text:
Succession planning in family business: start early
Date posted: March 8, 2017
Handing a family business to the next generation is a major process, from selecting and developing the successors, to protecting the brand reputation and retaining knowledge – but the effort is crucial to develop a sustainable organisation for years to come.
Succession planning may be one of the most challenging experiences facing any leader, especially an entrepreneurial business person who has built a family business from scratch, so it is crucial to get right. A good succession plan can be the first step in maintaining the strength of an enterprise and the family's prosperity for generations to come.
Discussing how a family business should continue beyond the career, or even the life, of the founder can be difficult, as it often crosses business and personal spheres. However, Dominic Pelligana, Partner, KPMG Enterprise, says breaking the issue down into small projects can help.
"The goal is to have an orderly transfer of management, control, ownership and equity from one generation of the family to the next, whilst acting in the best interests of the business and the family," he says.
Know what the business needs
Many family business owners assume succession planning centres on who will run the business when they step down, but a broader perspective is necessary. The founder, and his/her board or advisors need to consider where the business is in its lifecycle and what kind of leader or leaders it needs to progress.
"The founder needs to consider which aspect of the business they seek to handover and by when. Is it management, control or ownership? Who will be the owner, the leader and the managers?" Pelligana says.
Family members may assume they are in line to take on a leadership position, but it is important to educate them that business needs must be met with the right skills and perspectives. This requires balancing what the business needs with the aspirations of the family members.
"This can start by educating the next generation that we want the 'best people' for the roles in the business. If the family members wish to be considered for management, how do we work together to develop them so they can be considered?" Pelligana says.
Protect your brand
Many family businesses are built around a personal brand, and are often named after the founder. Pelligana says when preparing to hand over, it is important to retain the brand's essence and also consider how it can be modernised.
"Think about the business's identity and brand, and how it impacts the business model itself. If Mum or Dad aren't around, the suppliers are going to be scratching their heads if no plan is in place."
He recommends that the nominated future leaders enter the business long before succession actually takes place. Successors can start building rapport with clients and important stakeholders.
"Everyone may know the founder, but you need to start thinking about what happens to key relationships, and who will manage them if the founder is not there."
This process shouldn't be rushed, says Pelligana. It can take place over 5 or 10 years, or longer.
"It might be that the founder moves from a CEO position to a Chair position. Stagger that process so it's not a sudden shock. It could also be a process of having sons and daughters become Directors over time, and they're held accountable for different parts of the business."
Keep the bank involved
When planning for the future, family enterprises must decide who will be in charge from a financial perspective, as many banks consider the individual behind a family business to be a critical factor when making decisions on current and future funding.
"When the first generation builds the business, they use a lot of leverage because it's only concerning them. But as the next generation enters, the bank may still be backing the founder, not the business. So you need to give them the confidence that there is strength in the business to back."
Retain legacy knowledge
Succession doesn't just concern leadership and finances, but knowledge. Significant information will have been gained by the founder through trial and error over the years. Pelligana says in the lead up to hand over, that knowledge should be documented and communicated through the business as it can become a competitive advantage.
"The family can build up an intuition as to what works and what doesn't," he says.
Document the plan
Finally, when a succession plan is implemented, it must be explicitly articulated and formally documented, Pelligana says, even amongst family.
"A common mistake is that many founders do not break these aspects down and think they can express these instructions in a Will. Not only is this ineffective, it can lead to confusion and disputes. This cannot act in the best interests of the family or business."


text:
Publications > Recent Court Rumblings about a Narrow Scope of IPR Estoppel
Recent Court Rumblings about a Narrow Scope of IPR Estoppel
By Mitchell S. Feller
This article was originally published in IPWatchdog blog.
An Inter Partes Review (IPR) is an important tool for companies that face frequent patent infringement challenges. An IPR is essentially a mini-litigation focusing solely on patent validity conducted before a panel of administrative patent judges sitting on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Once an IPR is initiated, a decision on validity is issued within one year. The narrow focus, fast timing, and lower cost of an IPR, along with certain legal advantages that make proving invalidity easier in an IPR than in a district court, make it an attractive alternative to district court litigation when good invalidity arguments are available. Indeed, if an IPR is initiated early in the course of a patent litigation, the district court will typically stay the litigation while the IPR proceeds, reasoning that if the patent is invalidated the case is over and if the patent survives, the invalidity issues are significantly narrowed.
The idea that invalidity issues raised in an IPR should not be allowed to be raised again in a district court is one of the justifications behind IPR being treated as ways to simplify patent litigation. This estoppel provision is set forth in US patent law 35 USC § 315(e)(2) which states that a petitioner who brings an IPR cannot raise invalidity arguments in district court "that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review." The scope of this limitation has been subject to considerable debate.
