text:
"; newfiller += "
" + ev_time + "
" + ev_loc + "
"; // newfiller += "
"; if (ev_descrip!="") { newfiller += "
" + ev_descrip + "
"; } if(is_ticket==1) { newfiller += "
"; } else { newfiller += "
Find out more about this event
"; } newfiller += "
"; $(this).html(newfiller); }); }); // ************** End of replace code // ************** Start of Event Open script function open_wide (aaa,foc) { var theEl = aaa.find('.ev-details-bottom'); if(foc==1) { theEl.addClass('ev-details-height'); aaa.find('.ev-details').addClass('ev-details-expand'); aaa.addClass('ev-opened'); } else { theEl.toggleClass('ev-details-height'); aaa.find('.ev-details').toggleClass('ev-details-expand'); aaa.toggleClass('ev-opened'); } if (theEl.hasClass('ev-details-height')) { var newheight = aaa.find('.ev-details-top').outerHeight(); theEl.find("div").each(function() { newheight+=$(this).outerHeight(); }); newheight+='px'; theEl.css('height',newheight); } else { theEl.css('height','0px'); } } $(document).ready(function() { //for clicks $('.ev-hldr-2').click( function(event) { open_wide($(this),0); }); //for tabbing $('.go-to-event').focus(function (a) { open_wide($(this).closest('.ev-hldr-2'),1); }); // stops above firing when link is clicked $('.go-to-event').click(function(e) { e.stopPropagation(); }); }); // **************** End of Event Open script
Articles Of Governance
Report and Support
Diversity & Support Groups
Take on a role
Diversity & Support
International Students (ISA)
Postgraduate Association (PGA)
Role Resources
The Tub
Flo's
National Union of Students (NUS)
Nothing in basket
Allocation of Funds, Audited Accounts and Affiliations
Meeting Minutes and Agendas
Our Strategy 2017-19
University-Student Partnership Statement
This page holds a web version of the formal Articles Of Governance document
Charitable Objects
Limitation On Private Benefits
Amendments To the Articles
Appointment Of Trustees
SU Officers
Independent Trustees
Disqualification Of Trustees
Resignation Of Trustees
Removal of Trustees
Replacement Of Trustees
Powers Of The Trustees
Delegation Of Trustees' Powers
Chair And Vice Chair Of Trustees
Secretary To The Board Of Trustees
Convening Meetings
Proceedings At Meetings
Minutes And Papers
Decisions Without A Meeting
If any dispute arises in relation to the interpretation of these Articles it shall be resolved by the Board of Trustees.
The name of the association is The University of Bath Students' Union. In these Articles it is called "The SU".
The objects of The SU are the advancement of education of Students at The University of Bath for the public benefit by:
promoting the interests and welfare of students at The University of Bath during their course of study and representing, supporting and advising members;
being the recognised representative channel between students and The University of Bath and any other external bodies; and
providing social, cultural, sporting and recreational activities and forums for discussion and debate for the personal development of its members.
The SU has the power to do anything permitted by the law to further its objects. In particular, The SU has the following powers:
to raise funds so long as The SU does not undertake any taxable permanent trading activity and complies with any relevant statutory regulations;
to buy, take on lease or in exchange, hire or otherwise acquire any property and to maintain and equip it for use;
to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of all or any part of the property belonging to The SU (subject to 117 and 122 of the Charities Act 2011);
to borrow money and to charge the whole or any part of the property belonging to The SU as security for repayment of the money borrowed or as security for a grant or the discharge of an obligation (subject to sections 124 - 126 of the Charities Act 2011);
to co-operate with other charities, voluntary bodies and statutory authorities and to exchange information and advice with them, subject to compliance with all applicable competition laws;
to establish or support any charitable trusts, associations or institutions formed for any of the charitable purposes included in the Objects, subject to compliance with all applicable competition laws;
to acquire, merge with or to enter into any partnership or joint venture arrangement with any other charity;
subject to prior approval of University Council, incorporate and transfer all its assets and liabilities to a charitable limited liability legal entity such as a company limited by guarantee or a charitable incorporated organisation;
to set aside income as a reserve against future expenditure but only in accordance with a written policy about reserves;
to employ and remunerate such staff as are necessary for carrying out the work of the charity;
to deposit or invest funds (subject to conditions permitted by the Trustee Act 2000);
arrange for the investments or other property of The SU to be held in the name of a nominee (subject to conditions permitted by the Trustee Act 2000);
to provide indemnity insurance for the trustees (subject to section 189 of the Charities Act 2011);
The income and property of The SU shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects and shall not be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend bonus or otherwise by way of profit to any Member of The SU.
Article 5 will not prevent a Member from:
benefiting in the capacity of a beneficiary of The SU;
receiving reasonable and proper remuneration for any goods or services supplied to the charity;
receiving rent for premises let to The SU at a reasonable and proper rate.
No Trustee or connected person may:
buy or receive any goods or services from the charity on terms preferential to those applicable to members of the public;
sell goods, services or any interest in land to the charity;
be employed by, or receive any payment from, the charity;
receive any other financial benefit from the charity.
Article 7 will not prevent a Trustee or connected person from:
benefiting from Trustee indemnity insurance cover purchased at the charity's expense (subject to section 189 of the Charities Act 2011);
being reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred while acting on the behalf of the charity;
benefiting in the capacity of a beneficiary of The SU provided that a majority of the trustees do not benefit in this way;
entering into a contract for the supply of services or goods to The SU (provided conditions set within section 185 of the Charities Act 2011 are met);
receiving interest on money lent to the charity at a reasonable and proper rate which must be not more than the Bank of England bank rate;
receiving rent for premises let to The SU at a reasonable and proper rate;
Article 7.3 will not prevent SU Officers from entering into a contract of employment with the University for the duration of their term of office.
If the decision is taken to dissolve The SU and any property or assets would remain after it has been dissolved and all debts and liabilities have been satisfied it shall be transferred to The University of Bath.
In the event that The University of Bath has ceased to exist, the Trustees may transfer it to any charity or charities with similar Objects to The SU.
In no circumstances shall any remaining property or assets of The SU be paid to or distributed among its members in the event that it is dissolved.
The Charity Commission must be notified if the decision is taken to dissolve The SU.
The Trustees and the University shall review the Articles of Governance at intervals of not more than five years, with effect from the date that these Articles of Governance come into effect.
No amendment of these Articles shall be made which would have the effect of The SU ceasing to be a charity.
Article 3, Articles 5-9 and Article 10 may not be amended without the prior written consent of the Charity Commission.
Any amendment to the Articles of Governance that would change the meaning of the Articles must be approved by the University Council (for compliance with the Education Act 1994) and a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority of at least five percent of the total Members of The SU voting by referendum.
Any minor amendments such as changes to terminology may be made by the Board of Trustees with the approval of the University Council. Members will be informed of such changes.
A copy of any resolution amending these Articles shall be sent to the Charity Commission within twenty one days of it being passed.
The Members of The SU shall be as follows:
each and every registered student who has not opted out; and
The SU Officers.
The Membership is terminated if the Member:
dies;
ceases to be a student;
ceases to be an SU Officer;
has their Membership removed;
gives written notice to the University Secretary and SU President of their wish not to be a Member.
Any student who has chosen not to be a Member may become one by giving written notice to the University Secretary and SU President.
Any Member shall be eligible;
to join any SU student group;
for election as a SU officer;
for appointment as a trustee;
for election/appointment to any committee or sub-committee of The SU;
to vote in any referendum or SU wide vote.
Members' details shall be kept in a register of Members.,/li
A Student Group may appoint for the academic year any person as an Associate Member to their group or remove them subject to the approval of the relevant Officer.
The Associate Membership is terminated if the Associate Member:
resigns their Associate Membership by giving written notice to The SU;
Associate Members shall be eligible to participate in such sporting, recreational and social activities as the Student Group that appointed them determine.
Associate Members cannot:
be elected as an Officer;
be elected/appointed to any committee or sub-committee of The SU and the University;
vote in any referendum or SU vote;
Associate Members' details shall be entered in a register of Associate Members.
The Board of Trustees reserves the right to remove or suspend any Associate Member from any Student Group if they believe there is good cause to do so.
A Referendum may be called on any issue by:
a resolution of the Trustees;
a Secure Petition signed by at least 2% of the total Members of The SU.
The Referendum will be conducted in accordance with the following;
Subject to Article 29.6, Members will be given seven days' notice that a Referendum has been called.
Up to the commencement of the voting the wording of the proposal may be varied or the proposal withdrawn subject to the consent of the proposer(s).
Subject to Article 29.6, Members will be given seven days to vote.
The results of the vote will be published within 24 hours of the vote closing.
A resolution may only be passed by Referendum if at least 5% of the total Members of The SU cast a vote in the Referendum and a majority of the votes cast are in favour.
Where the SU Officers so determine, on the ground that there are matters demanding an urgent decision, it will be sufficient if the notice of the Referendum states that fact and the notice is given and vote conducted within such shorter period as the SU Officers direct.
A decision passed by Referendum may not be reopened in any democratic forum of The SU for a period of not less than twelve months.
Any Referendum will be subject to the authority of the Board of Trustees where it may affect the management and administration of The SU.
A returning officer followed by deputy returning officer and acting returning officers shall be annually appointed by the Board of Trustees.
The returning officer, deputy returning officer and acting returning officers will be responsible for:
Ensuring that elections are conducted in accordance with Article 35.
Publishing specific details and dates for an election.
Publishing rules that candidates and Members must abide by to participate in an election.
Resolving any complaints or issues related to an election.
For the purposes of Article 60 the Board of Trustees should receive a report from the returning officer and deputy returning officer detailing how they exercised their delegated powers during an election.
Elections will be conducted in accordance with the following:
Notice will be given to all Members eligible to vote that an election has been called.
Up to the closing of nominations any Member eligible may stand for election.
Members will be given up to a maximum of seven days to vote by secret ballot.
The result of the SU Officer elections will be published within a week of its conclusion.
The Trustees shall be made up of the following persons:
not more than six SU Officers, elected in accordance with Article 37;
not more than seven Independent Trustees, appointed in accordance with Article 43;
Up to six SU Officers shall be elected by secret ballot by the Members of The SU at an election in accordance with Article 35.
Each SU Officer must be a Member at the time of their election and will remain a Member for the duration of their term of office.
