한 타입 처리를 converge할 때까지 반복 수행한다
			boolean updated = true;

			while (updated) {
				updated = propagate(codeitem);
				for (int i = 0; i < sem.length; i++) {
					InstSemStatement statement = sem[i];

					switch (statement.getInstSemType()) {
					case ASSIGNMENT_STATEMENT: {
						InstSemAssignment assign = (InstSemAssignment) statement;
						InstSemLHS lhs = assign.getLefthandside();
						InstSemOperand rhs = assign.getRighthandside();

						if (lhs instanceof InstSemArrayReference) {
							updated |= processArrayReference((InstSemArrayReference) lhs);
							updated |= getProgressOf(rhs).addAll(getProgressOf(lhs));
						}
						if (rhs instanceof InstSemArrayReference) {
							updated |= processArrayReference((InstSemArrayReference) rhs);
						}
						break;
					}
					}
				}
			}

			// type inference 정보를 저장한다
			DeadCodeCollector deadcodes = DeadCodeCollector.get(getProgram());
			for (InstSemOperand operand: progress.keySet()) {
				Set<DexType> set = getProgressOf(operand);
				DexType inferredtype = getMostSpecificTypeAmong(set);

				if (inferredtype != null) {
					inferred.put(operand, inferredtype);
					/*
					AugmentationMessages.addMessage(OperandTypeInferer.this, Message.line(new Message[] {
							Message.msg("Known: "),
							Message.msg(codeitem.getBelongedMethod()),
							Message.msg(" " + getLoggingString(operand) + " : "),
							Message.msg(inferredtype)
					}));
					*/
				} else {
					if (operand instanceof InstSemRegister && (! deadcodes.isDeadInstruction(operand.getStatement()))) {
						ArrayList<Log> msg = new ArrayList<Log>();
						msg.add(Log.log(codeitem.getBelongedMethod()));
						msg.add(Log.log(" " + getLoggingString(operand) + " : "));
						Iterator<DexType> type = set.iterator();
						boolean first = true;
						while (type.hasNext()) {
							if (! first) {
								msg.add(Log.log(", "));
							}
							msg.add(Log.log(type.next()));
							first = false;
						}
						Logger.addMessage(OperandTypeInferer.this, Log.line(msg.toArray(new Log[0])));
					}
				}
			}
		}

		private DexType getMostSpecificTypeAmong(Set<DexType> types) {
			DexType result = null;

			for (DexType type: types) {
				if (result == null) {
					result = type;
				} else {
					if ((! (result instanceof DexClass)) || (! (type instanceof DexClass))) {
						return null;
					}
					DexClass a = (DexClass) result, b = (DexClass) type;
					if (a instanceof DexInternalClass && b instanceof DexInternalClass) {
						if (b.isAncestorOf((DexInternalClass) a)) {
							assert ! a.isAncestorOf((DexInternalClass) b);
							result = a;
						} else if (a.isAncestorOf((DexInternalClass) b)) {
							assert ! b.isAncestorOf((DexInternalClass) a);
							result = b;
						} else {
							return null;
						}
					} else if (a instanceof DexInternalClass) {
						if (b.isAncestorOf((DexInternalClass) a)) {
							result = a;
						}
					} else if (b instanceof DexInternalClass) {
						if (a.isAncestorOf((DexInternalClass) b)) {
							result = b;
						}
					} else {
						return null;
					}
				}
			}
			return result;
		}

		private String getLoggingString(InstSemOperand op) {
			return op.getStringRepresentation() + " " +
					((op.getStatement() == null)?
							"(parameter)":Integer.toHexString(op.getStatement().getInstruction().getAddress()));
		}
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Hand Crafted in Perth by Purrth!
We're obsessed with cats, you know that by now, but we also love design!
The entire range is made by hand with love right here at Purrth from start to finish.
We lovingly package it, and ship it to you.
All made with love by Cat Mum and Cat Dad.
This is a project to show our love for cats, and just like everything else at Purrth, part proceeds go to support Animal Welfare at Cat Haven.
Cat Glitter helps you sparkle, and brings some sparkle to a kitty in need too!
We Ship Australia Wide - Glitter is on the way!
Evenings and weekdays are our least busy times.
NOTE 1. Cats are Live Animals; we cannot predict their behaviour.
The cats are most likely to be playful in the first morning or last evening sessions, and relaxed for sleepy pats in the middle sessions. Children + Families are encouraged to attend earlier sessions, while nights are usually for adults.
You'll need time to sign in and get your coffee + treats. Note also, all time slots include our briefing time, and change-over time.
NOTE 3. One ticket = One Entrant. Every guest needs a ticket.
As ticketing is strictly limited in the Cat Lounge to ensure cat wellbeing, you must purchase a ticket for each guest, including children, regardless of age. FREE Tickets are granted to on-duty carers with Companion Cards (book all tickets online, then receive a refund for one ticket when you show your valid Card on arrival), and please consult our FAQ section regarding wheelchair access before purchasing tickets.
NOTE 4. Our current AGE LIMIT is set to four and up (4+).
All patrons must be four or older to enter (incl. no babies at this time). We encourage parents to book day time sessions. There can be no large groups of children, or parties at this time.
NOTE 5. ALL CHILDREN UNDER 11 must have a supervising guardian.
Joining them in The Cat Lounge, both parents and children MUST purchase tickets, regardless of age. Any children without supervision will be refused entry without a refund.
RESCHEDULING must provide at least 48 HOURS NOTICE via email, or tickets and funds will be forfeited.
If times are GREY that session is already FULLY BOOKED. Simply click "Reset Times" and choose a different date/time to find more tickets.
The availability counter shows how many tickets are left in that session. IE: Counter showing "1" means only one ticket remains.
Part proceeds of these tickets - and everything we sell - goes to supporting our partners at Cat Haven!
The kitties are excited to see you at Purrth, 147 Rokeby Road, Subiaco - MEOW!!
We all need to drink more water - so why not make it fun?
We've crafted some happy little messages, added some cat puns and a cheeky cat face to make you or someone you love smile every time they see it. More smiles = more hydrating.
Because the bottles are flat, they're easy to take anywhere, and look great too.
We've also lasered on some handy hydration markers for quick and easy monitoring of your water intake. So you can see exactly how much has been consumed, and how much is left to meet your goals.
100% BPA Free plastic from Australian suppliers, to which we then apply our own premium and permanent coloured vinyl.
We do. Cat Mum and Cat Dad make these by hand with love right here at Purrth from start to finish.
Feel Good + Feel Good Some More!
Whether this bottle sits on your desk, in your bag, or is a gift for someone else - you can feel even happier knowing that part proceeds go to support Animal Welfare at Cat Haven.
We Ship Australia Wide - Pawsitivity is on the way!
Show some love with our happy Cat Stamps!
All of our stamps are 100% Made in Perth by Purrth.
All made at Purrth with love!
Great for teachers, kids, gifts, and anyone who loves cats and stationery!
If you buy The Whole Set we'll throw in the upright base for free!
Ink and stamp pad not included, we recommend high quality inks from your local craft store, or semi-professional inks from Spotlight or Officeworks.