To bring an IPR, a petition is filed in the PTAB that sets out various grounds for invalidity. The petition is limited in length and a petitioner must carefully decide which prior art references to address. After considering any response filed by the patent owner, the PTAB decides whether or not there is a basis to initiate the IPR proceedings and which of the presented grounds of invalidity to address. Often, the PTAB will decide to address only some of the invalidity arguments presented in the IPR, considering others redundant or not persuasive. If the case does not settle, a final decision will ultimately be issued holding that none, some, or all of the challenged claims are invalid. The question then is which invalidity arguments are still available to the petitioner to raise in an invalidity challenge in district court. (IPR proceedings can consider only invalidity arguments based on anticipation or obviousness in view printed publications such as patents and articles. Other grounds of invalidity, such as indefiniteness or lack of patentable subject matter, cannot be addressed in an IPR and so these grounds of invalidity are free to be raised later in the district court.)
Last year, in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., the Federal Circuit ruled that the estoppel clause only applied to the invalidity references on which the IPR was actually instituted, and did not extend to grounds that were presented to the PTAB but not part of the grounds for institution. The Court's reasoning was that the statute used the phrase "during" the IPR and that this period of time only started after the IPR was actually instituted. Since the petition itself preceded the start of the IPR, the petitioner's arguments at that point were not during the IPR and so not subject to estoppel.
This is a very narrow view of IPR estoppel. Since this decision, several district courts have expressly pointed out that while it may be textually correct, it is inconsistent with the idea that a party who chooses to bring an IPR should not be able to get a second bite at the apple if the IPR is unsuccessful.
A clear stand against the Shaw decision was made recently in a decision from the Western District of Wisconsin, Douglas Dynamics v. Meyer Products. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58773 (W.D.Wisc., April 18, 2017). In that case, the defendant was sued for patent infringement and then sought an IPR to invalidate the patent. The IPR was initiated but only on some of the grounds presented. The patent survived and the parties returned to the district court arguing about which invalidity grounds the defendant could still raise. The district court judge expressed deep skepticism about the correctness of the Shaw decision, explaining that limiting estoppel only to the grounds on which IPR was instituted undermined a major justification for IPRs and was inconsistent with the legislative history of the law. The court also argued that from a practical view, Shaw meant that staying a district court case in view of an IPR would not simplify things if the patent survived because the defendant could simply assert alternate but similar grounds for invalidity in the court after the stay was lifted and these alternatives were often easily found. The court acknowledged that it was bound by the ruling in Shaw for invalidity arguments presented in the IPR petition. Signaling its strong disagreement, however, the court pushed back, arguing that while Shaw said that there is no estoppel for asserted invalidity grounds not relied on by the PTAB, the situation in Shaw did not involve unasserted grounds for invalidity. The court then applied estoppel where it could, holding that the defendant could not argue invalidity on grounds "not asserted in the IPR petition, so long as they are based on prior art that could have been found by a skilled searcher's diligent search." In other words, if the defendant knew or could reasonably have known about a reference and did not raise it in the IPR, it could not then raise it in the litigation in an invalidity argument.
The same conflicting policy issues have been addressed in other district court cases but where the opposite outcome was reached. In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp, Judge Robinson in the Delaware district court recognized the tension between the purpose of the IPR estoppel provision and its literal language but still sided on very limited estoppel. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174699 (D.Del. Dec 16, 2016). The judge explained that "[a]lthough extending [Shaw] to prior art references that were never presented to the PTAB at all (despite their public nature) confounds the very purpose of this parallel administrative proceeding, the court cannot divine a reasoned way around the Federal Circuit's interpretation in Shaw." In a motion for reconsideration, the judge maintained the ruling of no estoppel but expressed hope that an appeal would clarify things.
While one other Federal Circuit panel has agreed with Shaw, so far the Federal Circuit has not considered IPR estoppel for unasserted references. This issue will be addressed on appeal soon in one case or another. Given the reasoning in Shaw, it is likely that the Federal Circuit will extend the case and rule that estoppel also does not apply to unasserted but known or reasonably found prior art. However, there is no guarantee that a different panel (or eventual en banc decision) would go the same way. In addition to the grumbling of various district courts since Shaw, Judge Reyna in his concurrence in the Shaw decision, believed that the question of estoppel should not have even been addressed in Shaw. He also signaled that broader estoppel should apply, noting that that "[t]he effects of estoppel are profound" and suggesting that estoppel should be based on the nature of the arguments raised and considered in the IPR, and not simply be inapplicable to prior art documents considered redundant and so not considered (especially where, as in that case, the PTAB did not explain why the references were redundant).
The upshot for parties bringing an IPR is that narrow estoppel is still law but the law is still unsettled and the Federal Circuit's position on estoppel could shift dramatically in the future. As with many other legal issues in litigation, when considering estoppel from IPR, a petitioner should hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Saving lives with naloxone: Recommendations for policy and practice
A.Farrugia@latrobe.edu.au / February 25, 2021
The term 'take-home naloxone' refers to a variety of life-saving initiatives in which a medication (naloxone) is made available to non-medically trained people for administration to others experiencing an opioid overdose. Despite a range of efforts to expand these initiatives over the last decade, the uptake of take-home naloxone in Australia remains inconsistent.