Unless their election is terminated in accordance with Articles 46 to 50, SU Officers shall remain in office for a term of up to one year.
SU Officers may serve for a maximum of two terms which may be either consecutive or nonconsecutive.
The SU Officers shall be deemed to be the "major union office holders" for the purposes of the Education Act 1994.
Each SU Officer will enter into a contract of employment with the University for the duration of their term of office.
Up to seven Independent Trustees (at least one of whom must be a current student) shall be appointed or re-appointed by a simple majority vote of the Board of Trustees.
Unless their appointment is terminated in accordance with Articles 46 to 50, Independent Trustees shall remain in office for a term of up to three years from the date of their appointment.
Independent Trustees may serve for a maximum of two terms which may be either consecutive or non-consecutive.
A Trustee will be disqualified from continuing to hold office if:
they become prohibited by law from being a charity Trustee;
in the case of an SU Officer, they cease to be a Member or employee of the University of Bath;
they fail to attend two consecutive meetings of the Trustees without the permission of the Trustees.
A Trustee may at any time resign from the office of a Trustee by giving written notice to the Secretary to the Board of Trustees.
A Trustee may be removed from office by either the Board of Trustees or the Members of The SU.
A resolution to remove a Trustee by the Board of Trustees will only be passed if:
the matter has been specified as an item on the agenda for a meeting of the Trustees;
the Trustee concerned has been given 14 days' notice in writing that the resolution is to be proposed and specifying the circumstances alleged to justify removal from office;
the Trustee concerned has been given the opportunity to make a statement in response;
the resolution achieves a majority vote at a meeting of the Board of Trustees at which the Trustee concerned does not vote or count towards the quorum.
A resolution to remove a Trustee by the Members of The SU will only be passed by a two-thirds majority of at least 5% of the total Members of The SU voting by referendum.
A person who is removed as a Trustee under either Article 49 or 50 may appeal to the University Secretary if they believe that procedural irregularities have occurred during the process.
If an SU Officer resigns, is disqualified or removed from office at any time:
prior to the commencement of the Academic Year, the vacancy may be filled by a byelection.
after the commencement of the Academic Year the vacancy shall remain until the next elections are held.
. If an Independent Trustee resigns, is disqualified or removed from office, a replacement shall be appointed accordance with Article 43.
The Board of Trustees shall be responsible for the management and administration of The SU and (subject to the Education Act, Charities' Acts and these Articles) may exercise all powers of The SU at a meeting of the Trustees at which a quorum is present.
No alteration of these Articles shall invalidate any prior act of the Trustees which would have been valid if that alteration had not been made.
Subject to Article 59, the Board of Trustees may delegate any of its powers or functions to:
a committee;
any Trustee;
the Chief Executive or any staff member of The SU.
Where the Board of Trustees has delegated any powers or functions this does not prevent the Board of Trustees from exercising those powers or functions.
The Board of Trustees must annually review all powers and functions that have been delegated under Article 56 and may withdraw or amend them at any time.
The following powers or functions cannot be delegated under Article 56:
the appointment or removal of a Trustees in accordance with Articles 43 and 48;
the decision to dissolve The SU;
the decision to incorporate The SU in accordance with Article 4.8;
the approval of The SU budget;
the approval of the annual report to be submitted to Charity Commission.
Any individual or committee to whom a power or function of the Board of Trustees has been delegated to must report to the Board of Trustees in respect of any action taken or decision made with respect to the exercise of that power or function.
The Board of Trustees must determine the powers, functions and membership of any committee they decide to establish within a terms of reference and review them annually.
The quorum for any meeting of a committee must be recorded within the terms of reference.
A chair must be appointed annually to each committee or elected by the committee, as determined by the Board of Trustees, who must not be the Chief Executive of The SU.
The Board of Trustees must appoint a secretary to each committee established by it, who must not be the Chief Executive of The SU.
The secretary's responsibilities will be the same as those described in Article 81.
The Board of Trustees may remove the secretary or chair of any committee from office at any time.
A committee may establish its own sub-committees in the same way as the Board of Trustees as described in Articles 61 to 66.
The Chief Executive will be an employee of the University jointly appointed by the University and the Board of Trustees.
The Board of Trustees shall delegate the day to day management of The SU to the Chief Executive as detailed in their job description.
. The Chief Executive in carrying out their role will ensure;
that they manage The SU in line with the policy, strategy and budget approved and adopted by the Trustees;
that they regularly report to the Trustees on the activities undertaken in managing The SU and provide them with management accounts sufficient to explain the financial position of The SU.
The Chief Executive's objectives for the year will be agreed by the Chair, Vice-Chair and Chief Executive and performance against these objectives will be reviewed throughout the year and fed back to the University.
The Board of Trustees reserves the right to request the University to initiate capability or disciplinary procedures against the Chief Executive.
The President shall be the Chair of the Board of Trustees.
The Trustees shall elect one of their number to be Vice Chair for a length of time to be determined at the time of election.
The Trustees may at any time remove either the Chair or Vice Chair from these positions by a majority vote and elect another of their number in their place.
The Chair or, if the Chair is unreachable, Vice Chair shall have the power in the event of an emergency to carry out any function or power of the Board of Trustees (except for those listed under Article 59) provided that all of the following conditions are met:
not taking action immediately would be detrimental to The SU;
it is not possible to call a Board of Trustees meeting in the time available;
it is not possible for a decision to be taken by the Trustees in accordance with Article 98 in the time available.
Any use of emergency powers under Article 76 must be reported to the Board of Trustees as soon as possible and formally noted in the minutes of the next meeting.
The secretary to the Board of Trustees shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees.
The secretary cannot be a Trustee or the Chief Executive.
The Board of Trustees may remove the secretary from office at any time.
The secretary shall be responsible for:
convening meetings in accordance with Articles 82 to 87;
ensuring that proceedings are conducted in accordance with Articles 88 to 96;
preparing and making available minutes and papers in accordance with Articles 97 to 100.
The Board of Trustees must hold a minimum of four meetings in any Academic Year.
Any three Trustees may request a meeting by giving written notice to the secretary to the Board of Trustees, and the secretary must convene a meeting as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Meetings are to be convened by the secretary and in exercising this function the secretary must comply with any direction given by:
the Board of Trustees;
the chair, so far as such direction is not inconsistent with any direction given under Article 84.1.
Subject to Article 86, the secretary must give written notice of the meeting and a copy of the agenda for the meeting at least seven days in advance to all who are eligible to attend.
Where the chair so determines, on the ground that there are matters demanding urgent consideration, it will be sufficient if the written notice of the meeting states that fact and the notice and the copy of the agenda are given within such shorter period as the chair directs.
Guests or observers can attend meetings at the discretion of the chair.
The quorum for a meeting of the Board of Trustees and for any vote on any matter at such a meeting, is one half (rounded up to a whole number) of the membership of the Board of Trustees.
For the purposes of Article 88 the membership does not include vacant positions on the Board of Trustees.
The quorum for a meeting of a committee and for any vote on any matter at such a meeting will be determined within the committee's terms of reference.
Every question to be decided at a meeting is to be determined by a majority of the votes of those present and voting on the question.
Where there is an equal division of votes the chair, or as the case may be, the person who is acting as chair for the purposes of the meeting, will have a second or casting vote.
Guests or observers attending meetings do not count towards the quorum and are not entitled to vote on any matter being discussed at the meeting.
If a secretary or chair fails to attend a meeting, those present and voting may appoint any one of their number to act as a secretary or chair for the purposes of that meeting.
At the discretion of the chair, any item of business may be discussed at a meeting irrespective of whether the matter is specified as an item of business on the agenda for the meeting subject to the exception of Article 49.
Where a person does not receive written notice of a meeting but it can be proven that the notice was sent, the decisions made at that meeting in their absence will still be valid.
The secretary must ensure that minutes of the proceedings of a meeting are drawn up and signed (subject to the approval of Board of Trustees or relevant committee) by the chair at the next meeting.
Subject to Article 99, the secretary must, as soon as reasonably practicable, publish online for inspection by any interested Member, a copy of:
the agenda for every meeting;
the signed minutes of every such meeting;
and any report or other paper considered at such a meeting.
The Board of Trustees or a committee may exclude from any item required to be made available under Article 98 any matter that by reason of its nature they have determined should remain confidential.
For the purposes of Article 60 the Board of Trustees should receive the minutes of committee meetings. Committees should receive the minutes of any sub-committees they have established.
The Board of Trustees or a committee may take a decision without a meeting by indicating to each other by email that they share a majority view on a matter.
A decision which is made in accordance with Article 101 shall be as valid and effectual as if it had been passed at a meeting duly convened and held, provided the following conditions are complied with:
102.1.
approval from each Trustee or committee member must be received by the secretary;
following receipt of response from all, the secretary shall communicate to all by any means whether the decision has been formally approved in accordance with these Articles;
the date of the decision shall be the date of the communication from the secretary confirming formal approval;
Any such matter decided upon without a meeting must be brought to the next meeting for formal note and inclusion in the minutes.
Whenever a matter is to be discussed at a meeting or decided in accordance with Article 101 and a Trustee or committee member present has a conflict of interest (as defined in Article 105) in respect of that matter then they must:
declare their interest;
remain only for such part of the meeting as in the view of the others present is necessary to inform the debate;
not be counted in the quorum for that part of the meeting or decision-making process; and
withdraw during the vote and have no vote on the matter.
If any question arises as to whether a person has a conflict of interest, the question shall be decided by a majority decision of the others present and voting at the meeting.
A conflict of interest is defined as any situation in which a person's personal interests or loyalties could, or could be seen to, prevent the person from making a decision only in the best interests of the charity.
Reviewed: 12/03/2019
Next Review: 12/03/2024
thesu@bath.ac.uk
thesubath.com © 2019. All rights reserved.
Powered by MSL.
The University of Bath Students' Union is a registered charity (#1143154)


