text:
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

\paragraph{Pliable Index Coding (PICOD)}
\label{par:picod_introduction}
PICOD is a variant of the Index Coding (IC) problem and was first introduced in~\cite{BrahmaFragouli-IT1115-7254174}. In PICOD, the messages to be decoded by the users, who have message side information, are not part of the problem definition. Instead, in PICOD, the sender assigns to the users the messages they need to decode so that (i) the assigned messages were not already present in the local side information, and (ii) the length of the code that allows every user to recover the assigned message has the shortest possible length.
The PICOD problem formulation captures the nature of some content delivery applications, where there is flexibility in the choice of the desired messages to be delivered to the users. This flexibility allows to reduce the number of transmissions compared to an IC with the same side information structure.

The IC problem in its general form is known to be hard~\cite{index_coding_with_sideinfo}.
The general PICOD problem is not simpler than the IC problem in terms of complexity.
For instance, the linear PICOD (here the sender is restricted to use linear codes) is still NP-hard~\cite{Content_type_coding}.
Some efficient algorithms to solve the general PICOD were proposed  in~\cite{polytime_alg_picod}.
For the case where the side information structure of the PICOD has ``symmetry,'' we found the optimal code length (under no restriction of encoding scheme that the sender can use) in~\cite{consecutive_picod}.
However, the general PICOD problem is open.

\paragraph{Private PICOD}
\label{par:past_works}

The problem of security and privacy in IC has been studied from different perspectives.
In~\cite{security_ic_with_sideinfo_eavesdropper}, the Authors proposed an IC model where an eavesdropper has a limited access to the side information sets and to the transmitted codeword; the goal here is to prevent the eavesdropper from obtaining any new information.
In~\cite{private_bc_ic_approach}, the Authors considered an IC model  where the sender must design a code that allows each user to decode its desired message, but at the same time prevent him from obtaining any information about the side information or the desired messages of the other users.
This latter model has the flavor of the private information retrieval problem~\cite{private_information_retrieval}, where a user wants to hide its desired message and/or side information from the other users and the server.
Similarly to the private information retrieval problem, the Authors of~\cite{private_ic} formulated the \emph{private IC} problem, where a user in the IC problem should be able to decode only its own desired messages but no others.

Recently, in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability}, the Authors extended the private IC problem in~\cite{private_ic} to the PICOD framework.
Only the case where the side information structure is ``circular'', and where each user can decode one and only one message was considered in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability}.
Several schemes were given in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability} and shown to provide the desired level of privacy, but the optimality is discussed only under the linear encoding constraint for some cases.

\paragraph{Contributions and Paper Organization}
\label{par:contrib}

In this paper we study a generalization (in terms of the form of the side information sets) of the private PICOD model from~\cite{secure_picod_achievability}, as formally described in Section~\ref{sec:system_model}.
We provide both achievable and the converse bounds, where past work only focused on linear achievable schemes.
The main result of this paper is presented and discussed in Section~\ref{sec:main_result}.
In Section~\ref{sec:proof} we derive both information theoretic and linear-code restricted converse bounds.
We also provide linear achievable schemes and show they are either information theoretically optimal, or differ from the linear-code restricted converse by at most one transmission.
Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper.
Some proofs are in Appendix.

\section{System Model}
\label{sec:system_model}

A private $(n,m,\mathcal{A})$ PICOD$(\cardi)$ is defined as follows.
There are $n\in\mathbb{N}$ users and one central transmitter.
The user set is denoted as $U := \left\{ u_{1},u_{2},\ldots,u_{n} \right\}$.
There are $m\in\mathbb{N}$ independent and uniformly distributed binary messages of $\mbit \in \mathbb{N}$ bits each. The message set is denoted as $\mathcal{W} := \left\{ w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{m} \right\}$.

The central transmitter has knowledge of all messages $\mathcal{W}$.
User $u_i$ has the messages indexed by its side information set $A_i\subset [m]$, $i\in[n]$.
The messages index by $A_i$ are denoted as $W_{A_i}$.
The collection of all side information sets is denoted as $\mathcal{A} := \{A_{1},A_{2},\ldots,A_{n}\}$, which is assumed globally known at all users and the transmitter.

The sender and the users are connected by an error-free broadcast link.
The sender transmits the codeword
\begin{align}
    x^{\mbit\ell} :=  \mathsf{ENC} (\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{A}),
\end{align}
where $\mathsf{ENC}$ is the encoding function.

The decoding function for user $u_j$ is
\begin{align}
    \{\widehat{w}^{(j)}_{1},\dots,\widehat{w}^{(j)}_{\cardi}\}
    := \mathsf{DEC}_j(W_{A_j},x^{ \mbit\ell}), \ \forall j\in [n],
\end{align}
where $\cardi$ is the number of messages desired by a user and not already included in $A_j$.
In other words, the decoding function at $u_j$ is $\mathsf{DEC}_j, \ j\in[n],$ such that
\begin{align}
	\label{eq:succeful_decoding}
    \Pr[ & \exists \{d_{j,1},\dots,d_{j,\cardi}\}\cap A_j=\emptyset :  \nonumber \\
    & \{\widehat{w}^{(j)}_{1},\dots,\widehat{w}^{(j)}_{\cardi}\}\neq \{{w}_{d_{j,1}},\dots,{w}_{d_{j,\cardi}}\}]  \leq \epsilon,
\end{align}
for some $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and some $D_j := \{d_{j,1},\dots,d_{j,\cardi}\} \subseteq [m]\setminus{A_i}$.
We set $D_j$ contains the indices of the desired messages by $u_j$.

Up to this point, the system definition is that of a classical PICOD problem. We introduce now the privacy constraint.
Privacy is modeled here as follows: user $u_j$ can not decode any messages other than the $\cardi$ messages indexed by $D_j$.
Specifically, we impose that for all $j\in [n]$,
\begin{align}
	\label{eq:secure_constraint}

     &H( w_i  | x^{ \mbit\ell}, W_{A_j}, \mathcal{A} ) \nonumber \\
     \geq &  H( w_i) - \kappa \epsilon, \forall i\in [m]\setminus{(D_j \cup A_j)}.

\end{align}

A code is called \emph{valid} for the private $(n,m,\mathcal{A})$  PICOD$(\cardi)$ if and only if it satisfies the conditions in~\eqref{eq:succeful_decoding} and~\eqref{eq:secure_constraint}. The goal is to find a valid code and a desired message assignment that result in the smallest possible codelength, i.e.,
\begin{align}
     \ell^{\star}:= \min\{\ell : \text{$\exists$ a valid $x^{\mbit\ell}$ for some $\mbit$}\}.
 \end{align}

Finally, if the encoding function at the sender is restricted to be a linear map from the message set,
the length of shortest possible such valid codewords is denoted as
$\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}}$.

\subsection{Network Topology Hypergraph (NTH) and size-$s$ circular-$h$ shift Side Information}
\label{sub:circular_side_information}
In the rest of the paper we shall consider a class of $(n,m,\mathcal{A})$ private PICOD$(\cardi)$ problems with a specific structure on $\mathcal{A}$. Such class is a generalization of the one studied in the past work~\cite{secure_picod_achievability}, which is a special case of the circular-arc NTH that we studied in~\cite{consecutive_picod}, where we fully solved the case $\cardi=1$ for the circular-arc NTH without the privacy constraint.
The rest of the section contains graph definition that will be used later on.

Let $H=(V,\mathcal{E})$ denote a \emph{hypergraph} with vertex set $V$ and edge set $\mathcal{E}$, where an edge $E\in\mathcal{E}$ is a subset of $V$.
The NTH, first introduced in~\cite{consecutive_picod}, is a generalization of network topology graph for the IC problem~\cite{TIM_indexcoding}.
In a NTH, messages are the hyperedges, while the users are the vertices.
A user does \emph{NOT} have a message in its side information set if and only if its corresponding vertex is incident to the hyperedge that represents the message.
A $1$-\emph{factor} of $H$ is a spanning edge induced subgraph of $H$ that is $1$-regular.
A hypergraph $H$ is called an \emph{\cah} if there exists an ordering of the vertices $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n$ such that if $v_i, v_j, i\leq j$, then the $v_q$ for either all $i\leq q\leq j$, or all $q\leq i$ and $q\geq j$, are incident to an edge $E$.

In this paper we study the $(n,m,\mathcal{A})$ private  PICOD$(1)$ with a special side information set structure: the sets in $\mathcal{A}$ are size-$s$ circular-$h$ shift of the message set.
More precisely,
The side information set of user $u_i$ is of the form
\begin{align}
A_i = \{ (i-1)h+1, \ldots, (i-1)h+s \},
\label{eq:size-s shift-h def}
\end{align}
for $i\in[n]$ where all indices are intended modulo the size of the message set, i.e., denoted as $\Mod m$ when needed,
where $0\leq s \leq m-\cardi$ and $h\geq 1$, here $\cardi=1$.

Let $g:=\gcd(m,h)$. In this private PICOD$(1)$ there are $n=m/g$ users, since all users have distinct side information sets.
Note that the size-$s$ circular-$h$ shift side information setup is a special case of the side information structure with \emph{circular-arc} we introduced in~\cite{consecutive_picod}.
Also, the model studied in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability} is the special case when $g=1$ (and thus $n=m$).

\section{Main Result}
\label{sec:main_result}

For the size-$s$ circular-$h$ shift side information private PICOD$(1)$ problem, we have the following main result.
\begin{thm}
	\label{thm:constant_gap_1}
	For the private PICOD$(1)$ where the side information sets are
	as in~\eqref{eq:size-s shift-h def} we have the following.

	Impossibility: when $m$ is odd, $g=1$, and either $s=m-2$ or $s=1$, a valid code does not exists  (i.e., it is not possible to satisfy the privacy constraint).