text:
SMU Lexicon: Getting to the Root of the Problem: Written Representations to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods
Aaron Yoong March 1, 2019 0 0
It is acknowledged that deliberate online falsehoods present a real and pressing danger in today's world. As set out in the Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Law's Green Paper on "Deliberate Online Falsehoods: Challenges and Implications" ("Green Paper"), the impact of online falsehoods can be significant.[1]
However, the motivations that drive the spread of online falsehoods are neither unique nor contemporary. Foreign state actors seeking to influence domestic politics, and unscrupulous individuals attempting to make a quick buck, have all perpetrated deliberate falsehoods long before the Internet was even conceived.[2] But what has changed is the medium in which deliberate falsehoods now spread – through internet intermediaries like social media platforms and search engines. Given the "ubiquity, universality and utility" of such mediums,[3] deliberate falsehoods can now reach a virtually unlimited audience instantaneously.
Hence, the logical solution to deliberate online falsehoods should be to regulate intermediaries. But how far and how much regulation should be imposed? And to what extent should an intermediary be held liable? These written representations to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods – Causes, Consequences and Countermeasures (the "Select Committee") will deal with these issues and proffer some suggestions for getting to the root of the problem. In so doing, it will pay particular attention to the following two areas under the Select Committee's Terms of Reference:
The motivations and reasons for the spreading of such falsehoods, and the types of individuals and entities, both local and foreign, which engage in such activity; and
How Singapore can prevent and combat online falsehoods, including the principles that should guide Singapore's response, and any specific measures, including legislation, that should be taken.
In summary, our views are as follow:
First, the motivations and reasons for spreading deliberate falsehoods have not changed. Political and financial motivations remain the chief reasons for deliberate falsehoods. However, while existing legislation may be sufficient to deal with the authors of such falsehoods, there is a gap in the regulatory tools available to deal with the chief mischief of deliberate online falsehoods, which is their near instantaneous dissemination and ease of access.
Second, bearing in mind the gap in tools to combat deliberate online falsehoods, some sort of intermediary liability should be imposed to combat and prevent the spread of deliberate online falsehoods. However, any such intermediary liability must be carefully calibrated to minimize restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.
We hope that these Written Representations will be of assistance to the Select Committee.
Old wine in new wineskins – The nature of the threat posed by deliberate online falsehoods
As a preliminary point, there have been concerns that any approach taken towards the phenomenon known as "fake news" may be overly restrictive.[4] While lies and falsehoods ought to be restricted, care must be taken not to stifle genuine discourse. Indeed, this was a point raise by several Members of Parliament who questioned whether there was a need to legislate to tackle "fake news".[5]
However, any concerns in this regard are addressed by the Select Committee's specific mandate to investigate "deliberate online falsehoods", rather than the more generic label of "fake news". The Green Paper has also characterized the issue as such.[6] Hence, it is clear that it is only falsehoods which are spread with a deliberate intent, rather than those spread negligently or recklessly, that is targeted.
The scope of "deliberate online falsehoods" also excludes what could be charitably called "legitimate but biased commentary",[7] and a whole range of phenomena that do not necessarily call for restriction, like parodies and bad journalism.[8] At the end of the day, contrary opinions should not be stifled by dint of simply being disagreeable.[9] Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Internet has had a democratizing effect in relation to political speech and public discourse, equalizing opportunities for communication and facilitating the freedom to disseminate and receive information.[10]
As for spreading deliberate falsehoods, few would argue that any utility can be gained from it, whether online or offline. Indeed, as the US Supreme Court in the case of Schenck v United States noted in its oft-cited observation, "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic".[11] More recently, the UN Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and "Fake News", Disinformation and Propaganda[12] has recognized that deliberate falsehoods interfere with the public's right to know, and the right of individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kind.[13] Furthermore, specific kinds of falsehoods are intrinsically harmful, such as those that harm individual reputations and privacy, or incite to violence or hostility against identifiable groups in society.[14]
With these parameters in mind, we turn now to the motivations and reasons for spreading deliberate online falsehoods. In so doing, we will show that these motivations and reasons have not changed over the years. Rather, what has changed is the medium in which they are now spread, namely internet intermediaries.
Deliberate falsehoods are not a new threat to society
According to the Green Paper, there is an increasing use of digital technologies to spread falsehoods. There appear to be two main types of actors: private individuals and entities, and foreign state actors. The latter aim to engineer specific outcomes in elections and referenda, while private actors seem to be motivated by financial considerations. The Green Paper also observes that many online falsehoods are aimed at interfering with elections and referenda.[15]
However, deliberate falsehoods are nothing new in the arena of politics. The highly bruising 2016 US Presidential elections has often been compared with that of 1800, where Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson and Federalist incumbent John Adams also used media (traditional newspapers) to target each other.[16] In any case, the "weaponisation" of information,[17] and specifically, deliberate falsehoods finds its roots even further back in history. One such example comes from World War I, where both Germany and the UK made use of fabricated stories about wartime atrocities to undermine each other's military efforts.[18]
As for private actors, supermarket tabloids have long trafficked in a mix of partially true and outright false stories.[19] The publication of deliberate falsehoods for financial profit has a long and storied past, going all the way back to the 19th century and what was known as "yellow journalism".[20] Large corporations have also been known to finance suspect research in order to ensure their dominance – tobacco companies that fund research that challenges the correlation of smoking with lung cancer, and fossil fuel manufacturers that fund research that attributes climate change to natural causes rather than human activities or carbon emissions.[21]
Turning to Singapore, Parliament during its debate on the Select Committee also heard examples of deliberate falsehoods. Some were recent; others were propagated by old fashion means of rumor-mongering. In the 1960s-70s, false rumours were used to turn races against each other, such as during the race riots of 1969 which lasted for seven days and resulted in four dead and 80 injured – this was sparked off partly because of rumours of Malays attacking Chinese in Malaysia.[22] A more recent example given was NTUC Fairprice's constant battle with false online rumours about its products, like "halal pork", "plastic rice" and "man-made eggs from China".[23]
It can thus be seen that deliberate falsehoods are not new to either Singapore or the world. This recognition is crucial as it acknowledges that there are existing laws that can be used to combat the most common types of deliberate online falsehoods, such as falsehoods with a view to undermining national security or national elections, or stirring up hatred towards minority racial or religious groups.
For example, the Sedition Act prohibits any act or publication which has a seditious tendency, which includes promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races.[24] Similarly, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act allows for a restraining order to be made against a person who attempts to cause feelings of hatred or hostility between different religious groups.[25]
A recent example of the Sedition Act being used against deliberate online falsehoods is the recent prosecution of the editors of the now-defunct The Real Singapore blog. Ai Takagi and Yang Kaiheng were charged under the Sedition Act for publishing articles which promoted feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Singapore society. Just like the Macedonian teenagers who earnt staggering profits from creating false articles about the 2016 US Presidential election,[26] Takagi and Yang fabricated articles which sensationalized social fault lines for the purpose of boosting their advertising revenue from high internet traffic.
However, while holding the author of a deliberate falsehood is always a viable remedy, it is not necessarily practicable. First, many authors of such "fake news" are anonymous, and second, even if one could discover their identity, these falsehoods are sometimes developed outside the jurisdiction.[27] More importantly, the length of time and amount of resources necessary to bring a criminal prosecution often renders it a blunt tool at best for dealing with the real threat of deliberate online falsehoods. And it is to this consideration that we now turn.
The real mischief in deliberate online falsehoods lies in the ease of access and dissemination via internet intermediaries
Given that deliberate falsehoods have always been present, what is so dangerous and different about deliberate online falsehoods? We submit that the real mischief lies in the ease of access and dissemination of information online.
Support for this proposition can be found in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR"), the supranational court that ensures the compliance of contracting states parties to the European Convention of Human Rights. In the ECtHR Grand Chamber decision in Delfi AS v Estonia ("Delfi"),[28] the court found that holding an online news outlet liable for offensive comments posted by its readers did not violate the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In doing so, the ECtHR observed that the "ease, scope and speed of the dissemination of information on the Internet, and the persistence of the information once disclosed … may considerably aggravate the effects of unlawful speech on the Internet compared to traditional media".[29] The case of Delfi follows a line of ECtHR cases which have all recognized the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the internet.[30]
In other words, and to use an oft-misattributed quote, a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. The Internet simply gives the lie more of a head start. For example, during the lead-up to the 2016 US Presidential election, a rumour was spread that Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton and her chief of staff were running a paedophile ring out of a pizza restaurant. This "Pizzagate" Incident not only resulted in threats and demonstrations against the restaurant and its owners,[31] but also led a 28 year-old man to arrive at the restaurant with an AR-15 rifle to rescue the imaginary children.[32] What would have once been dismissed as an obvious hoax was given the cloak of legitimacy simply by virtue of "going viral" on social media.[33]
Closer to home, the longevity of the "NTUC Fairprice sells halal pork" rumour is testament to the longevity of a deliberate online falsehood. As explained by Member of Parliament Mr Seah Kian Peng, this false rumour first surfaced in 2007, but despite police reports and subsequent public announcements rebutting this claim, "halal pork" reappeared in 2011 and in 2014.[34]