text:
Positive COVID-19 Test Result
Barnsley FC can confirm that one person has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus following a round of testing on Friday 5 June.
The single positive test is from an asymptomatic member of backroom staff who had tested negative in all four previous rounds.
The individual will now follow the relevant guidance and undergo a period of isolation whilst remaining in close communication with club personnel, before being re-tested at a later date.
Many have worked tirelessly to ensure that Oakwell remains a safe environment for players and staff alike. Barnsley FC will continue to follow EFL protocol and instruction.
The staff member is safe and upbeat. No further comment will be made.
EFL STATEMENT: CORONAVIRUS UPDATE
The EFL notes the difficult decision taken by the Government in respect of the implementation of a 'national lockdown' in England from Thursday 5 November 2020 in response to the rising cases of...
WHAT WE KNOW AHEAD OF THE 20/21 SEASON
With the 20/21 Sky Bet Championship season quickly approaching, you may have a few unanswered questions!
HOME FIXTURES REMAIN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
Following the UK Government's announcement that South Yorkshire are to remain under Tier 3 restrictions until further notice, all first team fixtures at Oakwell will continue to be played behind...
EFL AND MIND LAUNCH TEAM TALK
The EFL and its 72 Clubs have today launched 'Team Talk', in an effort to urge supporters to talk and stay connected throughout the Christmas and January period and keep the conversation around mental...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Tag Archives: Woodford Reserve
Woodford Reserve Master's Collection
February 23, 2012 Ben Shipleydays of prohibition, mint leaf, rare pleasure, smoked duck breast, sour mash, Woodford Reserve Leave a comment
It is a rare pleasure indeed to be asked to come along and sample a fine whiskey, expertly crafted and finished for effect by a distiller that has spent his life learning how the grain of the wood interplays with a spirit of the grain.
It is something else entirely to be asked to saunter through three such drops, but that is exactly what I was lucky enough to enjoy, three weeks hence, when Dan Woolley and Stuart Reeves hosted a food paired tasting of four of the Woodford Reserve Master's Collection Bourbons. After the not so simple pleasure of a measure of the "standard" bottling of the Woodford Reserve, matched with a sliver of peach, wrapped in smoked duck breast and garnished with a mint leaf, we were off faster than a horse that has been feeding on bluegrass.
First out of the gate was the Sweet Mash.
Almost all of what is available in Australia in the bourbon segment is produced using a technique known as Sour Mash. Essentially, ingredients are introduced to the mash (the ferment of grain) from a prior distillation. In a sweet mash, this step is missed out, resulting in a higher pH ferment that delivers a much sweeter taste and finish, carrying a lot of maple and fruit. This distillation is claimed to be the first sweet mash production of any real scale since the heady days of Prohibition. Certainly a bottle to track down and try in some pre-prohibition cocktails then. Paired with a date and orange nougat it is a delicious way to wind day into night.
Coming round the bend Maple Wood swept up the outside.
Aged in barrels made from previously unusable sugar maple wood staves that are imbued with a sap that contains as much as 3% sugar. The resulting whiskey is not so much about pancakes as treacle, sea salt ginger and leather. Probably my favourite of the night. Om Nom Nom.
Obliterating everything on the home straight, the Seasoned Oak has what can only be described as a mighty finish.
One of the rarities of the Woodford Distillery is that it has its own cooperage. This facility to make new barrels gives a huge amount of creative scope to the distiller, and this, perhaps the most robust bourbon in existance, is a grand example of that. In making a barrel, the planks, or staves, that are used to form the barrel are left outside, exposed to the elements and allowed to develop a wider range of flavours, also reducing the overall tannins as well. The Seasoned Oak uses staves that have been left out for longer than any before it, the industry average is around three to five months, these are left out for three to five years. It leaves a big result, a big mouthfeel whiskey that will satisfy even the most ardent fan. Partnered with pork and duck liver terrine it was an experience that left me trampled underfoot.
These bottles are, unfortunately, extremely difficult to find. Being vintage releases of a limited run, you should snap them up if you come across one and feel free to whack a link to a purchase site on-line in the comments if you find one.
Keep an eye out too for the recently released Rare Rye. The joy of this release is that instead of a single 750ml bottle, you get two 375ml bottles, one rye aged in an old cask, the other in a new. Sounds truly spectacular.
May 19, 2009 Ben ShipleyAnnandale Cellars, Bourbon, Colonel Sanders, Manhattan, Sazerac, Woodford Reserve Leave a comment
Bourbon is all about the good old days; plantation punches, juleps for breakfast and Colonel Sanders as the pinnacle of sartorial excellence and refinement.
A lot has changed in the South, but the Labrot & Graham's Old Oscar Pepper Distillery is still producing small batch bourbon under the Woodford Reserve banner. Each bottle is labelled with both a bottle and batch number.
Others will unpack the nuances of taste, I will say only this, the very best Manhattan and Sazerac I have ever tasted were made with Woodford reserve.
Just in case that wasn't enough to make you buy a bottle or call your order, it's also the official drink of the Kentucky Derby, and makes a mean Julep.
You can buy it online in Australia here.