	For the remaining possible cases, we have:
	    \begin{itemize}
	        \item For $s\geq m/2$, and either $1 \leq s< m/2, g \geq 3$, or $1\leq s< m/2, s\neq 2, g=2$
                	\begin{align}
            	    \label{eq:it_tight_case}
            	    \ell^* =
                	    \begin{cases}
                	    1, & \text{\rm if the NTH has a $1$-factor,}\\
                	    2, & \text{\rm otherwise.}

                	    \end{cases}
            	    \end{align}
            \item For $1 \leq s<m/2$, and either $g =1$ or $s=g=2$
               	\begin{align}
                	\label{eq:linear_bounds}
                	    \ceil{\gnum/2}
                	    \leq \ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}}
                	    \leq
                	    \begin{cases}
                	    \ceil{\gnum/2},   & \frac{m}{s} \in \mathbb{Z},\\
                	    \ceil{\gnum/2}+1, & \frac{m}{s} \notin \mathbb{Z}.
                	    \end{cases}
                	\end{align}
            \end{itemize}
\end{thm}

    A few observations are in order.
    When $s\geq m/2$, the achievable scheme provided in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability} is indeed information theoretical optimal given~\eqref{eq:it_tight_case}, which is our converse bound in~\cite[Theorem~3]{consecutive_picod} for the case without privacy constraint.
    Therefore, our main contribution in Theorem~\ref{thm:constant_gap_1} is three-fold compared to~\cite{secure_picod_achievability}:
        1) for $s\geq m/2$ we provide information theoretic optimality of the scheme in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability};
        2) for $s<m/2$ we provide a new achievable scheme, and show it is almost linear optimal;
        3) we generalize the side information structure to any $g>1$.

    In~\eqref{eq:linear_bounds},
    if we fix $s$ and $g$, $\gnum$ is monotonic in the message set size $m$.
    One interesting observation is that, although the lower bound on $\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}}$ is monotonic with $m$, the upper bound is not.
    For instance, consider the case $s=2, g=1$;
    when $m=10$ or $m=12$, we have $\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}}\leq 3$, while
    when $m=11$ we have $\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}}\leq 4$.
    In other words, from the point of $m=11$, both increasing and decreasing the message set size may result in an increase of the required number of transmissions.
    Note that this is the point where the upper and the lower bounds differ.
    It is not clear at this point whether this means the achievable scheme here is not optimal, or the optimal private \emph{linear} PICOD solution is not monotonic in $m$.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:constant_gap_1}}
\label{sec:proof}

We divide the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:constant_gap_1} into various cases.
Specifically,
the impossibility result is proved in Section~\ref{sub:impossible_cases},
the case $s<m/2,g=1$ in Section~\ref{sub:case_s<m/2_g=1}, and
the case $s<m/2,g=s=2$ in Section~\ref{sub:brief_case_s<m/2_g=2_s=2}.
The schemes that achieve~\eqref{eq:it_tight_case} are sketched in Section~\ref{sub:brief_proof_remain_cases},
while the full proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_proof_remain_cases}.

\subsection{Impossible Cases}
\label{sub:impossible_cases}

First we show that in some cases the privacy constraint can not be satisfied.
The proof of the same under a linear encoding constraint was provided in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability}.
Here we provide a simple information theoretic proof of the same.
The main idea is to proof the existence of a ``decoding chain'' (as defined in~\cite{consecutive_picod}) regardless of the choices of the desired messages at the users.
This ``decoding chain'' technique was used in~\cite{consecutive_picod} for the converse proof of so called consecutive complete--$S$ PICOD$(t)$. Since this argument does not rely on any assumption on the encoding function at the server, the resulting bound is truly information theoretical (as opposed to a form of `restricted converse').

    \subsubsection{Case $m$ is odd, $s=m-2$, and $g=1$}
    \label{ssub:impossibility_m_odd_s=m-2_g=1}
    User $u_i$ has two possible choices for its desired message (because all the others are in its side information set); these messages are $d_i=(i+s)\Mod m$ or $d_i=(i-1)\Mod m$.
    If $d_i=(i+s)\Mod m$, by decoding $w_{d_i}$, user $u_i$ can mimic $u_{(i-1)\Mod m}$ since $A_{(i-1)\Mod m}\subset \{(i+s)\Mod m\}\cup A_i$.
    Therefore, user $u_i$ can decode $w_{d_{(i-1)\Mod m}}$.
    To make sure user $u_i$ can decode only one message, we need $d_{(i-1)\Mod m}\in A_i$ so that user $u_i$ does not decode another message that is not in its side information set.
    We thus have $d_i\in A_{(i-1)\Mod m}$ and $d_{(i-1)\Mod m}\in A_i$ can mimic each other.

    We say that two user mimicking each other form a ``loop''.
    The same argument holds for the other choice of $d_i$ as well.
    To make sure all users can decode one message only, every user must be in a ``loop''.
    However, one user can be in only one loop.
    Thus, there must be one user that is not contained in any loop because here we have taken $m$ to be odd.
    Therefore, there exists one user that can mimic another user and thus decode two messages, which violates the privacy constraint.

    \subsubsection{Case $m$ is odd, $s=1$, and $g=1$}
    \label{ssub:impossibility_m_odd_s=1_g=1}
    User $u_i$, by decoding its desired message $d_i=j, j\neq i$, can mimic user $u_j$ and thus also decode $d_j$.
    To make sure user $u_i$ can decode only one message, we must have $d_j=i$.
    Therefore user $u_i$ and $u_j$ form a ``loop''.
    Similarly, every user can be in only one loop.
    We need all users to be in a loop to make sure that every user can decode at most one message.
    Since $m$ is odd, this is impossible. Thus, there must exists one user that can decode two messages, which violates the privacy constraint.

\subsection{Case $s<m/2$ and $g = 1$ (here $m=n$)}
\label{sub:case_s<m/2_g=1}

\subsubsection{Achievability}
\label{ssub:achievability_case_s<m/2_g=1}

	Let $m = 2sq+\remain$ for some $q,\remain\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $0\leq \remain<2s$, i.e., $\remain$ is the remainder of $m$ modulo $2s$, and $q$ is the maximum number of users who can have disjoint side information sets.
	We can have $2q+\floor{\frac{\remain}{s}}$ groups of $s$ users such that the users in each group have at least one message in common in their side information sets.
	Also, $\remain-s\floor{\frac{\remain}{s}}$ is the number of users that are not contained in any of these groups.

    The intuition of our achievable scheme is as follows.
    Under the privacy constraint, we can satisfy the users in two groups with one transmission, therefore $2sq$ users can be satisfied by $q$ transmissions.
    If $\remain=0$, $q$ transmissions suffice;
    if $0<\remain\leq s$, we can satisfy the remaining $\remain$ users by one transmission; and
    if $s<\remain<2s$, we can satisfy the remaining $\remain$ users by two transmissions.
    Therefore the total number of transmissions is $q+\ceil{\frac{\remain}{s}}$.
	Based on this intuition, we distinguish three sub-cases:
	a) $\remain=0$;
	b) $0<\remain\leq s$; and
	c) $s<\remain<2s$.

	\paragraph*{Case $\remain=0$}
	\label{par:remainder=0}
	This is the case where $m$ is divisible by $2s$, therefore is divisible by $s$.
	We partition the users into groups $G_1,G_2,\ldots,G_{2q}$, such that all users in $G_i$ have message $w_{is}$ in their side information.
	Set the desired message of the users in $G_{2i},i\in[q],$ to be $w_{(2i-1)s}$, and the desired message of the users in $G_{2i-1}, i\in[q]$ to be $w_{2is}$
	There are $q$ transmissions, each of them is $w_{2is}+w_{(2i-1)s}, i\in[q],$ that satisfies the users in $G_i$ and $G_{i+1}$ while
	it  does not provide any useful information for the users in other groups.

	Therefore, $q=\frac{m}{2s}$ transmissions suffice to satisfy all the $m$ users.

	\paragraph*{Case $0<\remain \leq s$}
	\label{par:0<remainder<=s}
	We partition the users into $2q+1$ groups.
	As for to the case $\remain=0$, the first $2q$ groups contain $s$ users.
	The users in $G_i, i\in[2q],$ all have $w_{is}$ in their side information.
	Group $G_{2q+1}$ has $\remain$ users.
	The first $q$ transmissions are $w_{2is}+w_{(2i-1)s}, i\in [q]$, and satisfy the users in groups $G_i,i\in[2q]$.
	We next satisfy the users in $G_{2q+1}$.

	If $\remain=1$, we have $G_{2q+1}=\{u_m\}$.
	Let $d_m=s+1$ and the $(q+1)$-th transmission be $w_{s+1}+\sum_{j\in A_m} w_j$.
	Note that
	$s\geq \remain+1=2$, therefore user $u_m$ can decode $w_{s+1}$ while the other users can not decode any new messages one they receive the last transmission.

	If $\remain \geq 2$,
	the users in $G_{2q+1}$ all have $W_{[1:s-\remain]\cup\{m\}}$ in their side information.
	Let $d_{2sq+1}=s-\remain+1$ and $d_j=2sq+1, j\in[2sq+2:m]$.
	The $(q+1)$-th transmission is $w_{2sq+1}+w_m+\sum_{j=1}^{s-\remain+1} w_{j}$.
	Since user $u_{2sq+1}$ can compute $w_{2sq+1}+w_m+\sum_{j=1}^{s-\remain} w_{j}$ and
	users $u_j,j\in[2sq+2:m],$ can compute $w_m+\sum_{j=1}^{s-\remain+1} w_{j}$, these users have the message that is not in their side information set as their desired message.
	All the other users who are not in $G_{2q+1}$ have at least two messages unknown in the transmission and thus cannot decode it.
	Therefore, each user can decode only one message by the achievable scheme with $q+1$ transmissions.
	If $m$ is divisible by $s$, then $\remain=s$ and $q+1=\ceil{\frac{m}{2s}}$;
	if $m$ is not divisible by $s$, $q+1=\ceil{\floor{\frac{m}{s}}/2}+1$.

	\paragraph*{Case $s<\remain<2s$}
	\label{par:s<remainder<2s}
	We partition the users into $2q+2$ groups.
	The users in group $G_{i}, i\in[2q+1],$ all have message $w_{(is)}$, while the users in group $G_{2q+2}$ all have $ W_{[1: 2s-\remain]\cup\{m\}}$.
	We satisfy the first $2q$ groups
	by sending $w_{2is}+w_{(2i-1)s}, i\in[q]$.
	We satisfy all users in $G_{2q+1}$ by sending $w_{2sq+1}+w_{2sq+s}+w_{2sq+s+1}$.

	%
	If $\remain=s+1$, $G_{2q+2}=\{u_m\}$ and we let $d_m=s+1$ and send as last transmission $w_{s+1}+\sum_{j\in A_m}$;
	%
	otherwise, we let $d_{2sq+s+1}=2s-\remain+1$ and $d_j=2sq+s+1, j\in[2sq+s+1 : m]$
	and send $w_{2sq+s+1}+w_m+\sum_{i=1}^{2s-\remain+1} w_i$.

	One can verify that all users can decode one and only one message by using a code of length $q+2=\ceil{\floor{\frac{m}{s}}/2}+1$.