Indeed, the danger of instantaneous dissemination to a virtually unlimited audience was recognized in Parliament. Member of Parliament Ms Rahayu Mahzam summed it up it best in the following extract from her speech:
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the deliberate spreading of falsehoods is not a novel phenomenon. For as long as human societies existed, there would always be incidence of rumours, untruths being spread in various media. Such falsehoods affect people, relationships, the way people see things, and ultimately, impacts on the society. Human societies have managed to cope and deal with such incidents and its consequences. However, with the advent of digital technology, the spread of falsehoods and its impact on communities have reached unprecedented levels. The spread of deliberate online falsehood is, therefore, of particular concern.
Firstly, the manner in which we receive and share information has changed significantly. There are now many more information systems and platforms which translates to more means and ways by which falsehoods can be spread. With the proliferation via social media, falsehoods spread much faster. We now have the concept of "going viral", a problem which we never had to deal with before. There is now instant communication – Twitter, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, Telegram – and with a click of a button, an individual could share information to many others almost immediately. On Facebook, an individual could share a post to 5,000 people. On a single WhatsApp group, you can have up to 256 members. Imagine the extent of the reach in numerous WhatsApp groups.[35]
We argue that this is the real danger posed by deliberate online falsehoods. The ease of dissemination afforded through the internet and social media platforms leads to a "crowding-out" of truth and fact. The propagation of deliberate online falsehoods devalue and delegitimize voices of expertise, authoritative institutions, and the concept of objective data, all of which undermines society's ability to engage in rational discourse based upon shared facts.[36] Furthermore, attempts to correct errors may be pointless, given the ease of reproducing these errors on another online platform.[37] Going back to the Pizzagate Incident, mainstream media articles that exposed the falsity of this rumour failed to have any discernible impact.[38]
In fact, this is why it has been argued that the "marketplace of ideas" is no defence to deliberate online falsehoods. The marketplace of ideas is the theory that in free and public discourse, all ideas should be available to the community – including false ones – because a restriction on speech of any kind might incidentally restrict the truth. It holds that without government interference, truth and falsity will compete in a marketplace, and truth will emerge victorious.[39]
However, the marketplace of ideas requires two implicit assumptions to function properly: first, that truth is in fact discoverable and able to be proven, and second, that participants in the marketplace are actually seeking to uncover the truth.[40] Both these assumptions do not appear to be applicable to deliberate online falsehoods. The sheer volume of information available online through a variety of sources, not all of which are credible or trustworthy, inhibits the discernment of truth.[41]
Similarly, people may filter and receive information from certain preferred sources only, precluding an engagement with competing views that may nonetheless provide the truth.[42] This is known as the "echo chamber" effect, where participants in online communities constantly have their own opinions echoed back to them, which reinforces their original (potentially false) beliefs.[43] Also, given the way social media algorithms work, it may be that it is simply impossible or unlikely for consumers of false information to be provided with alternative (true) information – for example, Facebook's algorithms are designed to populate users' news feeds with content similar to material previously "liked".[44] As such, people who get news primarily from social media may be less likely to receive information that would counter or expose a false story.[45]
Overall, it can be seen that the usual weapons for combatting false news – rebuttals via objective reporting which is publishing in mainstream media – are not effective in the context of deliberate online falsehoods. Setting up officially sanctioned fact-checking websites, while useful, may not be completely effective in tackling the main mischief posed by deliberate online falsehoods.
In addition, it is clear that there is a gap in the regulatory or legislative tools that can be used to combat the speed of dissemination of online falsehoods. The process of instituting a criminal prosecution takes time, in that a disclosed offence has to be investigated for sufficient evidence before the decision to bring charges is made.[46] By the time the alleged purveyor of deliberate falsehoods is charged in court, the falsehood could have incited acts of violence or other illegal behaviour. Indeed, in the ECtHR case of Delfi, the Grand Chamber agreed that the intermediary ought to have taken down hate speech "without delay" because of the threat that hate speech poses to society.[47]
Preventing and combat online falsehoods by imposing intermediary liability
How then, to combat and prevent the spread of deliberate online falsehoods? We submit that the solution is to restrict access to them – in other words, restrict them at the source, which in this day and age, is through internet intermediaries.[48] Such intermediaries include Google's search engine and Twitter's social network, so called because they mediate online communication and enable various forms of online expression.[49] Social media platforms are also regarded as intermediaries, as they connect individual content users by allowing them to exchange text, photos, videos, as well as by allowing them to post content to their network of contacts, or to the public at large.[50]
Internet-related misconduct is arguably more effectively regulated through the imposition of responsibility on intermediaries.[51] After all, intermediaries are best placed to ensure that the information disseminated through them meet certain minimum standards. Depending on the type of intermediary and the services offered, intermediaries control how their users communicate and with whom, and have access to information created by users as well as a range of information directly related to users.[52]
Hence, we submit that the most appropriate and effective way of combating deliberate falsehoods is to place liability on internet intermediaries. As the modern gatekeepers of information, intermediaries ought to assume a degree of responsibility for content that they host or publish.
However, even if it is accepted intermediary liability is the best way of combating deliberate online falsehoods, there are several ways in which it can be implemented, and not all may be suitable for Singapore's context. The next section will give a brief overview of the types of intermediary liability that may be imposed, before we conclude by evaluating and giving suggestions as to which model could be adopted by Singapore.
An analysis of overseas approaches to regulating intermediaries
It is commonly accepted that there are 3 models of regulating intermediaries: (i) broad immunity from liability; (ii) strict liability for third party content; and (iii) conditional immunity from liability, or "safe harbour".[53]
Under the first model, broad immunity from liability, intermediaries are generally exempt from liability for most third-party content because they are not considered as publishers. Instead, these intermediaries are treated as mere "messengers" who are not responsible for the content they disseminate, and are not required to monitor their platforms.
One of such example is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") in USA, which states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The CDA shields online intermediaries from most claims such as defamation and negligence, with the exception of matters of intellectual property infringement.[54] Additionally, intermediaries are not required to remove harmful content – they are only encouraged to do so in good faith under section 230(c). Under such a broad immunity framework, courts have found the intermediaries immune from liability, even where false information was transmitted. This was the case in unsurprising Gentry v eBay, Inc, and Goddard v Google. In fact, under this model it is rare for intermediaries to be found liable for unlawful content posted by third parties, even if the post contains obviously illegal materials such as explicit sexual content of minors.[55]
The next model is known as strict liability for third party content. On the other extreme from the broad immunity model, the strict liability approach holds intermediaries liable for third-party content as if they are the content creator, even though they might not be aware of the existence of the unlawful content and of its illegality. Such an approach does not differentiate between the publisher of original content and an intermediary.
An example of such strict liability imposed for third party content can be found in China. Under Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China,[56] an internet intermediary can bear either primary or joint liability for infringing acts. Internet intermediaries' liability depends on whether they directly infringed the interest of other individuals, or whether they chose inaction when they had knowledge of, or was notified of the presence of unlawful user content on their websites.[57] This section of the legislation is applicable for general claims against internet intermediaries beyond claims of intellectual property infringements.[58]
It appears that the Chinese courts have taken a liberal approach in considering whether internet intermediaries possess knowledge of unlawful user content both before and after the enactment of the Tort Liability Law.[59] This essentially makes internet intermediaries strictly liable for users' content.[60] This is seen in the Tianya decision predating the legislation,[61] where the internet intermediary was liable for a user's defamatory post, even if no notification was given to the internet intermediary. More recently, Sina.com faced sanctions for the mere presence of user generated pornographic material which were detected on its network.[62]
Thailand also broadly imposes liability on intermediaries for third party content under the 2007 Computer Crimes Act ("CCA").[63] While an individual may be punished for posting content that is likely to injure national security or a "false" publication online,[64] internet intermediaries that "intentionally" transmit or host such content are also made "liable to the same penalty" that the content creators face.[65] Without a safe harbour regime and precise definitions of unlawful speech, the CCA has been criticised for being inappropriately used to punish political dissent.[66] One such example is the case of Chiranuch Premchaiporn, where the executive director of Prachatai (an independent news website) was criminally convicted for being too slow in removing user comments that were deemed insulting to Thailand's monarchy.[67]
The third and final model is known as the conditional immunity from liability model, or "safe harbour" model. Under the "safe harbour" model, intermediaries receive protection against liability for user content only if they meet certain criteria, such as removing third-party content after certain conditions are met, such as upon receiving notice (also known as "notice and takedown") or a court order (also known as "notice and judicial takedown"). Such safe harbour regime has typically been found in legislation that pertains to copyright infringement claims, in countries such as the United States, Chile, Colombia, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore.[68] For example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States exempt liability only for intermediaries that "reasonably implement" a policy of terminating the accounts of repeated offenders.[69]