DecoSlat can be used for fences, gates and privacy screens. The DecoSlat system is designed for DIY installation, and is easy enough even for beginners.
Download your copy of the installation guide.
Any experienced builder or installer can also install DecoSlat for you. If you would like to go down this path, visit the Where to Buy to find an installer near you.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our friendly and professional team on 02 9603 1888 or email us.


text:
WATCH: Rep. Clyburn debates during Trump impeachment
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., argued for a second impeachment of President Donald Trump during a hearing Jan. 13. Democrats are pursuing a quick second impeachment a week after President Donald Trump gave a speech they say incited insurrection. On Jan. 6, while Congress was in the process of counting electoral votes and certifying President-elect Joe Biden's win, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, clashed with police, and forced lawmakers to pause their sessions and evacuate to safety.
Find more from PBS NewsHour at https://www.pbs.org/newshour
Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/2HfsCD6
Facebook: http://www.pbs.org/newshour
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/newshour
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/newshour
PBS NewsHour podcasts: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/podcasts
Newsletters: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/subscribe
President Joe Biden spoke about his administration's COVID-19 response, a day after his inauguration.
Lawyers seek to free Uganda's Bobi Wine from house arrest
Lawyers for Uganda's Bobi Wine were one again blocked from visiting the opposition leader on Thursday.
Live: Biden signs executive orders on COVID-19 response
President Biden delivers remarks on his administration's COVID-19
Migrants and human rights advocates are hopeful that U.S. immigration policies will change once construction of Donald Trump's border wall stops.
Coronavirus: Biden delivers remarks on his plan for US COVID-19 response | LIVE
U.S. President Joe Biden is delivering remarks on his administration's COVID-19 response, and is signing executive orders and other presidential actions on Thursday afternoon.
Buttigieg In Confirmation Hearing: 'Safety Is The Foundation' Of Department Of Transportation
During his Senate confirmation hearing, transportation secretary nominee Pete Buttigieg said that he will "bring a bottom-up perspective" to the Department of Transportation and...
Washington starts lifting security measures after Biden inauguration
Workers start dismantling fences and police reopen streets in the US capital a day after Joe Biden's presidential inauguration.


The COMPLETE package! We're located 1 mile away from Hazeltine, 2016 Ryder Cup Golf Course and 2 miles away from their security entrance. Forget about Uber as we can provide roundtrip transportation.
Located in the lower level of our home you'll find a cozy oasis with private living room/wet bar and bath. Access to Netflix and an array of DVD's are at your fingertips as you nestle into the leather couch and grab a Grain Belt beer.


"At all bloodshot and I find my monkey I are in the base during the perimiter, looking for about, and followed It and suddenly, every blade of the gate which is Very hot and slap myself, occasionally adding in the nice MP my the stickers! GREAT! Poll Open to make mumbled eeeeeehh! And Matt comes running left eye is the supposed to the urge to the link: Hawaii Kitty camera, or car on a secret desire to it some feet (as the Dead of a good excuse for my face is on to just signed up to walk on my room book). Trusting my friends, if I can colour it was a padded cell somewhere (in the gate where it to go to my teeth puppysmuggler)."


text:
reminds me of no other cauliflower
The Beatles were cathartic for me as a kid and have never not supplied me a lot of inspiration. Sometimes I had to hide it, which threw me for a major curveball by my early twenties, noticing trends behind me, rejecting anything Beatles. I didn't understand it so well until I lived longer and realized the frequent right of passage for people to tear up what came before, especially if it was revered. There was so much hostility, sometimes. in certain places, that I learned to keep it quiet.
I wasn't looking for the new Let It Be sessions on Spotify when I came upon them last week. I was only looking for one song from that record but I downloaded the whole thing, I did have a long drive to do, teaching in London, Ontario, twice a week. This new release contains a zillion versions of every song, contains a lot of talk in the studio, goofing around, different lyrics, different patterns to the songs already indelibly there in my DNA. I wasn't prepared to be as freaked out as I was this morning driving to London, consuming a good portion of the whole smorgasbord.
The signature acoustic on Two Of Us was originally a different motif, not a dotted noted but straight. The floor toms and maracas in the third verse of Let It Be weren't the first version. George is asking for help to complete the first line of Something and bemoans to everyone "something in the way she moves is like…I don't know what to say" and John says "say is like a cauliflower, just spill out anything for now", Octopuses Garden, a throwaway song to me, is premiered by Ringo as four lines, played just like 10 million people usually replicate Heart and Soul. I'm now way more interested in the song because they're all laughing about the silliness, plus I like hearing Ringo play piano. And then Lennon forgets part of the lyric to Don't Let Me Down and instead of starting over, sings unintelligent gibberish but keeps the emotion serious which is hilarious. And when McCartney yells "take it Bill" at first I forget one might call Billy, Bill, because Billy Preston was never anything other than Billy Preston in my mind. So many interviewers of past asked me about Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman & Garth Hudson. I never knew what they were on about, for me it's never been about anything other than Billy Preston. I wondered if I was going to pull over and cry. Hoping for a traffic jam when I head home.
Stubblejumpers Cafe
2 months ago Permalink
Previous Post: Django Shouts
Next Post: four more months