\subsubsection{Converse}
\label{ssub:converse_case_s<m/2_g=1}

Messages are bit vectors of length $\mbit$, for some  $\mbit$;
we thus see each message as an element in $\mathbb{F}_{2^\mbit}$.
When the sender uses a linear code (on $\mathbb{F}_{2^\mbit}$), we can write the transmitted codeword as $x^{\ell} = E w^{ m}$, where $w^{m} = (w_1,w_2,\dots,w_m)^T$ is the vector containing all the messages, and where $E\in \mathbb{F}_{2^\mbit}^{\ell \times m}$ is the generator matrix of the code.
We denote the linear span of the row vectors of $E$ as $\spa{E}$.
Recall that in this setting, user $u_i, i\in[n],$ must to be able to decode one and only one message outside its side information set $A_i$; the index of the decoded message is $d_i$.
Let $v_{i,j}$ be a vector whose $j$-th element is non-zero and all elements with index not in $A_i$ are zeros.

A valid generator matrix $E$ must satisfy the following two conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item \emph{Decodability}: $v_{i,d_i}\in \spa{E}$, for all $i\in [m]$;
    \item \emph{Privacy}: $v_{i,j}\notin \spa{E}$ for all $i\in [m], j\in[m]\setminus (A_i\cup \{d_i\})$.
\end{enumerate}
The decodability condition guarantees successful decoding of the desired message $w_{d_i}$ by user $u_i$ as argued in~\cite{index_coding_with_sideinfo}.
The privacy condition must hold because
the existence of a vector $v_{i,j}\in \spa{E}$ for some $j\in[m]\setminus (A_i\cup \{d_i\})$ implies that user $u_i$ is able to decode message $w_j$ in addition to its desired message $w_{d_i}$.

The optimal linear code length $\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}}$
is the smallest rank of the generator matrix $E$, which by definition is the maximum number of pairwise linearly independent vectors in $\spa{E}$. We prove the linear converse bound by giving a lowered bound on the maximum number of pairwise linearly independent vectors in $\spa{E}$, i.e., the rank of $E$.
To do so, we need the following two propositions, proved in Appendices~\ref{app:p1} and~\ref{app:p2}, respectively. These propositions are the key technical novelty of this work.

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible}
In a working system (where every user can decode without violating the privacy condition) with $g=1$ we must have $e_i\notin\spa{E}$ for all $i\in [m]$, where $e_i$ are standard bases of $m$-dimensional linear space.
\end{prop}

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:linear_half_converse}
For a working system with $g=1$, among all $n$ users, consider $k$ users whose side information sets are pairwise disjoint.
The number of transmissions of any linear code that satisfies these $k$ users must be $\ell_\mathrm{lin} \geq \ceil{k/2}$.
\end{prop}

Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible} states that in this case,  a trivial `uncoded scheme' (that consists of sending $\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}}$  messages one by one) always violates the privacy constraint.
In other words, no user is allowed to decode without using its side information.

Proposition~\ref{prop:linear_half_converse} provides a lower bound on the code-length of a linear code for a subset of the users in the system (those with pairwise disjoint side information sets), thus for all users.
Therefore, among all $m$ users in the system, there are $\floor{\frac{m}{s}}$ users with pairwise disjoint side information sets.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:linear_half_converse}, we need at least $\ceil{\floor{\frac{m}{s}}/2}$ transmissions to satisfy these users.
Therefore, in order to satisfy all the users in the system, we must have $\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}} \geq  \ceil{\floor{\frac{m}{s}}/2}$.
This provides the claimed lower bound.

\subsection{Case $s<m/2$ and $g=s=2$ (here $n=m/2$)}
\label{sub:brief_case_s<m/2_g=2_s=2}

\subsubsection{Achievability}
\label{ssub:achievability_case_s<m/2_g=2_s=2}
In this case we show $\ell^{\star}_{\mathrm{lin}} = \ceil{m/4}$.
We use the achievable scheme for case $s=2 < m/2$ and $g=1$ from Section~\ref{ssub:achievability_case_s<m/2_g=1}, where we need $\ceil{m/4}$ transmissions to satisfy all $n=m$ users.
We users we have in this case are a proper subset of the users in the case $g=1$.
The achievable scheme for $g=1$ still satisfies all users and meets the privacy constraint.
We have $\ell\leq \ceil{m/4}$ in this case.

\subsubsection{Converse}
\label{ssub:converse_case_s<m/2_g=2_s=2}
The converse proof in Section~\ref{ssub:converse_case_s<m/2_g=1} does not directly apply in this case, mainly because the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible} requires $g=1$. In Appendix~\ref{app:p3} we show that it also holds for $g=2$, stated as Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible_s=g=2}.

Hence the converse follows the same argument in Section~\ref{ssub:converse_case_s<m/2_g=1} by replacing Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible} with Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible_s=g=2}  in Appendix~\ref{app:p3}.
We show that for $k$ user with pairwise disjoint side information sets,  $\ceil{k/2}$ transmissions are needed for this case under the linear encoding restriction.
Note that in this case all $n=m/2$ users are with pairwise disjoint side information sets.
Therefore, the total number of transmissions that satisfy all users is at least $\ceil{m/4}$.

\subsection{Remaining Cases}
\label{sub:brief_proof_remain_cases}
We aim to prove~\eqref{eq:it_tight_case}.
Here we provide the converse proof, and a sketch of the achievability proofs.
The detailed proofs can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix_proof_remain_cases}.

\subsubsection{Converse}
\label{ssub:remain_converse}
By the converse bound in~\cite[Theorem~3]{consecutive_picod} for the circular-arc PICOD($1$) without the privacy constraint, we have $\ell*\geq 1$ when the NTH has 1-factor, and $\ell^*\geq 2$ when the NTH has no 1-factor. This converse bound holds also when we impose an additional privacy constraint.

\subsubsection{Achievability for $s<m/2$, either $g=2,s\neq 2$, or $g \geq 3$}
\label{ssub:brief_case_s<m/2_g=2_s!=2_or_g>=3}
We show how to find the first message to transmit. Then, all the users that do not have this message in their side information sets must be satisfied by a second transmission. We show how to find this second transmission in such a way that the privacy constraint is met.

\subsubsection{Achievability for $s\geq m/2$}
\label{ssub:brief_case_s>=m/2}
The achievable scheme in this case is the one proposed in~\cite{secure_picod_achievability}, where only the case $g=1$ was considered.
For the cases where $g>1$, the set of users in the system is a proper subset of the set of users when $g=1$.
Therefore the scheme for $g=1$ is still valid for any $g$ in that both decoding and privacy constraints are met.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper we gave both achievable and converse bounds for the  private PICOD$(1)$ problem with circular side information sets.
We showed that our linear achievable scheme is information theoretical optimal for some parameters, or it requires at most one more transmission compared to a converse developed under the constraint that the sender is restricted to use linear codes.
Proving, or disproving, that our linear codes are actually information theoretically optimal is subject of current investigation.

This work was supported in part by NSF Award number 1527059. The opinion expressed in this paper are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSF.

\appendices

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible}}
\label{app:p1}
Recall that, for $g=1$, the side information sets are $A_i =(i,\ldots,i+s-1\Mod m)$ for all $i\in[m]$, as here $n=m$.
The proof is by contradiction.
Assume without loss of generality (wlog) that we have a working systems with $e_1\in\spa{E}$, that is, every user can decode message $w_1$ without even using its side information.
Then, all users $u_i, i\in [2:m-s+1]$ (who do not have $w_1$ in their side information sets) must have desired message $w_1$, in order to make sure that privacy constraint is not violated.
This implies Fact~1: user $u_1$ can only have $w_{d_1}=w_{s+1}$ as desired message.

Fact~1 is true because $u_2$ desires $w_1$, therefore $A_2 \cup \{d_2\} \supset A_1$.
After decoding $w_1$, user $u_2$ can mimic user $u_1$ and thus decode message $d_2$.
Since user $u_2$ can decode only one message, then $d_1\in A_2\setminus A_1 = \{s+1\}$.
Therefore $d_1=s+1$.
By taking $d_1=s+1$, we conclude that there must exist vector $v_{1,d_1} =  v_{1,s+1} = c+\alpha_{s+1}e_{s+1}$,
where $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{2^\mbit}, \alpha\neq 0$ and $c\in \spa{A_{1}}$, where with an abuse of notation we let $\spa{A_i}$ denote $\spa{\{e_j : j\in A_i\}}$.

Given that we established Fact~1, let $j$ be the position of the fist non-zero element in the so found $v_{1,s+1}$.
Clearly, $j\leq s+1$ since the $(s+1)$-th element of $v_{1,s+1}$ is $\alpha_{s+1}\neq 0$. We have the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item If $j=s+1$, all the users who do not have $w_{s+1}$ in their side information sets, can decode $w_{s+1}$.
    This is because in this case $ v_{1,s+1} = \alpha e_{s+1}$.

    Thus user $u_{s+2}$, who has neither $w_1$ nor $w_{s+1}$ in its side information set, can decode both $w_1$ and $w_{s+1}$.

    \item If $1<j<s+1$, then user $u_{j+1}$ can decode $w_j$, since $s+1\in A_j$. But user $u_{j+1}$ decodes $w_1$ by assumption.
    Therefore, user $u_j$ can decode both $w_1$ and $w_j$.
    \item If $j=1$, user $u_{s+2}$ can decode both $w_{s+1}$ and $w_1$.
    Therefore, $u_{s+2}$ can decode two messages.
\end{enumerate}
In all the three above cases, there exists at least one user who can decode at least two messages, thus violating the privacy constraint.
Therefore, the original assumption $e_1\in\spa{E}$ must be impossible in a working system. The same reasoning applies to any $e_j, j\in[m]$. This proves the claim.

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:linear_half_converse}}
\label{app:p2}

By Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible}, for all $i\in[k]$ there exists
$v_{i,d_i} = \alpha_i e_{d_i}+c_i\in \spa{E}$, where $c_i\in \spa{A_i}$ and $\alpha_i \neq 0$.
Since the side information sets $A_i$ are assumed to be disjoint, the vectors $c_i$ are linearly independent.
$v_{i,d_i}$ are linearly dependent only if $d_i\in A_j$ and $d_j\in A_i$ for some $i\neq j$.
In other words, there exists a ``loop'' between $u_i$ and $u_j$.
Note that since the side information sets are disjoint, one user can be in at most one ``loop'', and the number of ``loops'' is at most $\floor{k/2}$.
Therefore the number of $v_{i,d_i}$ that are linearly dependent is at most $\floor{k/2}$, and thus the number of\emph{ linearly independent} $v_{i,d_i}$ is at least $k-\floor{k/2}=\ceil{k/2}$.
Therefore, the number of transmissions that is needed to satisfy $k$ users with disjoint side information sets must satisfy $\ell = \text{rk}(E) \geq \ceil{k/2}$.

