text:
This page defines primary user-roles in using OpenEmbedded. The material resulted from some discussions at OEDEM that were truncated due to time restrictions.
The goal of identifying user-roles is to be able to categorize different tooling scenarios, and what types of users will be interested in specific features. Tools designed for role type may not be appropriate for other roles. For example, a GUI for recipe editing may not be helpful for an application developer that's looking to remote debug their application on a target. On the other hand, a simple press-button build GUI may not be interesting for a seasoned OE hacker.
Role Types
Application Developer
The application developer's main concern is developing and testing any given application on a target system. This person does not care nor want to learn much about the internal details of the build system or package metadata. The best possible case is that these systems are transparent and the developer is able to easily build and deploy applications to the target device.
Primary Tooling Requirements
- Build Application for Target
- Debug Application on Target
- Generate build system artifacts for Application (recipes)
- Develop an Eclipse plugin to "Export project as Recipe"
- For CDT (C/C++) projects make, automake recipes are generated
- For Java projects java-library based recipies are generated
- Python?
- Initially wizard can just create a tarball of project sources
- Integration with SCM plugins?
- How to capture project dependencies?
- How to define export target? OTE, cloud, etc.?
Distro Developer
Distro developer's concern is to compose packages and configurations into a working system. The distro developer has deep knowledge of packages available in Linux, and how sets of packages work well together. Additionally the distro developer is not afraid to work deeply within the build system to make it better, and to produce better, more maintainable package metadata and target systems.
Primary Tooling Requirements
- Build system image
- Create/edit distro definitions
- Debug build problems
- Visualize package dependencies
Package Developer
The package developer is often a mix of the previous two role types. Often they have some knowledge of the build system and applications and build tools used to create those applications. They typically act as a bridge between pure application developers and the resulting target system that's produced. Package developers write recipes, debug applications, and debug build problems.
Primary Tooling Requirements
- Create and edit package metadata
- Easily integrate package metadata into build system
- Debug build issues
- Visualize Package Dependencies
- OpenEmbedded Tools for Eclipse (OTE) was designed for this role type.
Target System User
This role type typically is not exposed to package metadata, cross compilers, or build systems. They are system users, and as such, at times want to:
- Generate system
- Update system
- Install packages
- Configure package metadata
Primary Tooling Requirements
- install binary package on target
- find new packages and package updates for target
- resolve package dependencies
- A GUI application that runs with a local install of OE that can
- present a wizard style interface that allows users to build system images
- download overlays and other non-default artifacts
- select images, packages, distros, machines, etc.
- have a simple 'installer' that does not require knowledge of bitbake/OE internals


text:
Cisco announces the end-of-sale and end-of-life dates for the Multimedia Taps and Passives. The last day to order the affected product(s) is December 16, 2011. Customers with active service contracts or active warranties will continue to receive support from the Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC) as shown in Table 1 of the EoL bulletin. Table 1 describes the end-of-life milestones, definitions, and dates for the affected product(s). Table 2 lists the product part numbers affected by this announcement. For customers with active service contracts or active product warranties, support will be available for the shown dates as stated in the applicable service contracts or product warranty terms and conditions, even if this date exceeds the Last Date of Support shown in Table 1.
Table 1. End-of-Life Milestones and Dates for the Multimedia Taps and Passives
Table 2. Product Part Numbers Affected by This Announcement
Product Migration Options
For More Information
Subscribe for RSS Notifications for End-of-Life and End-of-Sale Notices

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On view through September 5, Gifts of the Sultan: The Arts of Giving at the Islamic Courts explores Islamic art through the universal tradition of gift giving. The exhibition features more than 200 works of art from three different continents and spanning the eighth through nineteenth centuries. The exhibition also features the work of three contemporary artists, all with roots in the Islamic world—Sadegh Tirafkan, Ahmed Mater, and Shahzia Sikander—commissioned to interpret the art of gift-giving in Islam. Exclusively on Unframed this week, arts writer and founder of Art Middle East Nazy Nazhand interviews each of these artists about their contributions to the exhibition. Read yesterday's interview with Sadegh Tirafkan here.