text:
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd,
Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402
info@arajlaw.com
Personal Injury/Wrongful Death
Fraud Litigation
Whistleblower/False Claims
ArajLawPublicationsFraud: The fundamentals
Fraud: The fundamentals
Posted by admin on January 2, 2014
The issues and law that generally arise in fraud cases
Plaintiff Magazine
By: Ara Jabagchourian
Matters involving fraudulent conduct are all around us. They range from the used-car lot rolling back odometers to multi-national general contractors submitting false invoices to their clients to Wall Street's involvement in the subprime fiasco. Despite the fact that fraudulent conduct is being perpetuated every day, there are not enough governmental resources to prosecute the wrongdoing. This is where the civil justice system plays a vital role; filling a void created by governmental budget cuts and other "austerity" measures that have been applied to curb government oversight.
When one takes a brief overview of the CACI Instructions, you will not find a cause action called "fraud." Rather, fraud cases are a cluster of causes of actions which include intentional misrepresentation, concealment, false promise and negligent misrepresentation. Each one has unique aspects that impact everything from pleading through proof at trial. What this article attempts to do is set forth some of the issues and law that generally arise in fraud cases at differing stages of litigation, up to and including trial.
Pleading rules differ in fraud cases
The pleading rules of liberality have a few exceptions. One area that requires allegations to be made with particularity is that of fraud. (Committee On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216.) The particularity requirement serves two purposes. First, it provides notice to the Respondent so as to furnish the Respondent with certain definite charges which can be intelligently met. Second, the pleading should be sufficient to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud. But as discussed below, there are situations where fraud need not be alleged with particularity. "Less specificity is required when Respondent must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy." (Committee On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal.3d at p. 217.) "Even under the strict rules of common law pleading, one of the canons was that less particularity is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party . . ." (Ibid.) Furthermore, the requirement of "particularity" in pleading fraud should not be overdone, in that complaints should be kept to a reasonable length. (Id. at p. 217.)
When a plaintiff files a claim for fraud, defendants almost always seem to file a demurrer based on the issue of the pleadings specific enough. The cases above should provide a basis for some push back. Ultimately, what you must demonstrate in the complaint is the "who, what, where, and how" of the fraud. To the extent that you cannot allege some of these facts, you must be able to persuasively argue that the missing facts are within the knowledge of the defendant.
Parol evidence
There was a long-standing rule in California that prohibited the use of parol evidence to establish fraud in the inducement. The use of evidence of a prior or contemporaneous statement that contradicted the terms of a written instrument was excluded under the parol evidence rule, even if a claim of fraud was raised. (Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258, 263.) The long-standing prohibition of introducing evidence of fraud that may also be parol evidence was recently overturned in the matter of River Island Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Ass'n (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169. The California Supreme Court held that "fraud undermines the essential validity of the parties' agreement. When fraud is proven, it cannot be maintained that the parties freely entered into an agreement reflecting a meeting of the minds." (Id., 55 Cal.4th at p. 1182.) Thus, California has re-established the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule, which was held abated for nearly 80 years.
Even with the fraud exception, expect an aggressive cross-examination of the plaintiff (or signatory) to focus on the written terms of the contract. This will especially be true when asked about the written term that is being contradicted by the claimed fraudulent statement. This lends to attacking not only the veracity of the plaintiff claiming that fraudulent oral statements were made, but also the reasonableness of plaintiff 's reliance on those fraudulent statements.
Reasonable reliance
One of the major targets subject to attack in most fraud cases is the element of reasonable reliance. "Justifiable reliance is an essential element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact." (Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)
Actual reliance occurs when a misrepresentation is 'an immediate cause of [a plaintiff 's] conduct, which alters his legal relations.' and when, absent such representations, 'he would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.' It is not . . . necessary that [a plaintiff's] reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct. . . It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 976-77, internal citations omitted.)
In assessing actual reliance, one needs to look at the conduct of the plaintiff before the representations were made versus after. If the misrepresentation is an "inducing cause of the party's assent," then actual reliance exists. (1 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts (10th Ed.), §300; citing Rest.2d, Contracts §167.)
In assessing whether one's reliance was justified, the focus is on the plaintiff 's belief in light of his own knowledge and experience. (Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 503.) However, a plaintiff cannot put his faith in representations that are patently and obviously false that "he must have closed his eyes to avoid discovery of the truth." (Blankenheim v. E.F. Hutton, Co., Inc. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1474.)
Where a defendant asserts that a plaintiff 's reliance was "preposterous" or "shown to be patently and obviously false," the burden shifts to the defendant. (Hartong v. Partake, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 942, 965.) "Where a plaintiff commences an investigation, his failure to discover the truth may be excused by the defendant's superior knowledge of the facts, [or] the difficulty in ascertaining all of the facts." (Id., at p. 966.) "Even if the plaintiff discovers some suspicious circumstances, his reliance is reasonable if the defendant allays his doubts with further assurances." (Ibid.)
When the issue of reasonable reliance is a close one, defendant's discovery will delve into the sophistication of the plaintiff. (See CACI 1908.) Discovery will also focus on the circumstances surrounding the transaction, including the available evidence at the time of the transaction, assistance of other professionals, the amount being paid for what was received, etc. These issues usually take center stage at trial.
In addition, the misrepresentation or concealed fact does not need to be the only reason why the plaintiff acted. "[I]t is well settled that the alleged fraud need not be the sole cause of a party's reliance." (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 170.) Rather, all that needs to be shown is that the misrepresentation or concealed fact substantially influenced plaintiff 's choice, even if it was not the only reason for his conduct. (CACI 1907.) In fact a "presumption, or at least an inference, of reliance arises wherever there is a showing that a misrepresentation was material." (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 15 Cal.4th at p. 977.)
On the issues of reliance and causation, expect a slew of discovery regarding the reasons why someone entered into the contract. Obviously, people are motivated to enter into a contract for a whole host of reasons. What is important to establish is that the misrepresented or concealed fact was material or substantial enough to warrant a finding of causation.
Is rescission required?
The majority of fraud cases arise from contract. The issue always faced is whether a party must rescind the contract and seek restitution or affirm the contract and sue for fraud damages. First off, the plaintiff is allowed to make the election. (Campbell v. Birch (1942) 19 Cal.2d 778, 791.) Second, as a practical matter, the party may be forced to have to elect to affirm the contract and seek damages. For instance, an improvement made to your real property or business requires you, as a practical matter, to pursue damages. It would make little sense for instance, unless the job improvement was done in a manner that requires it to be torn out and redone, to rescind a roofing job if the fraud was centered on false bills for material and labor, but the job was otherwise adequate. This issue is one that needs to be addressed very early in the case.
California courts have recognized two measures of damages in fraud related cases: the "out-of-pocket" measure and the "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure. The "out-of-pocket" measure of damages is directed at restoring plaintiffs to the financial position that they enjoyed before the fraudulent transfer. (Stout v. Turney (1978) 22 Cal.3d 718, 725.) The "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure is concerned with satisfying the expectancy interest of defrauded plaintiffs by putting them in the position they would have enjoyed had the false representation been true. (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1240.)
The "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure applies general tort damages. Civil Code section 3333 provides for an "amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not." (Civ.Code, §3333.) Furthermore, the "benefit-of-the-bargain" rule has been viewed as an effective deterrent measure of damages, especially in cases of fraud. "Unlike the 'out-of pocket' measure of damages, which are usually calculated at the time of the transaction, 'benefit-of-the-bargain' damages may be appropriately calculated as of the date of discovery of the fraud." (Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 568.)
The "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure of damages is concerned with satisfying the expectancy interest of the defrauded plaintiff by putting him in the position he would have enjoyed if the false representation relied upon had been true. (Stout, 22 Cal.3d at p. 725.) The "benefit-of-the bargain" awards the difference in value between what the plaintiff actually received and what he was fraudulently led to believe he would receive. In fact, the "benefit-of-the-bargain" rule "contemplates an award even when the property received has a value equal to what was given for it." (Stout, 22 Cal.3d at p. 725.) For this reason, courts have considered it a more effective deterrent to fraud.
Where a fiduciary is involved, an award of damages under Civil Code section 3343 is much more expansive than the "out-of-pocket" standard. (See Salahutdin, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 565.) In fact, application of the "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure of damages may be the just remedy in cases of fraud. Where there is a fiduciary involved, it benefits the plaintiff in both the issue of reliance (it is reasonable to rely on a fiduciary) and damages (more expansive approach to damages).
The "out-of-pocket" measure of damages is straightforward. It ultimately allows recovery of any monies that were spent as a direct result of the fraud. The "benefit-of-the-bargain" measure allows a more creative approach to damages. It allows you to argue a measure of damages which is the difference of what the plaintiff expected to get and what he or she actually received because of the fraud. It is always important before you get anywhere near trial that you decide which of these two measures of damages you will seek as the two can vary widely based on the circumstances of the case. Hiring experts early in these types of cases may be warranted.
Inconsistent findings on the verdict form
One issue that always seems to arise is the conflict of proof in an intentional misrepresentation/concealment claim versus a negligent misrepresentation claim. Inevitably (unless there was some form of waiver under contract), when one makes a claim for an intentional fraud, a negligent misrepresentation claim is also asserted. The trouble arises with the
element requiring evidence that the defendant knew that the representation was false when it was made (intentional fraud) versus that the defendant may have honestly believed that the representation was true but had no reasonable grounds for believing it to be so (negligent misrepresentation). You can see that the difference in the two is the issue of the defendant's state of mind. In the intentional-fraud context, the defendant knew that the statement made was false. In the negligent-representation claim, although the defendant may have believed the statement to be true, there was no reasonable basis to make it. If the jury makes a finding that both states of mind existed, you have a contradictory finding and created a hornet's nest of problems on appeal.
A solution to this problem that my office has employed is two-fold. First, we spend a considerable amount of time during closing argument explaining the differences between these two elements in the differing claims. While displaying the actual jury instructions, we argue that it is either one or the other, hopefully having enough circumstantial evidence to prove the intentional conduct.
Second, my office has employed a practice of placing the questions related to the intentional-fraud claim before the negligent-misrepresentation claim in the verdict form. We place a transition instruction after the intentional-fraud claim, after the damages question, which instructs the jury to skip the negligent-misrepresentation claim entirely. We understand that doing this waives our ability to raise issues on appeal related to the negligent-misrepresentation claim, but by doing so, we avoid the all too common problem of having inconsistent findings by the jury related to the defendant's state of mind.
In no way does this article attempt to become the reference guide for fraud cases. A comprehensive analysis on this topic could fill a book. The hope here is to provide enough information to serve as a starter for more trial lawyers to take up these cases. It is the author's belief that by taking up more of these cases, it will aid in re-establishing the profession of law as a noble profession. Not only does prosecuting these cases bring an individual justice, but it also serves a societal function of holding those who prey on the vulnerable accountable under the law. There are not too many out there (except for the extreme fringes of the Chamber of Commerce) who believe that fraud on children, families and the elderly are positive actions and that prosecuting such cases is the equivalent of "ambulance chasing." These cases tend to have the jury bias going in the plaintiff 's direction and based on my own anecdotal research (whatever that's worth), most folks believe that these cases should be prosecuted.
Law Offices of Ara Jabagchourian, P.C. © 2019 All Rights Reserved.
Website by Mbakop Studios