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible_s=g=2}}
\label{app:p3}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible_s=g=2}
In a working system (where every user can decode without violating the privacy condition) with $g=s=2$ we must have $e_i\notin\spa{E}$ for all $i\in [m]$, where $e_i$ are standard bases of $m$-dimensional linear space.
\end{prop}

Similar to the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:trival_satisfaction_impossible},
Wlog assume $e_1$ is in $\text{Span}(E)$.
All users $u_i, i\in [2:m-s+1]$ in this case need to desire message $w_1$.
Let $d_1 \in A_j$, for some $j\neq 1$
For the decoding at $u_1$, there exists a vector $v_{1, d_1}\in \spa{E}$ such that:
1) the $d_1$-th element is non-zero;
2) all elements with indices that are not $1,2$ or $d_1$ are zeros.
We check the first and second element of $v_{1, d_1}$ and have the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Both the first and second elements of $v_{1, d_1}$ are zeros, $v_{1, d_1} = e_{d_i}$.
    Therefore all users without $w_{d_i}$ in their side information sets can decode $w_{d_i}$.

    \item The first element is zero while the second element is non-zero.

    By $v_{1, d_1}$ the user $u_j$ is able decode $w_2$ since $u_j$ already decodes $w_1$ and has $w_{d_1}$ in its side information sets. $u_j$ can decodes two messages.

    \item The first element is non-zero while the second element is zero.

    Since all users that do not have $w_1$ can decode $w_1$, all users can decode $w_{d_1}$ if they do not have it in their side information sets.

    \item Both the first and second elements of $v_{1, d_1}$ are non-zeros.

    $u_j$ decodes $w_1$ by assumption. It also has $w_{d_i}$ in its side information set. Therefore $u_j$ can decode $w_2$.

\end{enumerate}
All possible cases show that there exists at least one user that can decode at least two messages.
The assumption that $e_1$ is in $\text{Span}(E)$ is impossible.
The reasoning applies to all $e_j,j\in [m]$.
Therefore we conclude that $e_i\notin \spa{E}$ for all $i\in[m]$.

\section{Proof for the Remaining Cases}
\label{sec:appendix_proof_remain_cases}

For the following three cases: $s<m/2$, $g=2$, $s\neq 2$; $s<m/2$, $g \geq 3$; $s\geq m/2$, we aim to prove
\begin{align*}
            	    \ell^* =
                	    \begin{cases}
                	    1, & \text{if the NTH has $1$-factor,}\\
                	    2, & \text{otherwise.}

                	    \end{cases}
            	    \end{align*}

\subsection{Converse for all three cases}
\label{sub:remain_converse}
By the converse bound in ~\cite[Theorem~3]{consecutive_picod} for circular-arc PICOD, without the privacy constraint, $\ell*\geq 1$ when the NTH has 1-factor, and $\ell^*\geq 2$ when the NTH has no 1-factor.

\subsection{Achievability for case $s<m/2$, $g = 2$, and $s\neq 2$}
\label{sub:remain_case_s<m/2_g=2_s!=2}

If $s=1$, the NTH has 1-factor. Thus $\ell^*=1$, in which case we send the sum of all messages.
If $2< s<m/2$, we send $w_{s+1}$ as the first transmission.
This transmission satisfies all users but $u_i, i = 2,\dots, \floor{s/2}+1$, since they all have $w_{s+1}$ in their side information set.
When $s$ is even, they have common side information set $\{s+1,s+2\}$.
We send the second transmission as $w_3+w_{s+1}+w_{s+2}+w_{s+3}$. $u_2$ can decode $w_{s+3}$, $u_i,i=3,\dots, \floor{s/2}+1$ can decode $w_3$.
All the other users, after decoding $w_{s+1}$, still have at least two messages known in the summation, therefore can not decode any more messages.
When $s$ is odd, we send the second transmission as $w_3+w_{s}+w_{s+1}+w_{s+2}+w_{s+3}$.
By similar argument we can show that $u_i, i = 2,\dots, \floor{s/2}+1$ can decode one messages from the second transmission while the other users can not.

\subsection{Achievability for case $s<m/2$, $g\geq 3$}
\label{sub:remain_case_s<m/2_g>=3}

It is trivial that if the NTH has $1$-factor we have $\ell^*=1$, in which case we send the sum of all messages.
Therefore, we show that if the NTH does not have $1$-factor we can satisfy all users with two transmissions while satisfying the privacy constraint.
Send $w_{s+1}$ as the first transmission.
All users who do not have $w_{s+1}$ in the side information sets are satisfied.
The users that have $w_{s+1}$ in the side information sets are $u_i, i=2,\dots,\floor{s/g},\floor{s/g}+1$.
They have common side information set $[\floor{s/g}g+1 : s+g]$.
$|[s+2 : s+g]|\geq 2$ since $g\geq 3$.
For the second transmission we send $w_{m}+\sum_{i=s+2}^{s+g}w_{i}$.
By the condition $s<m/2$, all users $u_i, i=2,\dots,\floor{s/g},\floor{s/g}+1$ do not have $w_m$ in the side information sets.
Therefore these users can decode $w_m$ as the desired message.
For the second transmission, all the other users have at least two messages known in the summation, therefore can not decode any information from the second transmission.
The privacy constraint is satisfied.

\subsection{Achievability for case $s\geq m/2$}
\label{sub:remain_case_s>=m/2}

We use the proposed achievable scheme in \cite{secure_picod_achievability} for this case.
When $g=1$, \cite{secure_picod_achievability} showed one can achieve $\ell=1$ if the NTH has 1-factor, and $\ell=2$ otherwise.
When $g>1$, the users are in a proper subset of the users of $g=1$.
Therefore the users can still be satisfied by the scheme that can satisfy strictly more users.
The privacy constraint is still satisfied as less users can not decode more messages.
Therefore, the achievable scheme can achieve $\ell=1$ when NTH has 1-factor, and $\ell=2$ when NTH does not have 1-factor.

\bibliographystyle{IEEEtranS}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


FAIRFAX, VA–-InfoComm International has been recognized as an American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Developer. InfoComm's standards will be developed as international standards and, as warranted, will be presented for adoption by the International Standards Organization (ISO).
InfoComm's exclusive focus in standards development is on system performance, rather than individual product or technology standards. This program will provide the industry with performance standards that AV companies can build their systems to meet, while giving the industry's customers clear industry standards on which they can rely.
"ANSI recognition of InfoComm as a Standards Developer represents a dramatic next step in the association's advancement of industry quality improvement programs," said InfoComm standards committee chair, Scott Walker, CTS-D, LEED AP, of Waveguide Consulting. "Standards define a profession, demonstrate a commitment to professional self-regulation, and acknowledge the profession's responsibility to the public."
InfoComm will lead this activity under its Performance Standards Committee, but the standards created will benefit the whole industry and its customers. All InfoComm standards will be developed through a disciplined ANSI process to reach consensus among everyone involved with AV systems.
"Several years ago InfoComm's Board of Governors had the foresight to recognize the need for a more professional identity for the AV industry, and realized that industry standards is a way to improve the industry and benefit consumers," said Randal A. Lemke, Ph.D., Executive Director, InfoComm International. "Through the vigorous efforts of numerous industry volunteers, the Performance Standards Steering Committee has developed two inaugural proposed standards: Sound Coverage, under the direction of Frederick J. Ampel, Technology Visions, and Projected Image. In December of 2007 the InfoComm Board approved these as the first two standards to be developed. Through rigorous debate and compromise, the industry will be able to establish these, and future standards, that will guide designers, installers, and customers for years to come."


text:
Q: When I installed Ubuntu 13.10 my ethernet is not connecting I have just installed Ubuntu 13.10 on a new computer I put together however I am unable to get my Ethernet to work. What happens is my computer will go through phases of searching for a network and then occasionally pop a red box that says you are disconnected from the network.
here are the results of my ifconfig:
eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 74:d4:35:58:b2:47
          inet6 addr: fe80::76d4:35ff:fe58:b247/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:713 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:1034 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:53473 (53.4 KB)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:65536  Metric:1
          RX packets:80 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:80 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
          RX bytes:6272 (6.2 KB)  TX bytes:6272 (6.2 KB)

any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
EDIT:
after looking over my config I appear to have an ipv6 address. and I know for a fact that this particular network isn't configured to hand out ipv6 addresses (its a private home network)

A: Ok so the issue I had was that I was using a realtek ethernet card which ubuntu has an issue with.
the directions I found here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1661489
they ALMOST worked. Others may have better luck with them.
In the end I just sprung for a usb to ethernet adapter that was compatible with my linux kernal and everything worked well.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: ASP.NET MVC4: How to create a lookup table so entries aren't repeated virI'm trying to create a lookup table in my ASP.NET MVC4 application with Entity Framework Code First.  It is for our locations and there should be two entries.  I need to have some sort of ID associated with them so there is a LocationID stored in my Software table.  However, when I create them there is an entry to created for each row in the Software Table.
Here is my Software class:
public class Software
    {
        public int Id { get; set; }
        public virtual List<SoftwareType> SoftwareTypes { get; set; }
        public virtual List<Location> Locations { get; set; }
        public virtual List<SoftwarePublisher> Publishers { get; set; }
        [Required]
        [StringLength(128)]
        public string Title { get; set; }
        [Required]
        [StringLength(10)]
        public string Version { get; set; }
        [Required]
        [StringLength(128)]
        public string SerialNumber { get; set; }
        [Required]
        [StringLength(3)]
        public string Platform { get; set; }
        [StringLength(1000)]
        public string Notes { get; set; }
        [Required]
        [StringLength(15)]
        public string PurchaseDate { get; set; }
        public bool Suite { get; set; }
        public string SubscriptionEndDate { get; set; }
        //[Required]
        //[StringLength(3)]
        public int SeatCount { get; set; }

    }

Here is my Locations class:
 public class Location
    {
        public int Id { get; set; }
        [Required]
        [StringLength(20)]
        public string LocationName { get; set; }
        public virtual Software Software { get; set; }
    }

Here is my Global.asax call to a seed method:
Database.SetInitializer(new SampleData());
            using (var context = new Context())
            {
               context.Database.Initialize(true);
            }

Here is my context:
 public class Context : DbContext
    {
        public DbSet<Software> Software { get; set; }
        public DbSet<Location> Locations { get; set; }
        public DbSet<SoftwarePublisher> SoftwarePublishers { get; set; }
        public DbSet<SoftwareType> SoftwareTypes { get; set; }

        public Context()
        {
           Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
        }
    }

And here is my seeding:
public class SampleData : CreateDatabaseIfNotExists<Context>
    {
        protected override void Seed(Context context)
        {
            new List<Software> {
                    new Software {
                         Title = "Adobe Creative Suite",
                         Version = "CS6",
                         SerialNumber = "1234634543",
                         Platform = "Mac",
                         Notes = "Macs rock!",
                         PurchaseDate = "2012-12-04",
                         Suite = true,
                         SubscriptionEndDate = null,
                         SeatCount = 0,
                         SoftwareTypes = new List<SoftwareType>
                               { new SoftwareType { Type="Suite" }},
                         Locations = new List<Location>
                               { new Location { LocationName = "Paradise" }},
                         Publishers = new List<SoftwarePublisher>
                               { new SoftwarePublisher { Publisher = "Adobe" }}},
                ...other similar rows...
                }.ForEach(s => context.Software.Add(s));

            base.Seed(context);
            context.SaveChanges();

        }

Because I am creating a new list for things like Locations (I need to fix the other things like SoftwareType and Publisher, but let's focus on Locations), it is creating a new row in my Locations table.  How do I restructure my classes, so that I have two entries in my Locations table and then IDs in my Software table pointing to one of those two entries?  Please bear in mind I am an Entity Framework newbie, so please try to be explicit.  Thanks.