Specifically with regard to removing unlawful content, the EU E-Commerce Directive has established the criteria under which different categories of intermediaries can seek exemption from liability.[70] In order to benefit from limitation of liability, the intermediary has to "act expeditiously to remove or disable access to information upon obtaining actual knowledge of illegal activities". Going back to the ECtHR case of Delfi, the intermediary did have a "notice and takedown" system in place – any reader could mark a comment as inciting hatred, and the comment would be removed.[71] However, the intermediary in Delfi was held liability because it did not act expeditiously to remove hate speech, which was only removed some six weeks after the it was notified.[72]
A proposed model for regulating intermediaries in Singapore
Having considered the three models of intermediary liability above, we now evaluate each of them and consider their suitability for Singapore.
The broad immunity model is consistent with existing concerns regarding freedom of expression at international law. International human rights bodies have been hesitant in approving the imposition of intermediary liability, instead emphasizing that intermediaries should not be liable "for content produced by others when providing technical services"[73] and that "censorship measures should never be delegated to a private entity".[74] As the argument goes, without legal pressure, intermediaries will be able to preserve their ability to function as a platform for individuals to express freely. However, considering the increasing influence that these online intermediaries wield, it is only practical for them to shoulder some of the responsibility in ensuring that the online platforms remain conducive to facilitate expression. Furthermore, as the Green Paper more than amply illustrates, the consequences of allowing deliberate online falsehoods to spread unchecked are dire. The broad immunity model is therefore wholly inappropriate for Singapore.
The strict liability approach is also not appropriate, considering its practical implications. Such a model requires intermediaries to closely monitor user content and remove any publication that may potentially be unlawful, lest they face penalties for allowing its dissemination.[75] However, intermediaries themselves are typically ill-equipped to make judgments as to what amounts to objectionable material that requires to be taken down, due to a variety of reasons such as resource constraints, lack of oversight and accountability, or potential conflicts of interest.[76] By imposing an obligation to actively regulate their platforms, intermediaries will tend to err on the side of caution, resulting in excessive self-censorship that is detrimental to the freedom of expression. This precise concern was shared by the ECtHR in Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete v Hungary,[77] where it held that demanding an intermediary to filter comments instead of relying on a reporting mechanism for the removal of such objectionable material would "[require] excessive and impracticable forethought capable of undermining freedom of the right to impart information on the Internet".[78]
This leaves us with the "safe harbour" model. We submit that this model strikes the appropriate balance between protecting intermediaries from liability and defining their responsibilities with regard to hosting unlawful content on their platforms. More importantly, it addresses the current concerns pertaining to the dissemination of unlawful content on the Internet, while instituting safeguards to avoid excessive private censorship. As noted by Frank LaRue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression:[79]
When assessing the proportionality of a restriction on freedom of expression on the Internet, the impact of that restriction on the ability of the Internet to deliver positive freedom of expression outcomes must be weighed against its benefits in terms of protecting other interests.
By suitably allocating the burden of regulating online content on all parties involved – the intermediary, its users, and the state, the "safe harbour" model is best able to accommodate this tension between protecting the intermediaries' right to freedom of expression (as well as their users') and pursuing other citizen's rights or interests of the State.[80]
The main issue underlying this model, however, pertains to choosing between the "notice and takedown" regime and the "notice and judicial takedown" regime. To reiterate, under the former, intermediaries may not avail themselves of the safe harbour exception if they fail to remove unlawful content upon receiving user notice on their platform within a reasonable period of time. On the other hand, intermediaries will only be liable under the "notice and judicial takedown" regime for not removing a post if the notice is in the form of a judicial order, confirming that the content is unlawful.
The "notice and takedown" regime adopted by states such as Germany has been criticised for placing the intermediary in a quasi-judicial position.[81] This is because the intermediaries are forced to make a decision on whether to remove the reported post upon user notification, effectively having to evaluate the legality of reported post. However, intermediaries generally lack the capacity to determine legality, which is contextual and subjective.[82] Even if they can exercise such a task, such an obligation should not be imposed because evaluating each post would be expensive and time-consuming, incentivizing the intermediary to err on the side of caution and exercise excessive self-censorship instead.[83]
Additionally, practical experiences with the notice and takedown procedures have not been entirely satisfactorily. There is often a lack of due process e.g. the content creator is usually not given an opportunity to appeal or consider the complaint provided by the third party before the post is removed.[84] Such an obligation eventually results in a chilling effect on the freedom of expression.
It thus follows that the "notice and judicial takedown" regime is the more appropriate solution as the judicial body is best placed to determine legality of each post. However, there also exist practical concerns – such a takedown process may be too slow and cumbersome.[85] This is especially so given the large volumes of such reported content, which will require substantial amount of time for the courts to process such complaints. Further, considering the ability of the Internet to rapidly disseminate such content, the harm arising from the post would already have materialised before the issuance of a judicial order.
Considering the pros and cons surrounding the two different regimes, it is suggested that both approaches should be combined. In instances where a post is clearly unlawful, the intermediary should expeditiously remove the post upon gaining knowledge of its existence through user complaints, without having to rely on a judicial order. On the other hand, when a post fails to fall neatly within established categories of unlawful content, the intermediary should still be entitled to wait for a judicial order to inform itself of the appropriate measure to take.
It also bears mentioning that such categories of unlawful content should be limited to specific circumstances. After all, expanding the scope of restrictions comes with the risk of undermining the right to freedom of expression. While Singapore ultimately should develop its own unique restrictions that fits within its autochthonous legal system, guidance on establishing the prohibited categories can be gleaned from the United Nations. In particular, the report by the UN Special Rapporteur has set out the four categories of content that are prohibited under international law: (1) child pornography; (2) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (3) advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; and (4) incitement to terrorism.[86]
On a final note, in the event that requiring notice in the form of a court order is not an appropriate solution due to resource considerations, the burden of regulating unlawful posts can also be shifted to existing regulatory bodies. Such a solution has also been proposed by Professor Warren Chik, such that the Info-Communications Media Development Authority ("IMDA") should share the responsibility of dealing with deliberate online falsehoods.[87] This would not present substantial additional burdens, given that the IMDA presently supervises the removal of websites that host content that is in breach of the guidelines under the Broadcasting Act. Furthermore, as it appears that the existing categories set out by the guidelines[88] can be extended to capture deliberate falsehoods, this task of regulating deliberate falsehoods can be undertaken by the same authority.
As can be seen from the above discussion, the scourge of deliberate online falsehoods is not new. Rather, the true mischief posed by deliberate online falsehoods is the ease of access and dissemination to a virtually unlimited audience. Falsehoods which would have ordinarily died out on their own for want of an audience can now be sustained almost indefinitely so long as someone, somewhere, spreads it via an internet intermediary.
Because of this, the solution to deliberate online falsehoods should be targeted and calibrated to address the true mischief, and no more than that. There is no need to enact some sort of "deliberate online falsehood act", which would risk duplicating existing legislation. Rather, the key to combatting and preventing deliberate online falsehoods is to require intermediaries accept the responsibility of policing the information disseminated through them. Still, intermediaries should only be required to do what is reasonable in the circumstances, and not be saddled with overly onerous obligations. Adopting the "safe harbour" conditional liability model with the takedown framework as suggested above would strike the appropriate balancing between the various competing rights.
In closing, we hope that our written representations have contributed to the ongoing discussion regarding the vexed question of "fake news". There is consensus that this is a problem, but less agreement about how best to solve it. It is therefore highly laudable that Singapore is attempting to canvass all possible views before deciding on the appropriate course of action.
For the Select Committee's consideration please.
[1] (Green Paper, Misc 10 of 2018, 5 January 2018) at paras 14–50.
[2] Id, at para 78.
[3] Barrick Gold Corp. v Lopehandia [2004] CanLII 12938 [28]–[31]; See also Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56 [80]; Potts, Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the 21st Century? (Irwin Law Inc, 2011) 29.
[4] Ivan Teo, "Take care not to stifle genuine discourse", (Straits Times Forum, 15 January 2018) <www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/take-care-not-to-stifle-genuine-discourse> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[5] Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (10 January 2018) vol 94 at p 45 (Ms Sun Xueling, Pasir Ris-Punggol); p 50 (Mr Kok Heng Leun, Nominated Member); and p 68 (Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, Nominated Member).
[6] Supra n 1, at para 50.
[7] Supra n 5, at p 50 (Mr Kok Heng Leun, Nominated Member).
[8] Damian Tambini, Fake News, Public Policy Responses (Media Policy Brief 20, London School of Economics and Political Science, Media Policy Project, 2017).
[10] Thio Li-ann, A Treatise on Singapore Constitutional Law (Academy Publishing, 2012) ("Thio's Treatise") at para 14.037.
[11] Schenck v United States 249 US 47 (1919) at 52 (Holmes J).
[12] UNHRC, 'Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and "Fake News", Disinformation and Propaganda' (3 March 2017) FOM GAL/3/17 ("2017 Joint Declaration").
[13] Id, at preamble.
[15] Supra n 1, at para 15.