This month the DruGS team launched the final report of an Australian Research Council-funded qualitative study investigating impediments to the uptake of take-home naloxone in Australia. Between 2017-2019, interviews were conducted with people who consume opioids in NSW and Victoria, some of whom had experience of using take-home naloxone, as well as relevant health professionals. These interviews gathered insights on perspectives on and experiences of naloxone, and broader issues shaping the uptake and diffusion of take-home naloxone in Australia. The report emphasises that, while participants across all groups viewed take-home naloxone as necessary and effective, it needs to be supported by broader social, institutional and legal shifts. In addition, initiatives are urgently needed to de-stigmatise opioid overdose.
The seminar, report and recommendations will be of interest to researchers and professionals working in policy, health and consumer advocacy, as well as opioid consumers and individuals with lived experience of overdose and related issues.
The event also introduced the audience to another key output from the research, Overdoselifesavers.org, Australia's first dedicated website presenting carefully researched personal stories of opioid overdose and the use of take-home naloxone to save lives. The website seeks to look beyond the statistics to recognise that behind each death from overdose was a human life that had its own story and remains connected to the lives and stories of others.
Lead investigator Professor Suzanne Fraser explains that one of the key aims of Overdoselifesavers.org, and the team's research on take-home naloxone more generally, is to highlight the life-saving actions of the participants:
Most members of the community don't realise that some people who consume drugs have saved lives. We hope Overdoselifesavers.org informs professionals and the public about overdose and how to respond, and in the process goes some way to highlighting these brave actions, and helping people feel more comfortable getting naloxone and using it.
The seminar was also an opportunity for the DruGS team to officially release a collection of Overdoselifesavers.org resources. As project coordinator Dr Adrian Farrugia explained, alongside the website the project produced keyrings with backing cards summarising the steps for responding to opioid overdose, and USB drives containing the final report and recommendations for future overdose policy and practice. Importantly, these resources are available at no cost and audience members were encouraged to email Adrian to place an order (a.farrugia@latrobe.edu.au).
A recording of the full seminar is available online.
Professor Suzanne Fraser is Director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, and Visiting Professorial Fellow at the Centre for Social Research in Health at the University of New South Wales. Her research focuses on alcohol and other drug consumption, the body, gender, health and the self.
Dr Adrian Farrugia is a Research Fellow in the Drugs, Gender and Sexuality program at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. His research specialisations include understandings of addiction and health, opioid overdose and take-home naloxone, and youth drug consumption and drug education.
Professor Paul Dietze is Director of the Program of Behaviours and Heath Risks at the Burnet Institute and Head of the National Drug Research Institute's Melbourne office. His research focuses on patterns of alcohol and other drug use and related harms, including opioid overdose and responses.
Nyssa Ferguson is a PhD candidate at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. Her research examines the provision of take-home naloxone and overdose prevention training in Victoria.
Jane Dicka is Drug Overdose Peer Educator, Harm Reduction Victoria, Victoria, Australia. She is an expert advisory panel member and consumer representative on this project. This research was funded by the Australian Research Council and undertaken by researchers from La Trobe University's Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society in collaboration with researchers from the Burnet Institute and King's College, London.
This research was funded by the Australian Research Council and undertaken by researchers from La Trobe University's Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society in collaboration with researchers from the Burnet Institute and King's College, London.
February 25, 2021 in News. Tags: launch, naloxone, overdose, Recommendations, Seminar, Take home naloxone
Take-home naloxone crucial but broader changes needed too: findings from ARC project
New study: Take-home naloxone in Australia
Overdose response resources available free: order now
← Update: Telehealth for hepatitis C treatment
Australian alcohol policy, gender and 'alcohol-related violence': New articles →


As the 1510s passed, More became increasingly involved in public life. He was a member of various deputations to the King's Council, regarding trade matters, and took part in negotiations with the merchants of the Steelyard (the trading centre of the north European Hanseatic League in London). He also had a position as Commissioner of Sewers, covering the south bank of the Thames between Lambeth and Greenwich.
Within his Inn, by 1515, More was a Reader (that is, he gave lectures each week during term time). His subject was legal French – the hybrid of Latin and Norman French in which law was partially conducted. At around the same time, he also became a member of Doctors' Commons, a group which dealt largely with canon law and maritime affairs.
During this period, More had involvement with the cause célèbre of the early sixteenth century, that of Richard Hunne. This case exposed the increasing anti-clericalism that was building up in London, and the clumsy efforts of senior Church leaders to control it. The case has been argued from all points over the centuries, but the facts are as follows.
In 1511, Richard Hunne, a successful and wealthy tailor in London, lost a son, Stephen, at the age of five weeks. It was customary for the priest burying a young child to be given the christening robe as a 'mortuary' gift. Whilst, financially, this would probably have been unimportant to Hunne, for many parents it was a considerable cost.