A: I think you want a many to many relationship between Software and Locations.  To do that, you'll need to create a join table (also called a linking table).  I believe you want to do this in your OnModelCreating override
this.HasMany(i => i.Softwares)
            .WithMany(c => c.Locations)
            .Map(mc =>
            {
                mc.MapLeftKey("SoftwareId");
                mc.MapRightKey("LocationId");
                mc.ToTable("SoftwareLocations");
            });

I got that snippet from this blog post


text:
package org.itachi.cms.constant;

/**
 * Created by itachi on 2017/4/12.
 * User: itachi
 * Date: 2017/4/12
 * Time: 22:10
 */
public interface Constants {
    String SESSION_KEY = "CMS_USER";
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


It has got a hint of melancholy, a surcharge of energy, and a strong thread of melody — all wound over a backbone of underplayed, but riveting rhythm. Add to this some of the most thoughtfully worded lyrics on the intricacies of life and living, and you have a heady musical mix that keeps ringing in your ears.
Wax Tailor's live performances in India throbbed with energy and he was at his warmest best in calling upon the crowds to step forward and sway to his potent music — a mix of strings, winds, djing, vocals and visuals. "I have travelled thousands of miles to perform for you; surely, you could step ten metres ahead," he called out during a song, much to the crowd's delight. That is Jean for you: no false airs, and always ready to connect with his listeners.
Even now, the young man (he is just 36 now) has already established a genre of his own in hip hop music, both in terms of production and song writing. In fact, Wax Tailor creates music the way film directors create their films — fashioning layers of elements that include journaling, images, vocals, and of course, music — all coming together to make powerful statements conceptually, instead of piecemeal. By the way, movie directors Le Saout admires include Stanley Kubrick and Woody Allen.
In his songs, Wax Tailor likes to explore it all — philosophy, history, politics — and above all, the connect with the self. And under Wax Tailor's direction, sting instruments which were just extras in hip hop music assume a more powerful role and in fact often carry the song through; as in the piece Dry Your Eyes, Go Without Me.
Wax Tailor's strength lies perhaps in his ability to weave together a wide array of influences and orchestrate the cello, violin, saxophone and other soulful sounding instruments with throbbing drum beats. Instrument music and the vocals have their own place, neither diminishing the impact of the other, though Le Saoût does give vocals more footage than any other hip hop composer. "I grew up with the hip hop culture, and I am a big fan of the Beatles; their music was amazing," he puts in.
Wax Tailor's musical odyssey began in the early 90s. Then he was a rapper, composer, producer and manager in the group La Formule band. He graduated onto presenting his own hip hop shows in a Parisian radio station. And then, in 1998, he created the Lab'oratoire label to produce projects like La Formule. With the super success of his albums, life has revolved around the studios for the past five years for Le Saoût. "If not in the studio, I am on the roads," he says.


1. The New York Times - "Part-Time Jobs and Thrift: How Unpaid Interns in D.C. Get By"
2. Daily Mail - "POINT shoppers in the right direction: Arrows directing people to healthy food 'increases consumption of fruit and veg'"
3. New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan - "Elect The UNM Regents? Old Proposal Surfaces Amid Latest Turmoil, Plus: More On The R's And A Gas Tax Boost And Spaceport Watch"
4. Tech Transfer - "Start-up based on U New Mexico rapid cell screening technology acquired for $90M"
* KRQE 13 7/6/2016 10:32 a.m.


text:
ILO in Viet Nam
About ILO in Viet Nam
International labour standards
Labour market governance and working conditions
Skills and employability
Workers and Employers Organizations
Decent work in Viet Nam
New Industrial Relations Framework
Video and audio stories
Library / documentation center
ILO in Asia and the Pacific
Offices in the Region
Trade unions should play a bigger role in ensuring safe ...
Trade unions should play a bigger role in ensuring safe labour migration
It is important that Viet Nam's legislation strengthens the role of trade unions in representing and protecting migrant workers, as well as in formulation of laws, policies and programmes.
Press release | 18 June 2018
HANOI – Trade unions have expressed the need to have a tripartite mechanism, which includes the Government, trade unions and employers, in labour migration governance.
The proposal was made at the policy consultation on the "Role of trade unions in promoting fair recruitment and decent work for migrant workers" co-organized by the Viet Nam General Confederation of Labour (VGCL), the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Asia Foundation in Hanoi on 18 June.
"As the representative organization protecting legitimate rights of workers, VGCL cares for the jobs, incomes and rights of Vietnamese migrant workers, as well as wants to ensure the fair recruitment and decent work for workers working overseas under contracts, and support them when they return home," said VGCL Vice President, Tran Van Ly.
According to VGCL, it is important to amend the Law on Vietnamese workers working abroad under contract to strengthen the role of trade unions in representing and protecting migrant workers, as well as in formulation of laws, policies and programmes.
The law, known as Law 72, took effect in 2007, is now under review for amendments.
"Migration flows should be governed through tripartite dialogue and structures among the Government, trade unions and employers, at the national, regional and global levels," said ILO Viet Nam Director Chang-Hee Lee. "Trade unions are the workers' voice in the tripartite structure of the ILO. Without this strong voice, the "triple win" – where migration benefits employers, workers and the State – is not possible."
According to the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, around 134,000 Vietnamese workers left the country for overseas jobs under contract in 2017. Taiwan (China), Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia are the top destinations for Viet Nam's labour migration. Every year, an increasing number of women migrate abroad, many to take up jobs in domestic work, including in Saudi Arabia.
A recent ILO research showed that 76 per cent of Vietnamese migrant workers to Malaysia and Thailand experienced some forms of labour rights violation and had limited access to legal remedies during employment. Few joined trade unions in destination.
The same study indicated that reliable information on how to migrate regularly and reduce the risks of migration is generally unavailable to Vietnamese migrant workers, with only one in three receiving reliable information that could inform the decision to migrate.
Compared to migrant workers from Cambodia, Myanmar and Lao PDR, Vietnamese workers paid the most in migration costs. Paying more for migration and often borrowing those funds makes migrant workers more vulnerable to debt bondage and human trafficking.
"Local authorities, particularly VGCL's local network of staff holding leadership positions in ward and commune- level People's Committees can play a critical role as community-based communicators and counsellors on safe migration for potential migrant workers and their family members" said the Asia Foundation Country Representatives, Michael R. DiGregorio.
"They are, however, not instructed and equipped with enough knowledge and skills to provide pre-departure safe migration education for communities they serve."
At the national level, VGCL has increased its engagement in tripartite discussions on labour migration policies and law development. In addition to the review report and recommendations on Law 72, trade unions were also involved in discussion and development of the regulations relating to complaint mechanisms for migrant workers, standard contracts, the use of migrant welfare fund, and the issuance of administrative fines and sanctions for law violations.
In 2015, VGCL and the Malaysian Trade Union Congress signed a Memorandum of Understanding that covers a range of important issues to better protect migrant workers.
In Viet Nam, the ILO provides support for safe labour migration through the TRIANGLE in ASEAN programme with funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Global Affairs Canada. TRIANGLE in ASEAN delivers technical assistance and support with the overall goal of maximizing the contribution of labour migration to equitable, inclusive and stable growth in the ASEAN region.
The Asia Foundation also partnered with VGCL to run the project "Promoting protection of labour rights for overseas migrant workers" with financial support from US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to build capacity for trade union grassroots officers to provide safe migration and workers' rights information and counselling to potential migrant workers and their family members. The project also supports three employment service centres in Phu Tho, Thanh Hoa and Quang Ngai to provide job placement services for the returning migrant workers.
Tags: migrant workers, trade unions, international labour standards, international migration, ILO partnerships
Regions and countries covered: Asia, Viet Nam
Project code: RAS/15/05/AUS
RAS/16/01/CAN
This content is available in
Revised Code of Conduct to promote ethical recruitment of migrant workers
Risks and rewards: Outcomes of labour migration in South-East Asia - Key findings in Viet Nam [pdf 453KB]
TRIANGLE in ASEAN – Viet Nam