Part II: Ahmed Mater
Ahmed Mater, from Abha, Saudi Arabia, is both an artist and a practicing physician. In his Illumination series, to which this beautiful diptych belongs, Mater draws inspiration from the Islamic arts of the book, in particular manuscripts of the Qur'an, whose pages were decorated with illuminated borders, headings, and verse markers. At the top and bottom of each panel, he inscribes the word waqf, a notation often found in manuscripts of the Qur'an, which designates a charitable donation. Mater radically magnifies his illuminated page, generally a small scale and intimate art form, creating instead a new sense of intimacy by using his pages to frame human X-rays.
How does your work relate to the Islamic artistic tradition represented in Gifts of the Sultan? How has traditional art influenced your practice?
I am from Saudi Arabia, the country that is the custodian of the two holy cities in Islam, Makkah and Medinah, and so I have grown up amongst very strong faith and spirituality. One of my earliest and well-known bodies of work was the Illuminations series where I combined my modern life as a doctor with a strong sense of objectivity, and my spiritual and subjective atmosphere, resulting in what appears to be traditional Islamic manuscripts with X-Rays in the middle. The way I have treated the paper and the decorative illuminated borders and calligraphy are part of a traditional Islamic art practice which has always influenced my work.
What are your thoughts on museum exhibitions like Gifts of the Sultan that juxtapose historical and contemporary artworks?
I think it is brilliant. I love that historical works can relate to contemporary ideas. It shows how much we can learn and develop from our cultural heritage and apply that in a cutting-edge and contemporary way that is accessible to an international world.
Where are you currently based? One of the major themes in Gifts of the Sultan is that of cross-cultural interaction and exchange; what are your thoughts on this theme and how does the geographical location of where you work influence your perspective?
I am based in Abha, the capital of Aseer. I have lived in Saudi all my life. Most of my ideas are rooted in my cultural influences and living in Saudi has such a big effect on my work. I am much more connected to what I am producing being based here. However, I want my work to be accessible for an international audience and have them learn something new about a culture that they probably know very little about. I capture art from the story of my life, I don't know any other way.
Describe your creative process; what are you currently inspired by? What are you currently working on?
I do not have one set creative process. I am often thinking about an idea, a story or several at the same time. I will think about them for a long time, sometimes years before they materialize into a work of art I will present. I have thought for years about the Cowboy Code, which is one of my most recent bodies of work that I exhibited during this year's Venice Biennale.
The cowboy was a symbol of freedom and adventure to me as a child, an ideology from the West. I challenge anyone who reads the code not to be impressed. It speaks a universal truth. But in recent times we have forgotten the code in favor of the brand of the ideology. The cowboy code is a set of values, the actual content like a religion. The cowboy of my childhood has been abused, also like a religion, ten commandments or the sharia or the five pillars.
Like my generation, I took a lot from the Western side—our food, our clothes, and our language. And so I wanted to present this code as a way to almost steal it back. It's a strong side and I want to reclaim it from the politics, or the films, or the media… to give it back to the people. This is what I am currently working on.
Nazy Nazhand is the founder of Art Middle East, a series of programs and cultural events during Armory Arts Week in New York City and Art Platfom – Los Angeles. She's a contributing writer covering art from the Middle East. She has written for Artnet, Modern Painters, Artinfo, Whitewall, and T Magazine. Follow her: http://blogs.artinfo.com/vanguardism/ and http://twitter.com/#!/NazyNazhand. Additional reporting by Kimia Shahi.


text:
Balkinization   |
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Why Yoo's Sincere Extremist Excuse Doesn't Work
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Why Yoo's Sincere Extremist Excuse Doesn't Work Brian Tamanaha
The decision by Deputy A.G. David Margolis to not refer John Yoo to the bar for disciplinary proceedings can in no way be read as a vindication of his conduct. The key issue is whether "Yoo intentionally or recklessly provided misleading advice to his client." "It is a close question," wrote Margolis, adding:
"It's difficult to know what Yoo was thinking, of course--any such showing will have to be inferred from his conduct."