Hunne refused to hand over the robe to the priest, Thomas Dryffield. A year later, Bishop Richard Fitzjames of London decided that Hunne was in the wrong, but the tailor would not budge. He was excommunicated by the parish priest against whom he retaliated with a charge of 'praemunire'. The Statute of Praemunire had been enacted in 1393. Under its provisions, appeal to the Papal courts was severely limited, to ecclesiastical matters that could not be heard in England.
The Church authorities counter-charged with an accusation of heresy against Hunne, who was imprisoned in the Lollard's Tower in St Paul's cathedral. On the morning of 4th December 1514, he was found hanging in his cell, and it was announced that he had killed himself.
The explanation of suicide was not accepted and a Coroner's inquest found that he had been murdered. The Bishop of London's Chancellor, Dr Horsey, and two others, were indicted but never came to court. They claimed 'benefit of clergy' and perforce the secular authorities released them to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Warham, who took them out of harm's way.
Hunne was posthumously declared a heretic, at a court which More attended, although without any involvement in the prosecution, and his body was burnt at Smithfield. This was a violation of the spirit of the law – heretics could only be burnt if they were 'obdurate' in their heresy. As Hunne was dead, he had had no opportunity to recant after being condemned.
The public outcry was so great that the Parliament of 1512 sought the abolition of the ancient benefit of clergy. Their argument was made by Dr Standish, who, although a friar, argued that murderers should be subject to the King's court.
More remained firmly of the opinion that Hunne had indeed hanged himself, and that the Bishop of London and his servants were blameless. For a detailed look at the evidence, see Marius' biography of More – it is difficult to conclude anything from the arguments therein but that Hunne was murdered, although, of course, we cannot take from that that More was lying when he gave his opinion on the matter. He may have just been putting the best possible interpretation on the facts that he could.
More took a more personal role in another famous legal case of the time – the dispute between the Duke of Suffolk and a company of London-based Florentine merchants, who were acting for the Pope. The Papal States owned one of the most valuable properties in Europe – the alunite mines in Tolfa. Alunite can be used to produce the dye-fixative, alum and the produce of the mines were an important source of papal income, as the product was sold to the weaving industries of northern Europe.
In 1514, a shipment of it landed in Southampton for sale and distribution in London. Before it could reach its intended recipient - the Pope's factor, Signor Cavalcanti - it had been seized by the Duke of Suffolk. It is not apparent whether this was simple theft on Suffolk's part, or an attempt to enforce the customs restrictions that Henry had waived in an agreement with various Florentine merchants in return for support for the war of 1512. A third party entered the fray, in shape of the City of London authorities, who resented the fact that foreign merchants were permitted to trade amongst themselves without paying customs.
More was originally appointed by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, to act as translator for the Pope's envoy (called an 'Orator') Cardinal Carafa, who was in London, to take part in peace negotiations following the 1512-1514 war with France. It does not appear that More was involved in the actual pleadings when Cavalcanti sued Suffolk in the Court of Star Chamber, but he put forward a suggestion for a compromise that Archbishop Warham, who was presiding, encouraged the parties to accept.


Where has January gone? It disappeared in a few flurries of snow that sprinkled the city white and pretty and were swept away in a wink. It was devoured by raclettes and tagines, spicy lentil soups, and the best chocolate brownies.
And so, suddenly, hello February. Today you are my favorite month. After a couple of unnaturally warm days the cold is back, which is as it should be.
It seems I wouldn't make a very good Texan, because I prefer slaw without mayonnaise, This isn't to say that I don't like slaw with mayonnaise, I love coleslaw in general, even the limp overdressed versions of average diners. But, given the choice, I prefer a citrus-y, Asian-inflected variant. This miso ginger dressing is adapted from the beautiful blog 101 Cookbooks. I added fresh grated ginger, lime juice, and reduced the sweetness for something more assertive.
Slice all the vegetables very thinly, using a food processor, a mandolin, or a very sharp knife.
Mix together the grated ginger, miso paste, mustard, and honey until they are all well combined into a smooth paste.
Add the lime juice and rice vinegar, stir well, and finally the olive oil.
This entry was posted on 1 February 2013 at 14:17 and is filed under Basic, Easy, Salad, Vegetarian, Winter, Winter salad.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Looks delicious, would be great with some finely sliced Brussels sprouts tossed in there! I bet this is a crunchy delight!
Thanks, Stacey. Yes, this salad can be modified in many different crunchy, wintery ways!
Best thing about February? I can see spring on the horizon. What a wonderful looking salad!
Yes! But … there's nothing like a few really cold weeks to thoroughly look forward to spring! Thanks, Michelle.
Looks fantastic! What a great dressing for winter greens.
Thanks, Daisy. This dressing really nails it, I love it!


I'm about to open fire on my gallbladder, not with surgery, scalpel, or a bear claw, but with lemon juice, Epsom salts, Apple Juice, Olive Oil, a straw, and good old-fashioned layman health information.
You know how it is, you eat Chinese food, and you feel the burn. Or wings and a beer. Orange chicken. Doughnuts. French fries. Might as well list it: grease.