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


He has risen. We're going to look at the resurrection this morning as we open God's word through the eyes and through the mind of one of Jesus' disciples, Thomas, and we're going to answer this question, we're going to approach it from this perspective: what should you do with the resurrection? What should you do with the resurrection as a man, a woman, a boy, a girl, a young person? As you hear the resurrection proclaimed, as you see the risen Christ presented to you, what should you do with that? It's not simply a matter of passing notice and that you move on and go on with life unchanged, unaffected, without stopping to think, no, you have to ask yourself: what am I to do with this? A man has come from the grave and what do you do with that? We're going to do two things this morning to help you think through that. We want you to ask the right question and we want you to give the right answer. This is a resurrection Q and A, one question, one answer, that you ask in response to the resurrection: what do you do with the resurrection? You need to ask the right question and then give the right answer. Beloved, eternity hinges on how you respond to what you hear today.
So you asked the right question, first of all, and I want to take you to a familiar passage to begin with, John 14, beginning in verse 1. Remember we're going to look at this, we're going to step into the sandals, as it were, of Thomas and we're going to kind of walk through what he saw and heard and experienced and the way that he responded as that which would give you a pattern for response in your own life. Jesus is teaching in John 14; his disciples are gathered around him. He is preparing them for his soon crucifixion and departure from this world after his resurrection and so he is laying the groundwork for them as he prepares to enter into his particular work of redemption on the cross soon to follow. And in John 14, speaking to his disciples he says, "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also." Jesus here is speaking of something stupendous, something magnificent, something wonderful. He is saying that while he is about to leave and that's going to seem hard for a time for the disciples who are in front of him, he says, "Understand why I'm going. I'm going back to my Father and I'm going back to prepare a place for you so that beyond this earth, beyond this life, I will be able to receive you to myself. It is to your benefit that I go away because I'm going to accomplish something great and magnificent on your behalf." In other words, think about it this way, Jesus is getting ready to return to his Father and he's saying to his disciples right below the surface, "You're going to go to be with the Father one day too and you will be with me there."
So he tells his disciples that he will be leaving soon. He has comforted them. He has given them an expectation that will sustain them through the difficult days to come. But our tour guide here if you think about Thomas in that sense, the guy that we are following through in this particular narrative, Thomas is uncertain. Jesus has just disclosed magnificent things about his future purposes about going to be with God but Thomas is confused; he does not know exactly and understand what is going on. Look at verses 4 and 5. Jesus says, "you know the way where I am going." But in verse 5, "Thomas said to Him, 'Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?'" In essence, Thomas is saying, "Lord, I don't get it. I am lost here. You've lost me. I do not understand. I don't know where you're going and how am I supposed to know what to do next?"
There is a variation of the way that you could ask and frame the question that Thomas is asking here. A variation of the question would be: how can a man be right with God? How can a man be just, declared just? How can a man be accepted in the presence of a holy God? I don't know the way to that. And you see, the question that Thomas is asking, the doubt, the confusion, the uncertainty is that which you need to make sure has surfaced in your own consciousness and it's something that you have answered for yourself. None of you should walk out of here in a position of saying, "I don't know the way." But if that's going to be the case, if you would walk out of the door today saying, "I know the way. I know where I am going. I know that the promise of Christ to prepare a place is mine as well," you have to ask the right question. You have to understand and that understanding starts with something that far too many people don't want to go there with what I'm about to say. You see, implied in Thomas' question is a recognition that he is lost; that he doesn't know. Implied even deeper, is the sense that he's not right with God. Jesus is going to be with his Father and Thomas is saying, "I don't know that way."
Why are men in that miserable condition? Well, beloved, let's stop talking about Thomas for just a moment and talk about you here this morning. The testimony of Scripture and the testimony of your own conscience is that you are not right with God. Scripture says that apart from Christ you are alienated from God, engaged in evil deeds and hostile in mind, Colossians 1:21. Ephesians 2:1, you are dead in your trespasses and sins and doomed to suffer the wrath of God; that you have fallen short of the glory of God; that you are not righteous; that you are not even seeking God. You see, what Scripture is saying is that you are not fit for the presence of God on your own. And see, it's not just simply that you need a little help from Jesus and that Jesus and you can work together and you contribute your own good to help get you into heaven, it's not that and you can only come to that recognition and come to that understanding if you're asking the right question: how can I be right with God? And beloved, you must understand this question, you must frame this question from the perspective of God himself. You must ask the question from the perspective of God. How does God see it? What does God say about it? Well, God is perfectly holy. God is a consuming fire. God is one to whom we must do, to whom we must give account. God is one who does not broker in sin and does not let any unforgiven sin come into his life. God knows your innermost thoughts, your secret actions, and he knows that in that secret place of your being you are not righteous; you are not fit for his presence and that's a problem. That's a major problem because a holy God will not allow a sinful man like you into his presence. In fact, Scripture says that he sends them to hell when they die unrepentant, unconverted sinners.
So what does the resurrection do for you here today? It brings you face-to-face with the reality of your sin. It brings you face-to-face with your need for redemption. The reason that Christ was crucified, the reason that he suffered on the cross was to inject himself into the sin situation from which you were suffering in order to redeem you from it. He wasn't simply trying to help you, he was dying to redeem you because you could not save yourself because there was nothing good in you to commend yourself to God. Do you understand that? Have you embraced that at the deepest level? You see, in light of the resurrection, my friends, in light of the resurrection, the right question for you to be asking on this day in particular is: how can I be reconciled to God? How can I be right with God? There must be a sense deep in your soul that recognizes that you are not fit for the presence of God because he is too high, he is too lofty, he is uncreated, he is holy, he is sinless and you are a creature and a sinful depraved one at that. No one comes to heaven until they've walked through that narrow door. You have to disclaim all righteousness of your own. You have to confess that you are an unworthy sinner before God because only then will the response that Jesus makes to Thomas have any meaning to you.
Look at John 14:6. Look at the text with me there. John 14:6, remember Thomas had just asked him, expressing his ignorance, his lostness, he said, "Lord, we don't know the way where You are going. How do we know the way?" Beloved, until you recognize that you are lost, you cannot be found. Until you recognize that you are a sinner, hopeless and helpless, you've never come to Christ in the first instance, and when I say hopeless, I mean utterly without hope; utterly without any righteousness of your own to recommend and commend yourself to God. Have you denied yourself to that final, conclusive, complete extent? Have you denied yourself and said, "There is no good in me at all"? Or is there a hidden part in your heart like there used to be in my heart that said, "I know, I know, I know. I hear all the sin stuff. Yeah, I'm not as good as I should be and I've made some mistakes and all of that." But inside in your heart, in that corner of your heart you cherish a sense, "But I'm not as bad as the next person, or at least I haven't sinned in this way or that way." Beloved, if you have that corner of self-righteousness in your heart, I want you to know plainly, clearly, in undiminished terms, you're not a Christian. You are not saved if that is your attitude toward yourself because you have not come to the end of yourself; you have not denied yourself if that corner of your heart is still there. It's a hard thing to come to Christ like that because of your pride and you are willing to confess up to a point and say, "Yeah, I'm not as good as I should be," which is much different than saying, "I am completely sinful and I deserve the judgment of God." The resurrection brings you to that point. The death of Christ, beloved, the whole significance of the incarnation and Christ going to the cross and suffering as we saw on Friday the wrath of God like he did on our behalf and going into the tomb and coming out with power and ascending to heaven on high, all of that would be ridiculously overkill if there was actually something good in you that you could contribute to your own salvation. No, no, the great extent, the great length that Christ went to in order to save us is a testimony about how utterly lost you and I are without him. You have no hope if you have not fully repented and turned to him like that.
So the resurrection asks you: do you see that? Do you realize your profound need to be reconciled to God? And I beg you, don't lean on your church attendance, don't lean on your good outward moral life because that currency doesn't pay the way into heaven. It would be like trying to pay your mortgage loan with Monopoly money. That's how valuable your righteousness is. In other words, there is no value to it. It cannot pay anything. It cannot earn anything. In fact, Scripture says it's a filthy, bloody rag. Have you confessed, have you embraced that level of confession in your heart? Beloved, I beg you to deny yourself when we contemplate these things. I beg you to set aside your pride, to set aside your justifications, to set aside your excuses and to say, "There is no excuse for my sin. I am guilty before a holy God." Jesus said, "I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." Do you understand that if in your heart you rebel against what's being said here today, do you understand that if you treasure some sense of personal righteousness in your heart that Jesus is saying, "I didn't come for you when you're like that." Do you understand that?
Listen to what he said, look at Luke 5:31. Let's see it for ourselves and not just go on the quotation of the preacher. Luke 5:31, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.'" Have you ever called the doctor when you were well and everything is perfect? "Hey, doctor, I thought I'd see you. I feel great. Nothing is wrong. Everything is healthy." The doctor would say, "Well, why are you here then?" This is counter to the whole purpose of a physician/patient relationship. "If you're not sick, go away. I've got sick patients to deal with." Do you understand that Christ looks at that and takes that little simply understood parallel and says, "Apply that to your spiritual life. If you think you're righteous, you're saying you don't need a Savior." And therefore the benefit of the death and resurrection of Christ has no meaning to you because in your heart you're saying, "I don't need it." Christ says, "If that's you, I didn't come for you. The Gospel is for those who confess their sins openly, deeply, profoundly and without qualification. There is no room for pride at the cross." So you need to ask yourself: how can I be right with God? That starts with a recognition that you're not right with him to begin with.
Go back to John 14:6 if you will, John 14:6. Jesus answered Thomas' question and said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." Jesus says, "There is only one way to God and it's through me." Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism cannot save anyone, it only confirms them greater in their lostness. Jesus says, "One way and it's through me." He makes an exclusive claim that tolerates no rivals and to us here in this room, we're not Mormons, we're not Muslims, we're not Catholics here in this room, Jesus still speaks with power to our hearts and says, "You cannot get to the Father through your own righteousness. It is only through me. It is exclusively me alone that can take you to heaven."
Now, let's step back into the sandals of Thomas, if we would. Notice that as you read John 14, Thomas doesn't respond here. Thomas has nothing to say in response to it. The narrative goes on and Philip speaks up in verse 8 and so Thomas has asked this great question, he has expressed this great lack of understanding, he is wrestling, trying to come to grips with what Jesus said but there's nothing said here. If you only read chapter 14, you'd say, "Well, what happened to Thomas? Where did he go?" Do you know what? It's not said in the text but for Thomas to express that level of lostness and Jesus gives him an answer and nothing is said, I think it's obvious, though not explicit admittedly, that Thomas had to consider it. He had to think through that. He didn't respond instantly. He didn't immediately raise his hand and say a sinner's prayer there. He didn't walk an aisle to get closer to Jesus at that moment. There is just a silence there where Thomas obviously had to think, had to consider it, had to contemplate what was being said.
Do you know what? Some of you are in that position, and I say that sympathetically, especially some of you young people that have grown up in a Christian home, you've been in this church for a few years and you've been around, and you're in this position. You're just like Thomas in this sense: you've heard the Gospel, you've heard multiple, multiple times that Christ is the only way to God and only through repentance and faith in him can you be saved, you've heard that, you've seen your parents speak about that in your home and it's all been laid out before you and yet what have you done? For whatever reason, you've held back. You've withheld your heart commitment from Christ. You've heard it, you've kind of let it wash over your ears, maybe you've kind of rolled your eyes at times as once again your parent pleaded with you to come to Christ and you said... Well, beloved, I want you to see that you're still lost like that, and that the resurrection comes to you today and compels you out of your lethargy. It compels you out of your indifference. Do you know what? It compels you out of that dismissive cynicism that you've carried toward the Gospel.
Do you realize what we're celebrating here today? Do you realize what we're remembering? Did you listen as we were singing, "He arose"? Do you know what that means? It means that something supernatural happened, that God displayed supernatural power and brought Christ out of the dead in a way that you and I could never do. I've said this many times, I invite you to go through the motions of this just to let it sink into your heart. This sounds a little weird, granted, don't miss the bigger point I'm making and actually the object lesson of physically doing this, I think, would do your soul good, Christian or non-Christian. Go to a cemetery, stand at a grave, read the name that is on the tombstone, "John Smith," and look at his grave and with all the power and sincerity that you can muster up, say, "John, come out of that grave. Come out." You'll wait a long time. John ain't gonna move in response to your voice. What does that illustrate? It's that you do not have any power over death whatsoever. It illustrates that you have no power over that which produced death in the first place. Death entered into the world because of sin. And so your utter impotence, your total powerlessness is manifested in that simple act and when you see that, when you go through that, let that be a testimony to your heart that you have no power to save yourself either. There is nothing in you that is worthy of redemption. There is nothing in you that gives you the power to save yourself from death. Nothing. Zero. You're helpless. I can't help you myself. And when that has settled into your mind, then come back to this resurrection and say, "Wow, there is something utterly, completely different from another realm in the resurrection," and realize that the resurrection stops you in your tracks and says, "You must respond to this because this is something different than anything the world has, anything that you can do. This is something from another realm claiming authority on your life and on your conscience and on your will." That's what the resurrection of Christ does to you. It asserts power over you and demands a response. Period. End of paragraph.