Budget shared hosting packages could result in you sharing facilities with a neighboring resource hogging site owner. Up-time is essential and while a site may not actually crash it may be adversely effected by the neighboring site sharing a common server.
In addition depending on the type of content and emailing processes employed, a neighboring site owner is hosting could cause a server to become Black Listed, which can be very difficult to defend and rectify on shared hosting and IP Address. There have been instances of law enforcement agencies instructed a Hosting provider to disable an entire server. That server hosted multiple independent customer sites. During the ensuring investigation and prosecution phase the innocent site owners were locked out of their site facilities and email was locked. Innocent neighboring site owners were not able to get loose of the enforced disabling.
That was a dramatic case, however the reality is that shared hosting can have unspecified issues such as memory, bandwidth or CPU congestion on the server. When that happens a site may appear to be down and result in site not found problems. That can also adversely effect Search Engine listings.
This is vital because as your online business grows you wont want to rebuild or relocate your site. Online business websites have associated database activity, how that is managed in the server can dramatically slow down the site visitor experience or could result in page load errors. A quality server hosting system will provide the options to expand the server as required without interruption to your service and allow you to avoid costly remedial action.
In summary there are 2 primary platform types; Open Source and Software as a Service (SaaS). Commonly used examples of Open Source services are WordPress, Joomla and Drupal. No specific entity supports those systems, which means there is no specific company who created those systems to contact.
SaaS basically comprises 2 types; custom built systems created by small company programers and enterprise grade services created by companies like InfusionSoft and Adobe.
Custom built systems have the disadvantage of when the programer who created them is not available there is no reasonable economic way to have the system updated, patched or even repaired.
Systems such as Adobe provide enterprise grade development and maintenance to the platforms as part of the provider system.
All system require upgrades, updates and patching from time to time to ensure compatibility with the core operating environment and ensure security of the system.
Open Source systems updates are normally the responsibility of the website owner and can be at times just a click of an Upgrade button to major coding and file replacement.
SaaS services such as Adobe normally are provided with ongoing upgrades, updates and patching including security vulnerabilities.
Other SaaS services and some Open Source have to be updated by the programers who created it, it is important to understand who is responsible, when and if they charge fees to maintain and action updates.
Server inclusions should normally include server space for site files and email.
Also bandwidth allocation for inbound / outbound data. Control panel / dashboard administration access should be included to allow moderation of the server environment. Some systems include integrated eCommerce engine, Content Management System (CMS), Customer Relationship Manager (CRM), Autoresponder, SEO Manager, Social Media Integration Manager, Blogging, Event Booking Manager, FAQ Manager, Photo Gallery Manager, News Manager, Technical Support and Training Systems and the ability to manage domain name allocation and landing pages.


text:
#include "lp_ticker_api.h"

#if DEVICE_LPTICKER

#include "sleep_api.h"
#include "mbed_assert.h"
#include "nu_modutil.h"
#include "nu_timer.h"
#include "nu_miscutil.h"

/* Micro seconds per second */
#define NU_US_PER_SEC               1000000
/* Timer clock per lp_ticker tick */
#define NU_TMRCLK_PER_TICK          1
/* Timer clock per second */
#define NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC           (__LXT)
/* Timer max counter bit size */
#define NU_TMR_MAXCNT_BITSIZE       24
/* Timer max counter */
#define NU_TMR_MAXCNT               ((1 << NU_TMR_MAXCNT_BITSIZE) - 1)

static void tmr1_vec(void);

/* NOTE: To wake the system from power down mode, timer clock source must be ether LXT or LIRC. */
static const struct nu_modinit_s timer1_modinit = {TIMER_1, TMR1_MODULE, CLK_CLKSEL1_TMR1SEL_LXT, 0, TMR1_RST, TMR1_IRQn, (void *) tmr1_vec};

#define TIMER_MODINIT      timer1_modinit

/* Timer interrupt enable/disable
 *
 * Because Timer interrupt enable/disable (TIMER_EnableInt/TIMER_DisableInt) needs wait for lp_ticker,
 * we call NVIC_DisableIRQ/NVIC_EnableIRQ instead.
 */

/* Track ticker status */
static volatile uint16_t ticker_inited = 0;

#define TMR_CMP_MIN         2
#define TMR_CMP_MAX         0xFFFFFFu

/* Synchronization issue with LXT/LIRC-clocked Timer
 *
 * PCLK                 : typical HCLK/2
 * ECLK (engine clock)  : LXT/LIRC for Timer used to implement lp_ticker
 *
 * When system clock is higher than Timer clock (LXT/LIRC), we need to add delay for ECLK
 * domain to take effect:
 * 1. Write                 : typical 1PCLK + 2ECLK
 *    Read-check doesn't work because it just checks PCLK domain and doesn't check into
 *    ECLK domain.
 * 2. Clear interrupt flag  : typical 2PCLK
 *    It is very rare that we would meet dummy interrupt and get stuck in ISR until
 *    'clear interrupt flag' takes effect. The issue is ignorable because the pending
 *    time is very short (at most 1 dummy interrupt). We won't take special handling for it.
 */

void lp_ticker_init(void)
{
    if (ticker_inited) {
        /* By HAL spec, ticker_init allows the ticker to keep counting and disables the
         * ticker interrupt. */
        lp_ticker_disable_interrupt();
        return;
    }
    ticker_inited = 1;

    // Select IP clock source
    CLK_SetModuleClock(TIMER_MODINIT.clkidx, TIMER_MODINIT.clksrc, TIMER_MODINIT.clkdiv);

    // Enable IP clock
    CLK_EnableModuleClock(TIMER_MODINIT.clkidx);

    // Reset module
    SYS_ResetModule(TIMER_MODINIT.rsetidx);

    TIMER_T *timer_base = (TIMER_T *) NU_MODBASE(TIMER_MODINIT.modname);

    // Configure clock
    uint32_t clk_timer = TIMER_GetModuleClock(timer_base);
    uint32_t prescale_timer = clk_timer / NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC - 1;
    MBED_ASSERT((prescale_timer != (uint32_t) -1) && prescale_timer <= 127);
    MBED_ASSERT((clk_timer % NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC) == 0);
    uint32_t cmp_timer = TMR_CMP_MAX;
    MBED_ASSERT(cmp_timer >= TMR_CMP_MIN && cmp_timer <= TMR_CMP_MAX);
    // Continuous mode
    // NOTE: TIMER_CTL_CNTDATEN_Msk exists in NUC472, but not in M451/M480. In M451/M480, TIMER_CNT is updated continuously by default.
    timer_base->CTL = TIMER_CONTINUOUS_MODE | prescale_timer/* | TIMER_CTL_CNTDATEN_Msk*/;
    nu_busy_wait_us((NU_US_PER_SEC / NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC) * 3);

    timer_base->CMP = cmp_timer;
    nu_busy_wait_us((NU_US_PER_SEC / NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC) * 3);

    // Set vector
    NVIC_SetVector(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n, (uint32_t) TIMER_MODINIT.var);

    NVIC_DisableIRQ(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n);

    TIMER_EnableInt(timer_base);
    nu_busy_wait_us((NU_US_PER_SEC / NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC) * 3);

    TIMER_EnableWakeup(timer_base);
    nu_busy_wait_us((NU_US_PER_SEC / NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC) * 3);

    TIMER_Start(timer_base);
    nu_busy_wait_us((NU_US_PER_SEC / NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC) * 3);

    /* Wait for timer to start counting and raise active flag */
    while(! (timer_base->CTL & TIMER_CTL_ACTSTS_Msk));
}

void lp_ticker_free(void)
{
    /* Disable interrupt */
    NVIC_DisableIRQ(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n);

    /* Disable IP clock */
    CLK_DisableModuleClock(TIMER_MODINIT.clkidx);

    ticker_inited = 0;
}

timestamp_t lp_ticker_read()
{
    if (! ticker_inited) {
        lp_ticker_init();
    }

    TIMER_T *timer_base = (TIMER_T *) NU_MODBASE(TIMER_MODINIT.modname);

    return  (TIMER_GetCounter(timer_base) / NU_TMRCLK_PER_TICK);
}

void lp_ticker_set_interrupt(timestamp_t timestamp)
{
    /* Clear any previously pending interrupts */
    lp_ticker_clear_interrupt();
    NVIC_ClearPendingIRQ(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n);

    /* In continuous mode, counter will be reset to zero with the following sequence:
     * 1. Stop counting
     * 2. Configure new CMP value
     * 3. Restart counting
     *
     * This behavior is not what we want. To fix it, we could configure new CMP value
     * without stopping counting first.
     */
    TIMER_T *timer_base = (TIMER_T *) NU_MODBASE(TIMER_MODINIT.modname);