I'm looking forward, actually to all of the volumes of apple juice I need to drink to soften the stones. And I'm actually thinking of maybe a photo of the stones that pass. I hear that can be in the " hundreds". Yikes?
So, fellow mehighbors, has anyone else done a liver flush?
@Aznatural1 can only edit/delete for about 5 minutes after you post.
@Aznatural1 …and it's here forever now, thank you for sharing.


Had a bit of fun with Honey La Bronx last month choreographing for a parody of En Vogue's FREE YOUR MIND for the Miss Sobriety Contest! I had a blast channeling my 90's rock goddess and working with dancers Mayu Shirai (from the Boiler Room Shoot), Mio Oyama (aka MiYonce) and Sammi Tai a fellow dancer who I'd bumped into at an audition recently. I was so floored by Honey La Bronx, costume changes and organizing this great event that helped support others that had gone through tough times, to use art as a therapy through their challenges.
I was so lucky to be a part of the opening set for Roy Ayers Summerstage performance at Marcus Garvey Park in Harlem. Dancing to the classic soul, funk and disco tunes with DJ Natasha Diggs, Operator Emz and Magic Mike we were responsible for getting the crowd pumped and going for the return of living legend Roy Ayers!
Always always a huge thank you to Princess Lockerooo, without which I would not have such opportunities! Also Rebecca Lynn from Mobile Mondays. I had a blast with all the Waackers, we turned up in full force looking fly as heck!
It was a surreal moment witnessing Roy Ayers & his band perform "Everybody Loves The Sunshine" LIVE...so many of his songs are sampled in some of the greatest Hip Hop tracks, I was just in awe of how incredible it all felt...magic right there in Harlem.
I had an amazing night performing with Jody Watley and Princess Lockerooo at the 29th Night of A Thousand Gowns benefiting LGBT community and HIV/AIDS at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square. She sang her newest hit Nightlife along with her classic songs! It was such an honor to be onstage with the iconic pop diva herself.
I was so nervous, but Jody was so chill and the performance was the most incredible experience, right from how very sweet and encouraging she was, to DEBBIE HARRY introducing us onstage! As luck would have it, this epic moment where I'm backstage sandwiched between two of the most influential women in pop culture and not have anyone to capture it! A THOUSAND thank yous to Princess Lockerooo for making this happen and I'm honored to share the stage with such strong, amazing women.
I'm in a basement jaxx video!!!
I was cast via video submission thanks to Mary John Frank to be in Basement Jaxx's "Rock This Road" video, featuring new artist Shakka. Sending glorious dance energy to the heavens via these crazy space guns!!! It's a blink and miss me kinda deal, but I'm in red pants and black and white love heart top!


Great to read about he picture returning to where it belongs. Query though how long before our Labour government decide to sell it to improve the fiscal situation.
Hampton Court has some of the best gardens I've ever seen. Also, a really enjoyable tour of the Palace.
Some years ago there was a television documentary on the restoration of one of the small sunken formal gardens.
That's exactly how I remember it. We've been there in May and June and the gardens were just magnificent. They even held up being viewed the day after going to the Chelsea Flower show.
Quite a magnificent position and have flashy. Gardens, too, I think. At the time I was wondering who was the host.
In addition to the sunken garden there were long deep perennial borders in several other spots. Is my memory failing me, or is Hampton Court not home of The Vyne?
I wish that royal events could be held at Hampton Court. It is a very beautiful and majestic building with so much more history(a much older history than Buckingham Palace).
All I can remember is some event being held in 1995 in relation to CP Pavlos's wedding to then Marie-Chantal Miller(CPss Pavlos(Marie-Chantal)of Greece.
I am also glad that portrait of Pss Mary was returned to Hampton Court where it belongs. I hope it stays there and never leaves Hampton Court nor the country ever.
I believe CP Pavlos and MC Miller had their wedding reception at Hampton Court Palace. They decorated it with a regal Greek theme. There are some photos of members of the bridal party in one of the courtyards. I've read that even non-blue bloods can hold receptions there. I'd imagine it's quite expensive. I've also heard companies can rent out space for their functions, but I'm not sure about that.
Twenty-first century technology is enabling visitors to Hampton Court to view one of Henry VIII's tapestries in its "dazzling" original colours.
Courtesy of Royal palaces-Hampton Court Palace Official website.
"Courtesy of Oxford Archaelogy: exploring the human journey."
Hopefully, there shall be photos inside the chapel, the Great Hall, other inside areas of Hampton Court Palace and also in the various gardens.
Courtesy of The Bishop of London's official website.
"The Bishop of London-Richard John Carew Chartres."
It's a very historic chapel as well. Henry VIII married Catherine Parr his last wife there married on 12 July 1543 and his son Edward VI was baptised in the Chapel on 15 October 1537. I visited Hampton Court 4 years ago and I remarked at the time to the people I was with that I was surprised the Royals didn't use it more for weddings as unlike some of the other chapels within the Royal Palaces it is actually quite big and very beautiful, like a smaller version of St. Georges at Windsor in many ways.