[16] Annie Hundley, "Fake News and the First Amendment: How False Political Speech Kills the Marketplace of Ideas" (2017) 92 Tul L Rev 497 ("Hundley") at 499; A. Roger Ekirch, "Echoes from the Presidential Election of 1800" (HUFFINGTON POST, June 7, 2017) <www.huffingtonpost.com/a-roger-ekirch/echoes-from-the-president_b_10326026.html> (accessed 26 February 2018); Katie Reilly, "Lin-Manuel Miranda: 2016 Race 'No More Bizarre' Than Election of 1800" (TIME, 1 June 2016) <http://time.com/4353996/hamilton-lin-manuelmiranda- 2016-election/> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[17] A term used by The Rt Hon Theresa May MP, PM Speech to the Lord Mayors Banquet 2017, GOV.UK (Nov 13 2017), <www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-the-lord-mayors-banquet-2017>.
[18] Barbaras Starmans, Ten Examples of Fake News from History, The Social Historian <http://www.thesocialhistorian.com/fake-news/>.
[19] Hunt Allcot & Matthew Gentzkow, "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election" (2017) 31:2 Journal of Economic Perspectives 211 ("Allcot & Gentzkow") at 214.
[20] The Public Domain Review, "Yellow Journalism: The 'Fake News' of the 19th Century <https://publicdomainreview.org/collections/yellow-journalism-the-fake-news-of-the-19th-century/> (accessed 26 February 2018); Alexandra Samuel, "To fix fake news, look to yellow journalism" (JSTOR Daily, 29 November 2016) <https://daily.jstor.org/to-fix-fake-news-look-to-yellow-journalism/> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[21] Bruce McComiskey, Post-Truth Rhetoric and Composition (Utah State University Press, 2017) ("McComiskey") at p 13.
[22] Supra n 5, at p 73 (Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Nee Soon).
[23] Id, at p 61 (Mr Seah Kian Ping, Marine Parade).
[24] Sedition Act (Cap 290, 2013 Rev Ed), ss 3 and 4.
[25] Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A, 2001 Rev Ed), ss 8 and 9.
[26] Supra n 1, at paras 17 and 56.
[27] Lee Royster, "Fake News: Political Solutions to the Online Epidemic" (2017) 96 NCL Rev 270 at 285.
[28] Delfi AS v Estonia App no 40287/98 (ECtHR, 16 June 2015) ("Delfi").
[29] Delfi, id, at [147].
[30] See also Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v Ukraine App no 33014/05 (ECtHR, 5 August 2011) at [63] and Mosley v UK App no 48009/08 (ECtHR, 15 September 2011) at [130].
[31] See supra n 1, at para 20, describing the event more commonly known as "Pizzagate".
[32] Cathleen Decker and Michael Memoli, "Online conspiracy theory turns into a real danger after armed man shows up at a Washington pizza parlour" (LA Times, 5 December 2016) < http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-comet-conspiracy-theory-20161205-story.html> (accessed 3 March 2018).
[33] See McComiskey, supra n 21, at pp 15–16.
[34] Supra n 5, at p 61 (Mr Seah Kian Ping, Marine Parade).
[35] Id, at p 47 (Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Jurong).
[36] Sandra Bacon & Rebecca Crootof, "Fighting Fake News: Workshop Report" <https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/fighting_fake_news_-_workshop_report.pdf> (accessed 26 February 2018>.
[37] Thio's Treatise, supra n 10, at para 14.042.
[38] Cecilia Kang and Adam Goldman, "In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought Real Guns" (The New York Times, 5 December 2016) <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html> (accessed 3 March 2018).
[39] Hundley, supra n 16, 502.
[40] Hundley, id, at 502–503.
[41] Thio's Treatise, supra n 10, at paras 14.039 and 14.042.
[44] See McComiskey, supra n 21, at 19.
[45] Allcot & Gentzkow, supra n 19, at 221.
[46] See Lucien Wong SC, "Prosecution in the Public Interest", Singapore Law Review Lecture 2017 at paras 7–9.
[47] Delfi, supra n 28, at [159].
[48] Electronic Frontier Foundation, "The Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability Background Paper" (EFF, 22 March 2015) <www.eff.org/sites/default/files/manila-principles-background-paper-0.99.pdf> ("Manila Principles Background Paper") (accessed 26 February 2018) p 2.
[49] Rebecca MacKinnon, Elonnai Hickok, Allon Bar, and Hae-in Lim, "Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries" (UNESCO, 2014) <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002311/231162e.pdf> ("Fostering Freedom Online") (accessed 26 February 2018) p 15.
[50] Fostering Freedom Online, id, p 22.
[51] Ronald Mann and Seth Belzley, 'The Promise of Internet Liability' (2005) 47 William & Mary Law Review 239, 265; Aleksandra Kuczerawy, 'The Power of Positive Thinking: Intermediary Liability and the Effective Enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression' (2017) 8 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law 266, para 7; Lilian Edwards, 'Role and Responsibility of Internet Intermediaries in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights' (WIPO, 2010) <http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/role_and_responsibility_of_the_internet_intermedi aries_final.pdf> (accessed 21 January 2018), 26.
[52] Fostering Freedom Online, supra n 49, p 23.
[53] Center for Democracy and Technology, "Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation" (2012) <https://cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf> ("Shielding the Messengers") (accessed 26 February 2018) pp 4–12; Article 19, "Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability" (2013) <www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf> ("Dilemma of Liability") (accessed 26 February 2018) p 7; Manila Principles Background Paper, supra n 48, pp 12–15.
[55] Doe v. America Online, 783 So. 2d 1010, 1013-1017 (Fl. 2001); Doe v. MySpace, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008).
[56] Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China was adopted by the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People's Congress on 26 December 2009, and came into force on 1 July 2010, art 36.
[58] Qian Tao, "Legal Framework of Online Intermediaries' Liability in China" (2012) 14 Info: The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media 59, 61, 64.
[61] Zhang Fu vs Tianya Online Network Technology Co, Ltd, People's Court of Taojiang County, Hunan Province.
[62] Glyn Moody, "China's Internet Giant Sina.com Loses Publication License for Publishing Pornography – Articles and Four Videos" (Techdirt, 30 April 2014) <www.techdirt.com/articles/20140425/09451027029/chinas-internet-giant-sinacom-loses-publication-license- publishing-pornography-20-articles-four-videos.shtml> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[63] Computer Crimes Act (No. 2) 2017.
[64] 2007 Computer Crimes Act s 14(1).
[65] 2007 Computer Crimes Act, id, s 15; Shielding the Messengers, supra n 53, p 14.
[66] Shielding the Messengers, supra n 53, p 14.
[67] Sean W. Crispin, "Internet Freedom on Trial in Thailand" (CPJ Blog, 4 February 2011) <http://cpj.org/blog/2011/02/internet-freedom-on-trial-in-thailand.php> (accessed 26 February 2016) p 7; Centre for Democracy and Technology, "CDT Objects to Conviction of Thai Webmaster as Threat to Free Expression" (May 30, 2012) <https://cdt.org/press/cdt-objects-to-conviction-of-thai-webmaster-as-threat-to-free-expression> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[68] Shielding the Messengers, supra n 53, p 7.
[69] (Public Law 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860) Section 512(i).
[70] Council Directive (EC) 2000/31/EC on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market [2000] OJ L178/1.
[71] Delfi, supra n 28, at [13].
[72] Delfi, id, at [17] – [19].
[73] Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, "2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet" (1 June 2011) <www.osce.org/fom/78309?download=true> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[74] United Nations Human Rights Council, "UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression" (16 May 2011) Doc A/HRC/17/27 para 43.
[75] Shielding the Messengers, supra n 53, p 15; Manila Principles Background Paper, supra n 48, p 18.
[76] United Nations General Assembly, "2016 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression" (11 May 2016) Doc A/HRC/32/38 para 44.
[77] Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete v Hungary App no 22947/13 (ECtHR, 2 February 2016) ("MTE").
[78] MTE, id, at [82].
[80] An example of such competing rights to freedom of expression includes the right to private life as enshrined under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is usually relevant in defamation cases. The State may also prosecute speech in the interest of protecting national security or public order. Such public order concerns are also recognised as legitimate aims that a state can pursue under Article 19(3)(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[81] Article 19, "Germany: The Act to Improve Enforcement of the Law in Social Networks" (Article 19, August 2017) <https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/170901-Legal-Analysis-German-NetzDG-Act.pdf> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[82] Dilemma of Liability, p 14; Scarlet Extended SA v SABAM C–70/10 (CJEU, 24 November 2011) paras 49–53; SABAM v Netlog NV C–360/10 (CJEU, 16 February 2012) paras 47–51.
[83] Fostering Freedom Online, supra n 49, p 52; Manila Principles Background Paper, supra n 48, p 17.
[84] Article 19, "Response to EU consultation on the E-Commerce Directive" (Article 19, November 2010) <https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/submissions/response-to-eu-consultation.pdf> (accessed 26 February 2018); Manila Principles Background Paper, supra n 48, pp 3, 11.
[86] UNHRC, "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression" (16 May 2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 para 25–32.
[87] Warren B. Chik, "Fact or Fake News The "Role of Law" for Data Accuracy" (Singapore Law Gazette, June 2017) <http://v1.lawgazette.com.sg/2017-06/1879.htm> (accessed 26 February 2018).
[88] Infocomm Media Development Authority, "Internet Code of Practice" <https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/regulation-licensing-and-consultations/codes-of-practice-and-guidelines/acts-codes/19-policiesandcontentguidelinesinternetinternecodeofpractice.pdf?la=en> (accessed 26 February 2018).
Authors: Sui Yi Song, LLB (Singapore Management University), Advocate and Solicitor (Supreme Court Singapore), Lyndon Choo Hao Ren, then-student at Singapore Management University School of Law (graduated 2018), Chen Lixin, student at Singapore Management University School of Law (Class of 2019) and Aaron Yoong Joon Wei, student at Singapore Management University School of Law (Class of 2019). This article was originally published on 4 September 2017 at SMU Lexicon.
This article does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion on any matter discussed and, accordingly, it should not be relied upon. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the law and practice in this area. If you require any advice or information, please speak to practicing lawyer in your jurisdiction. No individual who is a member, partner, shareholder or consultant of, in or to any constituent part of Interstellar Group Pte. Ltd. accepts or assumes responsibility, or has any liability, to any person in respect of this article. Singapore Management University has no responsibility or liability to any person in respect of this article.
Aaron Yoong
Aaron is a final year undergraduate in law at the Singapore Management University, with an interest in the law of torts and public international law. He is an active contributor to legal discourse, having published in forums such as the Tort Law Review, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, and was invited to tender submissions before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. Aaron also represents SMU as a mooter, reaching the finals of several domestic and international moots. He will be graduating from SMU in 2019.
Commentary: Trade Marks in Singapore SGHC 18 ]
Varying Spousal Maintenance Orders in Singapore
SMU Lexicon: Assistance in Public Lotteries: The A...
The burning question – the effect of Far East Squa...
Singapore Mediation Centre Appoints New Executive ...
Tags smu lexicon Written Representation
Lawyer Feature: Aurill Kam from Legal Clinic LLC
香港: 如亲生父母在生但失踪且不打算履行父母责任,祖父母(或外祖父母)可获委任为监护人吗?
Get legal advice from experienced Lawyers on the phone in under 48 hours for just S$49 View lawyers and check out now