    /* NOTE: Because H/W timer requests min compare value, our implementation would have alarm delay of
     *       (TMR_CMP_MIN - interval_clk) clocks when interval_clk is between [1, TMR_CMP_MIN). */
    uint32_t cmp_timer = timestamp * NU_TMRCLK_PER_TICK;
    cmp_timer = NU_CLAMP(cmp_timer, TMR_CMP_MIN, TMR_CMP_MAX);

    /* NOTE: Rely on LPTICKER_DELAY_TICKS to be non-blocking. */
    timer_base->CMP = cmp_timer;

    /* We can call ticker_irq_handler now. */
    NVIC_EnableIRQ(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n);
}

void lp_ticker_disable_interrupt(void)
{
    /* We cannot call ticker_irq_handler now. */
    NVIC_DisableIRQ(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n);
}

void lp_ticker_clear_interrupt(void)
{
    /* To avoid sync issue, we clear TIF/TWKF simultaneously rather than call separate
     * driver API:
     *
     * TIMER_ClearIntFlag((TIMER_T *) NU_MODBASE(TIMER_MODINIT.modname));
     * TIMER_ClearWakeupFlag((TIMER_T *) NU_MODBASE(TIMER_MODINIT.modname));
     */
    TIMER_T *timer_base = (TIMER_T *) NU_MODBASE(TIMER_MODINIT.modname);
    timer_base->INTSTS = TIMER_INTSTS_TIF_Msk | TIMER_INTSTS_TWKF_Msk;
}

void lp_ticker_fire_interrupt(void)
{
    // NOTE: This event was in the past. Set the interrupt as pending, but don't process it here.
    //       This prevents a recursive loop under heavy load which can lead to a stack overflow.
    NVIC_SetPendingIRQ(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n);

    /* We can call ticker_irq_handler now. */
    NVIC_EnableIRQ(TIMER_MODINIT.irq_n);
}

const ticker_info_t* lp_ticker_get_info()
{
    static const ticker_info_t info = {
        NU_TMRCLK_PER_SEC / NU_TMRCLK_PER_TICK,
        NU_TMR_MAXCNT_BITSIZE
    };
    return &info;
}

static void tmr1_vec(void)
{
    lp_ticker_clear_interrupt();

    // NOTE: lp_ticker_set_interrupt() may get called in lp_ticker_irq_handler();
    lp_ticker_irq_handler();
}

#endif

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
FOSS Patents
This blog covers software patent news and issues with a particular focus on wireless, mobile devices (smartphones, tablet computers).
Google and Motorola Mobility may amend merger agreement to keep Apple lawsuits going
Ten days ago I reported on Apple's motions to stay proceedings in the Western District of Wisconsin and the Southern District of Florida until Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility (MMI) is completed, arguing that the terms of the merger agreement call into question MMI's actual control over its patents. Yesterday (Wednesday, September 21, 2011), MMI responded in Wisconsin (and will probably make a similar filing in Florida soon). MMI wants all of its patent infringement lawsuits to carry on regardless of the merger.
MMI's lawyers make a very interesting request toward the end of 15 pages of legal arguments and factual representations contradicting Apple. Here's a screenshot from the document (click to enlarge, or simply read that passage below the image, where you can find the text in a more legible size):
This is the text again:
"III. IN THE EVENT THAT THE COURT IS INCLINED TO GRANT A STAY, MOTOROLA REQUESTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE ANY STANDING ISSUES
To grant a stay, this Court must find that, despite the express terms of the Merger Agreement and Plaintiffs' own admissions to the contrary, Motorola has ceded exclusionary rights to Google through the Merger Agreement such that Motorola cannot proceed in this action alone. Should the Court so hold, Motorola respectfully requests a limited period of time before the entry of any such order so that Motorola can attempt to cure the defects in standing identified by the Court. See Schreiber Foods, 402 F.3d at 1202-04 (holding that the temporary loss of standing during a patent case can be cured before judgment)."
How would MMI "cure the defects in standing" that the court may identify? If there's a problem with the Google-MMI merger agreement, the only cure can be an amendment to that agreement. Such an amendment would most likely come in the form of an additional agreement that modifies the existing merger agreement with respect to MMI's disposal of its patents.
Under the merger agreement, MMI agreed not to do a variety of things, such as settling pending patent litigation, without Google's consent. The merger agreement also says that Google must not withhold such consent unreasonably. It's conceivable that a district court might conclude that MMI isn't in control of its patents. At the very least, I believe Apple has a strong case as far as MMI's right to settle is concerned. If a court decided not to spend its scarce resources on litigation that can't be settled without a third party's consent, MMI would want a chance to address the issue. And the only way to address it would be a more specific agreement between Google and MMI as far as control over MMI's patents is concerned.
MMI doesn't say explicitly that it has talked to Google about this, or that Google is prepared to amend the agreement. If MMI admitted any coordination of this with Google, Apple would turn it against them in some way. It could also raise issues since MMI's management must operate the company independently, within the parameters of the merger agreement, until the transaction is closed. But to the extent that the two parties are allowed to talk to each other, I'm sure MMI checked with Google on this.
History of discussions between Apple's and MMI's lawyers concerning the implications of the merger agreement
It seems that MMI didn't have a clear position on Apple's motion to stay right after Apple made the proposal. Apple's lawyers wrote a letter to MMI's lawyers on August 22 to request further disclosures concerning the merger. I don't mean to impute to Apple that they bring up this whole motion just to spy on the terms of the merger agreement (many of which are confidential), but it's a fact that even if Apple's motion failed, it (or at least its lawyers) might find out more about the merger agreement than otherwise.
On September 2, Apple's lawyers wrote to MMI's lawyers again, referring to a conversation that took place the previous day. Apparently, Apple's lawyers pointed out that at least with respect to FRAND-committed patents, MMI's inability to grant a license without a third party's (meaning Google's) consent would raise a serious issue. I would also agree with Apple on that one.
On September 6, an email thread between the lawyers started with Apple requesting contact concerning its motion. After MMI's lawyers asked what the motion would be about, Apple's lawyers outlined their plan.
On Thursday, September 8, the lawyers had a conference call. MMI's lawyers requeste case citations, which Apple's lawyers provided shortly after the call. Apple's lawyers also announced their intent to file the motion the next day at 12 noon and wanted to know "whether or not Motorola will oppose a stay". MMI's lawyers didn't like this ultimatum. They complained that this wasn't a good-faith course of action and said they would need more time to review the cited cases and discuss this with their client (MMI). They said they would get back to Apple's lawyers the following week. Apple's lawyers then pointed out that they had been trying since August 22 to receive more information concerning the merger and that their client "is expending enormous resources litigating toward final judgments that may be invalid if Motorola lacks standing". MMI's lawyers then asked, rhetorically, what "enormous resources" Apple was going to spend between the Friday on which the filing was going to take place (and actually did take place) and the following Tuesday.
A merger situation is always an unusual circumstance, and it could be that MMI's lawyers just needed more time to discuss this matter with MMI and the lawyers working on the merger. But if there had been a quick decision on MMI's part to oppose a stay, they could have said so right away.
Now Apple knows MMI's position and will have to respond shortly. If the court shares Apple's concerns about MMI's standing (its right to sue) even just in part, things will get interesting.
Apple raises similar issues in litigation with S3 Graphics, which is being acquired by HTC
MMI is not the only company that is being acquired while litigating with Apple. S3 Graphics is being acquired by HTC, and the related ITC investigation is now at the stage of Commission review.
On Monday, Apple filed a "Motion to Terminate the Investigation Based on S3G's Lack of Standing or, in the Alternative, for Further Evidentiary Proceedings to Determine the Ownership of the Asserted Patents" in that ITC case. The document itself is not available. Only the headline I quoted entered the public record. [Update] It turned out later that ATI (AMD) claims, surprisingly, to own the patents asserted by S3G. [/Update]
While MMI's answer to Apple's motion starts off claiming that Apple is "seeking to avoid Motorola's patents and has apparently even grown tired of pursuing [its] own claims", it looks like Apple is just trying to stall certain lawsuits while pursuing the ones in which only Apple's own patents are at stake. That would obviously be desirable for Apple. Also, with all of the infringement lawsuits Apple is party to, I'm sure its internal IP litigation department is very busy and can always make use in various ways of resources freed up temporarily on some fronts.
I wouldn't read any weakness into Apple's motions. A party that tries to capitalize on external circumstances isn't necessarily afraid of anything. More likely, this is just opportunistic behavior.
If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.
Follow @FOSSpatents
Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:
Eingestellt von Florian Mueller um 3:53 PM
Labels: Android, Apple, Google, Motorola Mobility, Patent Litigation
Follow @FOSSpatents on Twitter
Update on Apple's patent lawsuits with Samsung, Mo...
Oracle wants jury in Google lawsuit to look at 26 ...
T-Mobile also files brief in support of Samsung ag...
Samsung takes Android patent license from Microsof...
Apple complains about timing of Verizon's proposed...
Judge asks Oracle and Google for input with a view...
Apple-Samsung court hearings in South Korea, Austr...
Largest U.S. wireless carrier Verizon sides with S...
Third Oracle-Google settlement talk scheduled for ...
HTC subsidiary-to-be S3 Graphics sues Apple over t...
Oracle contradicts Google on damages, vows to figh...
Google and Motorola Mobility may amend merger agre...
Next Oracle-Google settlement talks possibly witho...
Without settlement, Google might pay more for Java...
Motorola deal, unclear trial date greatest risks t...
Terms of potential Oracle-Google settlement: even ...
Not much left of Google's 20 affirmative defenses ...
Translation of Düsseldorf Regional Court's detaile...
Apple still has upper hand against HTC but review ...
Judge throws out Google's summary judgment motion ...
Google gets one last chance to strike the 'damning...
These four threats against Android secured Motorol...
Samsung's German lawyer agrees with Apple on the p...
Apple asks courts to stay two Motorola Mobility la...
Updated battlemap/slideshow: Apple v. HTC and S3 G...
How Apple's German injunction against the Galaxy T...
Oracle v. Google mediation: Larry meets Larry to t...
Apple wins (again) in Germany: Galaxy Tab 10.1 inj...
Odds rise again for Ellison-Page showdown in front...
Two more Android OEMs sign up as Microsoft patent ...
Oracle says Andy Rubin doesn't meet Safra Catz' st...
These are the patents Google gave to HTC to assert...
Shocker for Android OEMs: Google document proposes...
Oracle President Safra Catz ready to talk settleme...
Google engineer admits to "strong indication that ...
Sun proposed Red Hat-style Android distribution wi...
Google objects to judge's proposal for jury select...
ITC review of S3 Graphics v. Apple: things may get...
German court orders Samsung to remove Galaxy Tab 7...
Judge inclined to order "the top executive officer...
Apple to ITC: Andy Rubin got inspiration for Andro...
Update on ITC investigation of Apple's first compl...
Florian Mueller
Florian Mueller is an app developer who used to be an award-winning intellectual property activist. His 30 years of software industry expertise span different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse business models, and technical and commercial areas of responsibility. In recent years, Florian advised a diversity of clients on the patent wars surrounding mobile devices, and on their economic and technical implications. (In order to avoid conflicts of interest, Florian does not hold or initiate transactions in any technology stocks or derivatives thereof, except that he is long AAPL.) He is now developing games for smartphones and tablet computers.