So to respond rightly to the resurrection you have to start with the right question: how can I be reconciled to God, meaning I realize that I'm lost and I realize that somewhere in the resurrection, somewhere in the words of Jesus, is the door out of my lostness. Ask the right question. Then what? Well, this is pretty simple and basic, isn't it? You ask a question and what do you get? An answer. You ask the right question and then you give the right answer. You see, the Gospel of John progresses and I realize that sometimes we just cherry pick verses to make a Gospel presentation. That's okay as far as it goes. John 14:6, it's a great Gospel verse but what about Thomas? Understand that that verse was an answer to Thomas' question and we don't see how Thomas responded to that in John 14. You have to keep reading the rest of the Gospel to get to the point.
So the Gospel of John continues on. The narrative goes on for another seven chapters and in a great 30,000 foot view, Christ was crucified at the hands of Roman soldiers and God raised him from the dead and Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. You know the story, just a broad sweep of it. For now what we want to do is not focus on all of that but simply to narrow our focus down to something that is very simple, clear, basic and that which we can take away today. Today we want to focus on Thomas again as a representative of us all. Now, here's the thing, beloved, and I know that some of you are not in Christ as I preach to you today. You must listen. You must hear this: Thomas is a representative of you as we read this Gospel. There is no question about that. I'll explained that a little bit more in the next several minutes, but you must put yourself in the position of Thomas because you're a skeptic, because you have withheld your heart commitment from Christ; you must put yourself in that perspective and see it through his eyes.
And what will you see? Look at John 20. Thomas here is a representative of you in your refusal to bow the knee before Christ and now that he has shown us the right question to ask, now you're going to see what the right answer is to the question. How do you respond to the resurrected Christ being front and center in the forefront of your consciousness through the testimony of God's inerrant word? How do you respond to that? Well, Thomas shows the way. By the design of the human writer, the Apostle John who wrote this Gospel, under a dual process of authorship in which the Holy Spirit was directing what John wrote to produce exactly what God intended which is why we call this God's word, the Gospel comes back to Thomas and you're supposed to remember John 14 as you're reading what you see now in John 20. What did Thomas do? He was like you. He was a stubborn critter.
Look at John 20:24, "But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus," which means "the twin," "was not with them when Jesus came." You see, Jesus had already appeared to the disciples and they had seen and believed in his resurrection there, but Thomas wasn't there at that gathering. So in verse 25, the other disciples were saying to him, saying to him repeatedly, "We have seen the Lord! Yes, he was crucified. Yes, he was buried, but we've seen him! He's alive, Thomas!" And in his critterly, can you make that an adverb? I guess I just did. In his creaturely, critterly, stubborn heart, Thomas responds to them in verse 25 and said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails," look at verse 25 with me, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." In the original language, it is very emphatic. It is as if Thomas was pounding the table saying, "Unless I see it for myself, unless I put my finger in his hands and in his side, I will not believe!" That's how strong it is in the original language. It is a pounded table kind of response. He is stubbornly refusing to believe. He says, "I'll have none of it." So he was a pessimist. He is often called doubting Thomas. Here he's stubbornly refusing and what happens to him?
You know, I hope that you know that at Truth Community Church we love the Lord Jesus with all our hearts. That's what we want to be known as as a church, known according not to our subjective projections on him and what we want him to be but as he is revealed in the Scriptures as the sovereign Savior, the sovereign seeker of sinners. And here we see in what we're about to read on in verse 26 and following, here we are going to see just a breathtaking display of condescension and grace from Jesus to Thomas; that in his weakness, even in his stubbornness, even like you and the way that you have refused the Gospel over the years, pretending maybe to be something that you're not, Jesus comes to Thomas and meets him in order to bring him saving grace. I love this. That for all of Thomas' ignorance and confusion and unrighteousness and rejection, Christ comes to him anyway. Not because Thomas – look, look, look, look, look – not because Thomas had done something so good that Jesus just had to go and be with him, not because Thomas was wise and insightful, he was a rebel at this point and Jesus comes to him.
Verse 26, look at it with me, "After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them." He was with them this time. Jesus knew that in advance. He knew where to find Thomas just like he knew where to find you. He found you right here in this room today to present his resurrection to you and to call for your response. That's it. That's what this whole thing is about. So verse 26, "After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.'" You know, I can't wait to one day hear the voice of Christ with my own ears in heaven and hear that majestic voice, that majestic sound from his lips. Do you realize we have no idea how magnificent the voice of Christ is? The Gospel writers in Matthew 7:28 and 29 said, "Everyone who heard him was stunned at the authority with which he spoke," and the best of preachers of which I am not one, the best of preachers when they read the Scriptures, they cannot perfectly replicate what the authority and the sound and the compassion all wrapped into one of the voice of Christ must have been like. For now we have an inerrant word to read and to understand with our minds. One day the experience will go even beyond that. My whole point in that is saying that these men who were there heard Jesus say in a way that must have been absolutely compelling, "Peace be with you." There they are huddled up in the room and their Teacher, their Master, their Lord who had been dead not too long ago, he had been dead in a grave, and he walks in and says, "Peace be with you." Imagine what that's like.
Then he points out Thomas, just like the Spirit of God is pointing out some of you right now and saying, "You're the man. This is for you. Listen up. Hear, this is what I want you to hear. That's why I brought you here today is to hear this exact thing." Jesus said to Thomas, it's pointed, it's direct, it's personal, it's an effective call on an individual heart, he said, "Thomas, reach here with your finger, and see My hands," put it in my side, Thomas, "and be not be unbelieving, but believing." He says, "Thomas, you said you wouldn't believe until you saw. Here it is. Put aside your unbelief." And now we're at a juncture where you can see the right answer to the question: what do I do with the resurrection? How can I be reconciled to God? Look at what Thomas says in verse 28 and commit yourself to enter into the spirit of that exact same response from your own heart. John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" First of all, notice this, notice the first person singular possessive pronoun, my. It's a personal response. There is a personal appropriation of Christ that says, "I receive you myself." Implied in that is, "I reject my prior unbelief. I reject my prior stubbornness. I reject my sin. I deny myself. You are now mine." He receives him personally. It's a personal confession. "My Lord and my God."
Beloved, here's the hinge of eternity for you and there will be no excuse for you if you walk out here unconverted. There will be no excuse for you if you die in your sins after hearing what Scripture has to say about this. How can you be right with God? I'm going to ask kind of a series of progressive questions here so follow the logic of it with me. It's very simple. It's linear. It's direct. It's point A to point B, that's the way I like to think. It's the way that Scripture teaches us to think, more importantly. How can you be right with God? You must come to Christ. And let's peel that back one more layer: what does it look like to come to Christ? What is God calling on your heart to do? Now that the work of redemption has been done, Christ died on the cross and completed that work of redemption, he is raised from the dead showing that God accepted his sacrifice on behalf of sinners, all of the work is done but it calls for a response from you and Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but through Me." You must come to Christ. What does it look like for you to come to him? You must repent of your sin and receive Christ personally by faith in utter self-denial, in utter humility that says, "I cannot save myself. There is nothing good about me. I am a wretched sinner deserving the judgment of God and, Jesus, I come humbly to you like that. You said you're the Savior of sinners, save this one too, namely me." You must repent of your sin and receive Christ by faith.
What does that look like? What does that mean? It means that you recognize that the testimony of the resurrection establishes for all time that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh because the resurrection compels that response. Remember the invitation that I made for you to go to a cemetery and call a man out of the grave to show that you don't have the power to do that? You remember that little illustration, I know, because it creeps a lot of people out. But, you see, God is not subject to our limitations. God has control over the grave. Christ came out of the grave and therefore you realize that the resurrection compels you – watch this – compels you to assign a place and a priority and a prerogative to Christ that no one else has. You realize that he has been uniquely set apart to a place where no other men can go. He is unique. The resurrection compels you to acknowledge that. He's not like some of the false Messiahs who claimed that status and then died, some a miserable death, and their graves are with us today. Jesus' grave is empty.
So you recognize him as God in human flesh and what do you do? You hand your guilt to him. You come as a sinner begging for mercy, as a sinner bankrupt in your own righteousness, and you come and you hand your guilt to him and you humbly ask him, "Lord, please save me. Please have mercy on me because I cannot save myself. Please, O Christ, please reconcile me to God." John 14:6, "I come to you to find the Father." John 20:28, "I come to you like Thomas did. My Lord, my God, I lay hold of you. I appropriate you. I cling to you. I flee to you and leave everything else behind. This is the supreme priority of my life. This is the compelling motivation of my heart. Nothing else matters. Unless you save me, I am destined to perish." Beloved, have you come to Christ like that? Have you? That's the only way that you can be saved.
Let's turn our thoughts back to John 20:28 here. Thomas here isn't making an abstract theological confession here. He's not – watch this, watch this – and once again, I'm confronted with the fact that I am utterly dependent on the power of the Holy Spirit to work in your hearts because I cannot compel you to pay attention, to listen, or to respond in a way that would actually save your soul. That power does not belong to me and so with what I'm about to say, I'm entirely speaking in reliance on the Holy Spirit for you to see and to grasp and to understand. Notice that Thomas isn't simply saying, "You are Lord and you are God," as though it were something outside of him, a confession that would be true but that he is separated from by his choice of pronouns. He says, "My Lord and my God." He receives him personally and that's the way that you must respond. That is the right answer to the resurrection. It is for you, preferably literally in one sense, certainly spiritually metaphorically in your heart, you falling down on your knees before Christ and saying, "In light of the resurrection, you are my Lord and my God. Let the world pass away, let the dearest and those closest to me reject me if they will, everything that I once held dear I throw it aside. I cast it aside as mere dung on the heap of human refuse and I say, Christ, you are my Lord and my God. Mine. I receive you myself." You receive him as your personal Lord. You give him your life unreservedly and unconditionally forever. "My Lord. My Master. My God." What does that mean except that Christ is now my authority and the one to whom I exclusively respond with all of my being. Mine. Lord. God. These things are deep and profound expressed in the simplest of small syllables. And why would you do that? Can I just keep it really simple? God is holy and you are not. Oh beloved, I'm your friend when I say this to you: you are not a good person. That's why you need to be saved. You must have a Savior or you will die in your sins. So beloved, call on Christ like Thomas did. My friend for whom I have prayed, go to Christ like Thomas did and understand that here we are 2,000 years later and Christ anticipating your presence at a place like this now says something that applies directly to you today. There is a promise in verse 29 for someone just like you. Jesus promises to bless you if you would come to him in exactly the way that I have described to you here today.
Look at what it says in verse 29, a personal promise to you. There is no reason to walk out unsaved today. None. There is no reason for you to walk out in darkness and strangled by the devil. None. Jesus invites you in verse 29, he establishes for all time, you see, Thomas saw him resurrected. Jesus isn't present here with us for us to see him physically resurrected and Jesus, recognizing that, says it's no disadvantage. It's no hindrance to you from coming. Jesus says verse 29 to Thomas, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." Beloved, do you want the blessing of God? Believe on Christ. Receive him as your Lord and your God and he says, "I will bless you." It's not just that he calls you out of sin in a negative way, that's part of it, that's essential, but there's this positive dimension of the promise of the Gospel that God says, "I will bless you if you will only come like this." There is no reason for you to walk out unsaved. There is no excuse for that. And let me just say with as much proper, restrained sense of warning that I can possibly give to you as well: there is no excuse for you to sit in that pew cold, hard, resistant, just waiting for this to get done. There's no excuse for that. God here has brought blessing to you. He has given you everything that is necessary for you to respond and receive his blessing now and for eternity. Despite your guilt, despite your unbelief like Thomas, for you to sit hard and cold and unresponsive is absolutely inexcusable. So Scripture calls you, every one of you, to this salvation.
Look at verse 30 and realize, recognize the sweet grace of God in what it is saying here and realize that it's a personal invitation to you. Verse 30, "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book." John is saying, "I could have written a lot more but I had limitations here." Verse 31, "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." The Bible says that if you would confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. There is no lack of power. There is no lack of willingness in Christ. The question is: will you come and receive him as Lord and God like that? Jesus Christ came to save and reconcile sinners just like you. For those of us that are in Christ, all of this reminds us that our salvation is secure. We belong to Christ and not even death can't separate us from him.
Oh, my friend, Christ brought you here today to offer the Gospel to you. All your sins can be forgiven today. You can receive eternal life right now, friend. There is no reason to delay, is there? Will you receive him? Will you receive Christ or will you leave this building condemned? Christ has spoken to you and calls for your response.
Our Father, we pray that you would open unbelieving hearts even as you opened the unbelieving heart of Thomas, and that those who do not know Christ would now respond, "Oh, my Lord and my God, I receive this resurrected Christ as my own, this resurrected Christ as my only hope of being saved. I see that I must be reconciled with God. I see that Christ is the only means of that reconciliation and so, yes, Jesus, I come." Father, may you give that response to every unbelieving heart that is in this room and, Father, for those of us that are Christians, that you have saved at some point in time in the past, we thank you that you saved us from our sins. We thank you that you delivered us from our own unrighteousness and wickedness, our own unbelief and indifference. O God, you have been so merciful and wonderful to us and it's our joy to crown you Lord of all and Lord of us and Lord of me. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.