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The SA Sheep Expo is a new event offering young people a platform to develop a better understanding of the sheep industry, the opportunities it offers and to encourage the next generation to engage at a grassroots level within the industry.
Inspired by the highly successful SA Junior Heifer Expo, the SA Sheep Expo will provide an education forum for young sheep enthusiasts aged 12 to 23 years and enable them to build their knowledge and identify pathways to further careers in areas of the sheep industry.
of developing the future of our livestock industry.
© Copyright SA Sheep Expo | Website design and developed by Bizboost.


Through the period of our studies, we have found five distinct houses which originally carried the Gorše surname in Hrast. This is the first of the five houses (in order of house address).
1A. Johan Gorše b. 1786, m. ca. 1815 to Barbara Mravinec — they remained at this house.
1B. Marko Gorše b. 1801, died at the age of 63. At this time, it is unknown if he was ever married or had children.
2A. Johan Gorše b. 1816, died at the age of 20. At this time, it is unknown if he was ever married or had children.
2B. Jakob Gorše b. 1819, m. ca. 1853 to Barbara Flajnik (Hrast 41) — they remained at this house.
2C. Nikolaj Gorše b. 1821, married to Helena Flajnik (Janšanova) — they lived at Hrast 41.
2D. Štefan Gorše b. 1824. At this time, it is unknown what happened to him afterwards.
2E. Miha Gorše b. 1827, died at the age of 23. At this time, it is unknown if he was ever married or had children.
2F. Marko Gorše b. 1830, died at the age of 44. At this time, it is unknown if he was ever married or had children.
2G. Ana Gorše b. 1833. At this time, it is unknown what happened to her afterwards.
3A. Ana Gorše b. 1856, m. 1882 to Jurij Barič (Baričev from Stara Lipa) — they lived at Hrast 35.
3B. Johan Gorše b. 1859, m. 1884 to Marija Trempus (Ogulin 4) — they remained at this house.
3C. Matija Gorše b. 1861. At this time, it is unknown what happened to him afterwards.
3D. Peter Gorše b. 1864, m. 1890 to a woman from Belčji Vrh 23.
3E. Marija Gorše b. 1867, m. 1918 to Nikolaj Flajnik (Bartolov) — they lived at Hrast 37.
Jakob Gorše [2B] m. 1874 to his second wife Barbara Pavlešič (Gornja Ivančeva from Perudina). They did not have any children.
4A. Katarina Gorše b. 1888, m. 1905 to Franc Flajnik (Kraljev).
4B. Jurij Gorše b. 1889, died at the age of 25 in Jagodnji, Serbia. At this time, it is unknown if he was ever married or had children.
4C. Jože Gorše b. 1892. At this time, it is unknown what happened to him afterwards.
4D. Peter Gorše b. 1893, m. 1920 to Marija Frankovič (Hrast 21) — they remained at this house.
4E. Franc Gorše b. 1895. He fought during World War I but never returned from the US afterwards.
4F. Marija Gorše b. 1897. At this time, it is unknown what happened to her afterwards.
Johan Gorše [3B] m. 1915 to his second wife Ana Pavlešič (Blažetičeva) but never had any children with her.
Peter Gorše [4D] and his wife Marija Frankovič had 5 children.