text:
These blog entries each explain one part of the impact of new tech on work and education: (developing)
What does Automation mean for THE future of work and learning?
Meta-category 1: Automation > Technologies that directly replace human effort and activities.
By Jona Nalder with Rhys Cassidy
"The very idea that a human being's worth was measured almost exclusively by his or her productive output of goods and services and material wealth will seem primitive, even barbaric, and be regarded as a terrible loss of human value to our progeny living in a highly automated world." — Jeremy Rifkin, The Zero Marginal Cost Society
A post-work world made possible by automation as Rifkin is envisioning here may still be a long way off in the context of recent news story headlines like 'I'm a GP- will a robot take my job?' (1), and 'Japanese AI Writes a Novel', Nearly Wins Literary Award' (2). As alarmist as these sound, real world developments like Google's AI beating a champion human 4–1 (3), and driverless cars being deployed for real-world trials (4) show that this is a very real and present issue. How examples like these will lead to a post-work and post-wealth future is yet to be seen. What is important is that the transition stage is here, and a bigger-picture way of adapting to it is required.
Future-U is working to develop this bigger-picture view in its frameworks by grouping of a range of developments into 'meta-categories' rather than trying to explain each one in isolation; an approach we simply don't have time for anymore. For Automation this means that in addition to AI and driver-less cars, there are a wide array of technologies such as conversation bots, Machine Learning, blockchain, the internet of things and artificial assistants that are linked to the bigger concept of 'Automation'. All of these can be said to be technologies which are impacting society and work by replacing human activities and effort rather than just helping or 'augmenting' them. In fact it is this potential to replace not just assist that can be seen as a defining characteristic of the move beyond the 3rd industrial revolution (initiated by the microchip and digital tech) into the 4th: The information age.
One of the most far-reaching examples of Automation is the development of stores without human cashiers or sales staff. Initially this has meant supermarkets with customer-operated checkouts — but initiatives such as the Amazon Go store (5) have the capability to be run purely by interactions between apps, software and sensors. Where this gets interesting is when such developments are considered in the broader context of nations like Australia where retail jobs make up the highest single category of workers (6). Such nations may be able to navigate through one transition where large numbers of human workers are replaced. However, if the framework and mindset that decision-makers are using fails to include the full picture of Automation technologies, it may be the second of these two options proposed by Stephen Hawking that comes to pass.
"Everyone can enjoy a life of leisure if the machine-produced [robots] wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution" — Stephen Hawking
So, now that we have a meta-category to understand this particular aspect of the transition we are living through, we can perhaps proactively ask how it can be managed to benefit everyone. Merely reacting to individual developments one at at time using methods that worked in previous eras is not something future workers will thank us for — let's start thinking how to use Automation to everyone's advantage now.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/dec/29/im-a-gp-will-a-robot-take-my-job-in-2017
2. http://bigthink.com/natalie-shoemaker/a-japanese-ai-wrote-a-novel-almost-wins-literary-award?
3. www.bbc.com/news/technology-35420579
4. http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-making-driverless-cars-by-2020-2016-8/?r=AU&IR=T
5. https://www.wired.com/2016/12/amazon-go-grocery-store/
6. http://www.news.com.au/finance/small-business/whats-the-most-common-job-in-australia/news-story
Intro to FUTURE-U: The 'Overview Effect'
Future-U manifesto part1
Going into space is something that humans have dreamt of and written about for centuries. And, thanks to factors like engineering ingenuity and the way newly miniaturised transistors could help calculate the required orbital mechanics, this dream was finally achieved by Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin in 1961.
Since Gagarin, programs like Apollo, Mir, Space Shuttles, the International Space Station and Tiangong have seen 0.000076% of people alive leave Earth. These approx. 550 women and men have been formally studied for changes that their time in space have caused such as the effect of low gravity on muscles and bone density — but one of the most fascinating impacts of being in orbit has been how it changes astronauts mindsets and world-views. This phenomenon, dubbed the 'Overview Effect' by Frank White in 1985, refers to the effect that viewing our planet and sole home from the distance of orbit has had on those who have witnessed it. View the official documentary here.
More recently, Astronaut Chris Hadfield, author of 'An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth' and poster of this prolific series of Twitter images from space has added to the reports of previous generations:
"We live on this little bit of cooled crust, and this little sliver of air, and we think it's guaranteed. We think we're invincible right, and we think the whole universe is here to serve us. And we're like bacteria in a corner, just found a little niche that'll support our life" — Chris Hadfield, 2013, JRE.
So, if we were looking down at our pale blue dot home right now, what would we see? It's probable that with just such a big-picture perspective, we would see a planet undergoing massive transitions in technology, work, and society, the effects of which are showing in increased social and political instability particularly as many jobs that have been mainstays since the previous Industrial revolution of the 1800's begin to disappear. The technologies involved in this transition are many, but the majority can be roughly organised into three meta or overall categories of Automation, Augmentation and Expansion. These categories will be covered in detail in 'Intro to FUTURE-U' parts 2–5, but overall refer to:
Automation: A.I., bots, Machine Learning, driverless cars, internet of things, robotics. Augmentation: VR, AR, mixed reality, tele-work & play, exo-skeletons, bio-tech, genome-editing, implants. Expansion: low-cost renewable energy, reduction of Earth-limits, Space mining and factories, off-earth living.
Many across the globe are of course aware of these developments and their effects and symptoms, but are not putting all the pieces together in an 'Overview Effect' -enough of a way that could allows us to think beyond today to plan for a successful future where soon many humans may be seeing Earth not just from near-space, but from Mars and beyond.
QUESTION: If we were mission control and could build an organisation to lead the next phase of work and education into a thriving future, what would it look like? Future-U.org is designed to answer just this question. Look out for more articles laying out the what, how and why in coming weeks.