Wedding packages available to ordinary people at HC only seem to offer the use of some peripheral parts of the palace and not rooms within the main body of the building which were used by Prince Pavlos. The Chapel Royal is also not available for use.
Where dose Hampton Court Palace get its name why not just Hampton Palace also didnt the Tsars sister live there????
Not according to the website, its also not been lived in since the 18th Century, by Royals I mean.
I think it became Hampton Court Palace when King Henry took and interest. Before it was just Hampton Court.
The Grand Duchess Xenia did not live in the Palace proper, but she did live at Wilderness House, a 'grace & favour' residence, which is in the grounds of Hampton Court.


From stories about having no control over data to out of control costs, there are many myths in circulation about cloud computing and AWS. Whether you're a professional working in the cloud or a business considering cloud migration, you'll want to be able to distinguish the myths from the realities. Today, we'll separate the fact from fiction in some of the most common myths in the world of Amazon Web Services.
It's a common misconception that AWS was born as a byproduct of a massive Amazon.com infrastructure. The story goes something like this: To support its growth, Amazon.com developed an infrastructure that was more than enough to meet its needs. To be able to make the most of their resources, Jeff Bezos and his team decided to rent the free space, and the rest is history.
Is it true? Well, not exactly. It's true that Amazon.com needed an infrastructure that they could rely on, but the rest of the story is a myth. The infrastructure of Amazon Web Services was actually built intentionally, as a cloud service, from scratch.
Back in 2003, Benjamin Black was head of the engineering team at Amazon.com, and he was tasked with finding a way to efficiently scale up Amazon's infrastructure. The trouble was that IT wasn't keeping up with the company's rapid growth. Black was working closely with his manager, Chris Pinkham, and together they decided to explore how abstraction and decoupling applications from the infrastructure could make it easier to manage. They supposed that such an approach would not only benefit Amazon but also other web services that were having the same problems. They realized that they could sell infrastructure as a product. After meeting with Jeff Bezos, who approved the project, Black and Pinkham pulled together a team that developed Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2), one of the first AWS products, released in 2006.
While the idea that such a massively successful business could be created by "accident" and without much planning, the reality conveys the opposite message: You can't build your business without a clear plan for what you're doing and where you're headed.
Let's look at some of the other common myths for Amazon Web Services.
Have you calculated your on-premise setup costs? Don't forget to add loses from not being able to handle high traffic or costs from maintaining massive infrastructure when you have little traffic on your website.
When you're using the cloud, you can avoid such unnecessary expenses and pay only for the resources you are actually using. AWS applies a pay-as-you-go billing model. If your business scales up, you will pay for additional computing resources that are always available. On the other hand, in the next month, if your business is a bit slow and you consume fewer resources, your bill will be lower.
This type of system means that you don't have the huge up-front costs and investments that you would when building your own infrastructure. It also means that there are no additional costs other than for the services that you actually use. When comparing these two figures, you will realize that you are actually saving money when using the cloud, and that it doesn't cost you a fortune.
Not true. Yes, there are cloud storage providers such as Box, Dropbox, Microsoft Onedrive, or Google Drive, but we're not talking about such services today. What we're referring to are IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) cloud systems from providers like AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. You can use them all for all kinds of things.
For example, Amazon Web Services is used by thousands of business, government, educational, and other organizations to host their websites, build different types of apps, harness and analyze big data, organize research projects, and perform all kinds of other activities, including information storage.
Cloud computing is much more than data storage, and it's good to know that you can take advantage of the benefits of such a system at any time.
It's a common belief that cloud servers are in control of the service vendor and that there is not much that you can do about it. Your control is reduced to some basic setup while the "higher power" does everything else.
But, that's actually not how things work. With a cloud setup, you actually have full control over your data in real time. By using simple monitoring mechanisms, you can find out everything you need to know about your instances. For example, you can see who launched the instance, from where, how long it's been running, as well as what applications are running on that particular instance and which data was used.
No, you don't have to migrate all of your data to the cloud at once. That would be madness! Instead, every sensitive and massive task migration to the cloud should be carefully planned and executed in several phases. All you have to do is to establish the rhythm that best fits your team, and let them do the job.
We could rephrase this myth as "who knows who else has access to my cloud data?" The fear of intrusion and data spying is inevitable, and it's one of the biggest obstacles when someone considers using a cloud infrastructure. However, such claims and fears are completely unnecessary. Do you think that Netflix, NASA, Capital One, and Airbnb would be willing to put their entire business at risk if just anyone could gain access to their data stored in AWS?
When your data is stored in the cloud, you have the absolute power to decide who can have access to your setup. You are the one who determines who will have access, as well as the level of permission. Technicians who are working as AWS network admins don't have access to your instances, and even when they are troubleshooting, they are quite limited in their access. Knowing that, you can rest assured that you're the only boss of your cloud universe.