Sometime we have confusion on the position of demigods. We also observe that Vaishnavas, especially Gaudiya vaishnavas, do not worship demigods whereas the spiritual master and acharya are worshiped thrice a day! Is it mere sentimentalism or is there a solid philosophy behind it. Srimad Bhagavatam answers this question in the below verse, as to whose shelter devotees should seek, and it's very instructive purport on the position of demigods.
A sincere disciple should learn to dissociate the mind from everything material and positively cultivate association with his spiritual master and other saintly devotees. He should be merciful to those in an inferior position to him, cultivate friendship with those on an equal level and meekly serve those in a higher spiritual position. Thus he should learn to deal properly with all living beings.
Śrīla Madhvācārya has quoted from the Garuḍa Purāṇa to demonstrate that within this universe those who take birth as demigods, great ṛṣis or pious human beings are all considered santaḥ, or saintly persons. According to Bhagavad-gītā, traiguṇya-viṣayā vedāḥ: the varṇāśrama culture described in Vedic literature deals mostly with the living entities who are struggling within the three modes of nature. The Vedic literatures teach such conditioned souls that material happiness can be achieved only through pious works. In this sense, the demigods are to be considered the most pious living entities within the three modes of material nature. The ṛṣis, or the great saintly mystics of the universe, who are able to travel at will to various planets and who cultivate mystic powers, are to be considered somewhat below the demigods. And those human beings on earth who perfectly execute the Vedic rituals are to be considered in the third or lowest category of santaḥ, or saintly persons.
"One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down in any circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman." Thus Lord Krishna clearly says that a Vaiṣṇava who does not fall down from the regulations of bhakti-yoga is beyond the three modes of nature. And Lord Krishna advised Arjuna, a Krishna-bhakta, to transcend the three material qualities of the illusory creation of māyā (nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna).
"There is no being existing, either here or among the demigods in the higher planetary systems, who is free from the three modes of material nature." Thus the demigods are not exempt from the pollution of the three modes of material nature, whereas a pure devotee actually becomes guṇātīta, or transcendental to the influence of māyā.
One cannot be liberated without association with a pure devotee of the Lord.