Das Modell ´´ MIDNIGHT-FLOWER ´´Auf diesem zauberhaften Fascinator erblüht ein Bouquet aus tief schwarzem Velours-Leder , gehalten von silber farbenen Knöpfen und charmant umhüllt von Schleier - Tüll.Weich gepolstert wird dieses Schmuckstück mit Clips befestigt.Sie sind fest montiert.Die BESONDERHEIT bei diesem Modell:MIDNIGHT-FLOWER kann sowohl als Kopfschmuck, als auch Brosche am Revers oder Abendkleid getragen werden.Einfach wunderschön.....Noch ein Hinweis vor dem Kauf:Alle Modelle von SILHOUETTE DES ANGES sind sorgfältig von Hand gearbeitete Einzelstücke und können daher nicht ohne Weiteres ´´durchgetauscht´´ oder ´´ersetzt´´ werden.Wir bitten um Verständnis, dass eine Rücknahme der Ware nur in ungetragenem und unbeschädigtem Originalzustand mit Etiketten und Originalverpackung möglich ist (in diesem Fall wird um vorherige Rücksprache gebeten).Stücke, die für die Kundin/den Kunden individualisiert verändert wurden, sind generell von Umtausch und/oder Rücknahme ausgeschlossen.
Das Modell ´´ MIDNIGHT-SPARKLE ´´ Auf diesem zauberhaften Fascinator erblüht ein Bouquet aus tief schwarzem Velours-Leder , gehalten von kleinen, geschliffenen Glas-Kristallen und charmant umhüllt von Schleier - Tüll.Von Licht angestrahlt erhalten die einzelnen Blüten ein zartes Glitzern .Weich gepolstert wird dieses Schmuckstück mit Clips befestigt.Sie sind fest montiert.Die BESONDERHEIT bei diesem Modell:´´ MIDNIGHT-SPARKLE ´´ kann sowohl als Kopfschmuck, als auch Brosche am Revers oder Abendkleid getragen werden.Einfach wunderschön.....Noch ein Hinweis vor dem Kauf:Alle Modelle von SILHOUETTE DES ANGES sind sorgfältig von Hand gearbeitete Einzelstücke und können daher nicht ohne Weiteres ´´durchgetauscht´´ oder ´´ersetzt´´ werden.Wir bitten um Verständnis, dass eine Rücknahme der Ware nur in ungetragenem und unbeschädigtem Originalzustand mit Etiketten und Originalverpackung möglich ist (in diesem Fall wird um vorherige Rücksprache gebeten).Stücke, die für die Kundin/den Kunden individualisiert verändert wurden, sind generell von Umtausch und/oder Rücknahme ausgeschlossen.
For readers of Cassandra Clare´s City of Bones and Leigh Bardugo´s Shadow and Bone, The Girl at Midnight is the story of a modern girl caught in an ancient war. Beneath the streets of New York City live the Avicen, an ancient race of people with feathers for hair and magic running through their veins. Age-old enchantments keep them hidden from humans. All but one. Echo is a runaway pickpocket who survives by selling stolen treasures on the black market, and the Avicen are the only family she´s ever known. Echo is clever and daring, and at times she can be brash, but above all else she´s fiercely loyal. So when a centuries-old war crests on the borders of her home, she decides it´s time to act. Legend has it that there is a way to end the conflict once and for all: find the Firebird, a mythical entity believed to possess power the likes of which the world has never seen. It will be no easy task, though if life as a thief has taught Echo anything, it´s how to hunt down what she wants... and how to take it. But some jobs aren´t as straightforward as they seem. And this one might just set the world on fire. 1. Language: English. Narrator: Julia Whelan. Audio sample: http://samples.audible.de/bk/lili/001830/bk_lili_001830_sample.mp3. Digital audiobook in aax.
Meet the Naughty Princess Club: a brand-new audiobook series from USA Today best-selling author Tara Sivec that introduces listeners to Fairytale Lane and the hilarity - and romance - that ensue when three women start a new business to make it rain. Once upon a time, Cynthia was the perfect housewife. Between being the president of the PTA and keeping her home spotless without a hair (or her pearls) out of place, her life was a dream come true. Her husband was once her knight in shining armor, but now he's run off with all their money...and the babysitter. Dressed as a princess at the annual Halloween block party on Fairytale Lane, she meets two other ´´princesses" also facing money troubles: antique store owner Ariel and librarian Isabelle. When the women are invited to wear their costumes to a party where they're mistaken for strippers, Cindy, Ariel, and Belle realize that a career change could be the best way to make their money problems go bippity-boppity-boo. But can structured Cindy approach a stripper pole without sanitizing wipes? And could the blue-eyed anti-prince who has been crossing her path become Cindy's happily ever after? At the Stroke of Midnight is a hilarious, empowering story where princesses can save themselves while slaying in stilettos. 1. Language: English. Narrator: CJ Bloom. Audio sample: http://samples.audible.de/bk/aren/003302/bk_aren_003302_sample.mp3. Digital audiobook in aax.
The intrigue of The Raven Boys and the ´´supernatural or not´´ question of The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer coalesce in this young adult mystery, where nothing is quite as it seems, no one is quite who you think, and everything can change on a dime. Every story needs a hero. Every story needs a villain. Every story needs a secret. Wink is the odd, mysterious neighbor girl, with wild red hair and freckles. Poppy is the blond bully and the beautiful, manipulative high school queen bee. Midnight is the sweet, uncertain boy caught between them. Wink. Poppy. Midnight. Two girls. One boy. Three voices that burst in short, sharp, bewitching chapters, and spiral swiftly and inexorably toward something terrible or tricky or tremendous. What really happened? Someone knows. Someone is lying. For fans of Holly Black, We Were Liars, and The Virgin Suicides, this mysterious tale full of intrigue, dread, beauty, and a whiff of something strange will leave you utterly entranced. Read by Michael Crouch, Caitlin Davies, and Alicyn Packard. 1. Language: English. Narrator: Michael Crouch, Alicyn Packard, Caitlin Davies. Audio sample: http://samples.audible.de/bk/lili/001984/bk_lili_001984_sample.mp3. Digital audiobook in aax.