Again, not true. There is only one boss when it comes to your cloud setup, and that is you. This also means that you have full control over the destination of your data.
AWS has server centers all over the world. You can choose the data center that you will be using when making the initial setup. If you decide to use a data center in Ireland, your data will be placed there, unless you move it. No one else will be able to do that.
Introducing a new technology to a team isn't always easy, but it's certainly not impossible. Just like any other novelty, accepting cloud technology may not be immediate. But, as with any new technology, there will surely be a few enthusiasts and early adopters in your team who will advocate and support the change.
Are you sure that your setup has a higher level of security than the cloud? Think again. Safety is a top priority of AWS and other cloud vendors that are doing their best to make sure that the data on their servers stay secure and safe from any illegal cyber activities.
IaaS infrastructure is designed to be "bulletproof" and resistant to common web security issues such as SQL injections, XSS, CSRF, etc. An army of engineers is working to improve the security of your cloud-stored data on a daily basis. They are all creating a flexible, automated, and secure computing environment for you to use.
Now, compare an extensive and carefully built system that is finely tuned for 10+ years to your local on-premise setup. Even if you have the best and the most talented team, it is very likely that they might not be up to speed with the latest security updates or overlook something that could cause a problem sooner or later.
Another common misconception is that cloud services don't have certification capacity and that they are off limits for companies that require specific standards and certificates. You would be surprised to hear that most of them are certified at an even higher level than you need.
You can use AWS Certificate Manager and get any certificate you need for your business. You can use this service to meet compliance requirements, minimize downtime of your services, and improve your search rankings. In addition to the standard SSL/TSL certificates, you may require specific certificates. For example, AWS has a program for government institutions, and it even complies with the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) standard. This is useful to know if you're working with law enforcement agencies and have clients who require compliance.
AWS is a highly scalable system. It can support large and demanding systems such as Amazon.com, Netflix, or banking systems, and it also can be used for small businesses and startups. Did you know that AWS has a startup program called AWS Activate? With this program, your small business can leverage services whenever necessary, and while you're still small, your costs will be minimal.
Some of the world's hottest startups have used AWS Activate to grow. Did you know that Slack, Airbnb, and Pinterest all started on AWS? You can start here as well and grow your business from scratch, just as they did.
As the famous MythBusters would say, "Busted!" Now that we've revealed the truth behind some of the most common myths related to AWS, it will be easier for you to become an AWS pro, or at least sound like one.


text:
Think Globally, Reform Locally
When Philip Claiborne Gooch traveled to Paris in the late 1840s to study medicine, he likely did not expect that he would ever sit on the throne of King Louis Philippe. Yet soon after his arrival, French citizens rose up against their government. Subsequent uprisings occurred in the German and Italian states and in Hungary, spurred partly by crop failures and poor economic conditions. The last was led by Louis Kossuth, who became 1848's most famous revolutionary. In Paris, the king was deposed, and Gooch helped storm the Tuileries Palace. Although his fellow Americans did not share his experience, many shared his ardor. Back home, populations followed the revolutions' developments and honored their leaders by rechristening locales such as Kossuth County, Iowa; Lamartine, Arkansas; and Garibaldi, Oregon. Men grew Kossuth-esque beards. Americans learned the polka, a dance said to reject European high culture. And when Francis Bowen wrote critically of the Hungarians in theNorth American Review, his stridency cost him a professorship at Harvard.
In Distant Revolutions: 1848 and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism, Timothy Mason Roberts explores the reasons why Americans' reactions to these "distant" conflicts were so fervent. A few observers like Bowen saw them with some objectivity. But like other foreign conflicts, Americans viewed the events of 1848 thorough the lens of their own concerns, imbuing them with great importance.
Timothy Mason Roberts, Distant Revolutions: 1848 and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. 272 pp., cloth, $40.00.
In 1848, for example, many Americans likened the uprisings to their own revolution. Most were unfamiliar with Eastern Europe, and the revolutions—several in number, and each with its own dynamics—made comprehension still more difficult to attain. But as Roberts explains, Americans sought "analogies in American history to help them understand overseas events" (7). Parallels were imperfect; one could not shoehorn 1848 into 1776 without distorting European developments. (Americans' romanticized perception of their own revolution added yet another wrinkle.) But schoolchildren learned that Kossuth was akin to George Washington, and Italians imitated the Boston Tea Party when they boycotted Austrian tobacco. Suggestions that the revolutionaries were following America's script magnified the conflicts' importance in American eyes, because they became indicators of the United States' global impact. It is difficult to overstate contemporary belief in this connection. When he visited the U.S., Kossuth was presented with a lock of Washington's hair and bullets from the Battle of Bunker Hill.