Simmer all together a few minutes, adding the wine after it is strained. A few spoonfuls of the gravy from the game may be added to it. This sauce is especially nice with venison.
Attributed to Taber House, Denver.


Born on 14 August 1934 in Arles, France.
In his childhood he learned to play the violin.
In 1949 he took up photography.
In 1953 he met Pablo Picasso and for the next year and a half kept sending him his photographs and listening to Picasso's advise. Their friendship lasted until the artist's death.
In 1968 he founded, together with his friend Michel Tournier, the Rencontres d'Arles photography festival, which is held annually in July.
In 2003 he became a knight of the Légion d'honneur.
In 2007 he was the first photographer to be elected to the French Academy of Fine Arts. Clergue has contributed to hundreds of group and solo exhibitions in Europe and America.
Many art books and monographs have dealt with his works.
Clergue's works are in numerous significant museum and private collections the world over.


Robinson EC., Jbabdi S., Andersson J., Smith S., Glasser MF., Van Essen DC., Burgess G., Harms MP., Barch DM., Barch DM.
Group neuroimaging studies of the cerebral cortex benefit from accurate, surface-based, cross-subject alignment for investigating brain architecture, function and connectivity. There is an increasing amount of high quality data available. However, establishing how different modalities correlate across groups remains an open research question. One reason for this is that the current methods for registration, based on cortical folding, provide sub-optimal alignment of some functional subregions of the brain. A more flexible framework is needed that will allow robust alignment of multiple modalities. We adapt the Fast Primal-Dual (Fast-PD) approach for discrete Markov Random Field (MRF) optimisation to spherical registration by reframing the deformation labels as a discrete set of rotations and propose a novel regularisation term, derived from the geodesic distance between rotation matrices. This formulation allows significant flexibility in the choice of similarity metric. To this end we propose a new multivariate cost function based on the discretisation of a graph-based mutual information measure. Results are presented for alignment driven by scalar metrics of curvature and myelination, and multivariate features derived from functional task performance. These experiments demonstrate the potential of this approach for improving the integration of complementary brain data sets in the future.