The uprisings revived the debate as to what the U.S. role should be in such cases: Should America serve solely as a model republic for others to emulate, or should it involve itself directly in their struggles? The debate was as old as the French Revolution, and there were ardent partisans on both sides. James Monroe had pledged in 1823 that the U.S. would remain apart from European quarrels, and in 1849 Zachary Taylor invoked Washington's warning against entangling alliances. Yet many, like James Buchanan, believed that Americans could not be "indifferent spectators to the progress of liberty" (23). Some U.S. officials recognized the new European governments before receiving permission to do so. This zeal led the Austrian minister to the U.S. to muse, Why do Americans concern themselves with Hungarian sovereignty, when their own nation has slavery?
The answer, of course, was that these inconsistent stances served their interests, and overwhelmingly, self-interest determined how Americans perceived and reacted to foreign events. For this reason, although Distant Revolutions addresses foreign-relations debates, its usefulness extends well beyond them. Some Americans, for example, saw the European struggles as advancing both republicanism and Protestant Christianity. TheMethodist Quarterly Review suggested that revolutions occurred in locations where the Protestant Reformation had stalled. At a time when Know-Nothings were suggesting that Catholics could not be good republicans, the Pope himself was forced out of Rome. Others saw an even greater significance. A writer for the Louisville Baptist Banner saw the revolutions as "but preparatory to the millennial reign of Christ" (110).
The uprisings influenced the intensity and character of American reform. Many reformers believed that their goals and accomplishments paled in comparison to the work of European revolutionaries and consequently changed their approaches. In the North Star, Frederick Douglass noted that France's new justice minister had addressed a nonwhite delegation as "Citizens, friends, brothers!" (86). Roberts makes a convincing case that the European revolutions emboldened American reformers and moved them to cooperate with each other by seeing themselves as part of a community of reform. The dry lobby began to push for complete abstinence from alcohol—rather than mere temperance—and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott added women's suffrage to their goals. Margaret Fuller, an ardent feminist, embraced abolition, and Douglass took time from his abolitionist activities to attend Stanton and Mott's convention in Seneca Falls.
Because Americans' reactions to the revolutions jibed with their self-interest, their support for the agitators' goals and policies was not constant. Many who applauded the advent of universal male suffrage in parts of Europe opposed France's establishment of "public works" for the unemployed of Paris. Although Horace Greeley cheered the latter effort, others decried the advance of socialism and warned that its spread to America would lead to interracial marriage. The notion that foreign trends could migrate to America—for good or ill—was prevalent. Slave owners tended to be more enthusiastic about Germany's and Hungary's rebellions than France's, in part because the former groups had no enslaved populations that they might emancipate. Overall, Southern support for the revolutionaries was fleeting. The instability that resulted from the revolutions was bad for the international cotton market, and many recoiled from reminders that challenges to authority could succeed, at least for a time.
Europe's revolutionaries failed to bring about peaceful political change. This result disappointed some Americans, but others saw it as underscoring just how remarkable their own revolution had been and, therefore, as proof of American exceptionalism. George Bancroft, who was penning his History of the United States,contrasted American serenity with European chaos. William Stiles, the U.S. chargé d'affaires in Austria at the time, concluded that Europeans were "unfit for the light of freedom" (36). Kossuth was the most celebrated foreign visitor to the U.S. since Lafayette, but as Roberts notes, his actual experience more closely paralleled that of Citizen Genêt. He drew large crowds, but Americans' enthusiasm cooled as he pressed for tangible support for his cause. In 1852 the nation elected Franklin Pierce, who opposed U.S. involvement in European wars.
Problems with Roberts' work are minor. The introduction is a bit overwhelming, as he outlines the numerous revolutions, but this is perhaps unavoidable. The title is somewhat misleading; to an extent, Americans did regard the Europeans' actions as challenging American exceptionalism, but this is only part of the story. Distant Revolutions' importance lies in its demonstration of how Americans absorbed—one could say "spun"—foreign events. If the revolutions went well, they demonstrated the U.S.'s growing influence. If they failed, the U.S. was exceptional. If France emancipated West Indian slaves, American emancipation became more likely. This looking-glass approach permeates the work.
Distant Revolutions is an important addition to the canon of antebellum-American history. For scholars of foreign relations, it demonstrates the depth and breadth of public interest in foreign events and the ways in which domestic concerns and culture shaped Americans' perceptions of the world. It also provides an interesting juxtaposition to the era's filibuster movements; as in those scenarios, many American officials found it difficult to remain neutral in thought, and sometimes in action. And the work reminds all historians of the era that American leaders often had foreign events in mind as they made decisions at home. For example, founders of the Republican Party saw the abolition of slavery as helping to make their nation a true "exemplar of liberal democracy" (185) and thus clearly distinguish it from European countries, in which aristocrats had prevented the founding of republics. Distant Revolutions is an intriguing work, well told and with an impressive use of sources. By demonstrating the degree to which domestic and foreign policies influenced each other, Roberts' work enhances understanding of both.
This article originally appeared in issue 10.2 (January, 2010).
Elizabeth Kelly Gray is an associate professor of history at Towson University. She is currently writing a book-length study of the use and abuse of opiates in nineteenth-century America.