There has been much reporting that puts his conduct into a proper perspective, including as reported by articles, books, and blogs. An objective analysis, perhaps why "recommendations by the department's ethics investigators" [Washington Post article cited in last post] went the other way, surely appears to me (fwiw) to warrant a referral here. But, as with the failure to have his law school investigate him [see this, part of a set of quite troubling CYA posts], we again are left with finger wagging. How bloody impressive.
Here's a retort of the OPR by Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip dated Jan 19, 2009. The OPR refused to release this letter with its report to Congress.
No, we're left with the necessity of prosecuting these disgraceful, murderous, criminals pursuant to 18 USC 2441 (war crimes). This report is just one more scam in an endless series.
if we assume that Yoo is a competent lawyer--as there is every reason to believe--then he must have recognized at some level that his analysis distorted the law.
But must "some level" be a conscious level? If Yoo recognized solely at an unconscious level that he had distorted the law, then, for practical purposes, he did not recognize it. And, if he did not recognize it, then he doesn't know the difference between how he would like the law to be interpreted and how the law will likely be interpreted by a court, and he is incompetent. A lawyer, however, may be highly competent in general but may be incompetent with respect to legal questions about which he has ideological or emotional blindspots. But, if that's the case with a lawyer, then the fact that his blindspots render him incompetent should not get him off the hook. If, by overcoming his blindspots, he would have the capacity to be competent, then he has an obligation to overcome them. One should not be rewarded for deceiving oneself. The answer to my opening question, therefore, is that Yoo is guilty even if he recognized his distortions solely at an unconscious level.
"When these assertions are read together, a strong inference can be drawn that (Fill in the blank.) knew his analysis distorted the law but his ideological extremism led him to decide that the ends (fill in the blank) justified the means (distort the law)."
Sounds like the ordinary everyday practice of constitutional 'interpretation' since the days of the New Deal, to me. The only thing that differs is the ideology and the end in mind.
Yoo shouldn't have been hired by whom? The cast of characters that pushed in after Bush was seated by SCOTUS in 2000? It is exactly because such incompetents and lunatics can get into the corridors of power that those with professional certification should answer to some ethical standards and practices that stop them from joining in or abetting the chicanery and misfeasance.
Margolis may have a different view of the seriousness of what you call the "patent weaknesses" of Yoo's work. He addresses Yoo's errors directly as evidence of incompetence and states his conclusions on page 65, beginning with, "Although Yoo and Bybee's errors were more than minor, I do not believe that they evidence serious deficiencies that could have prejudiced the client." He ends by saying, "Although the memos reflect errors, I do not find that the number and magnitude of those errors are sufficient to prove that You and Bybee violated Rule 1.1." This suggests he would take issue with your view that they would amount to incompetence no matter how they're explained. I suppose one could use less loaded language about ability to get your point across.
In line with the above, you may be misreading Margolis (who could have been more clear if I'm right). When he says he doesn't find a preponderance of evidence that Yoo intentionally or recklessly misled his client, he's apparently speaking within the framework of the standards of professional conduct, which he interprets to refer only to issues of serious and substantial wrongdoing. I'm not sure he means to imply Yoo didn't knowingly or recklessly stretch things at times; he may only mean that it didn't rise to the level of violating a standard of professional conduct. When he goes on in the same paragraph to say what you quoted, he's turned to the higher standards he expects of OLC lawyers. So, Margolis might accept your point to some extent, though he might not put it the same way. (I think he might also return to the fact that the memos were written under tight time constraints, under what seemed great pressure of events, and with few other lawyers to confer with.)
Yoo and Bybee are only "guilty" of having a different view of the law than the left legal community.
There is no evidence in the report of the often accused conspiracy between OLC and the White House to create a legal defense to CIA. None. Instead, the report admitted that Yoo followed his own personal analysis of executive power which he held prior to DOJ and teaches at Berkeley today. This is why the DoJ backed off from recommending formal disciplinary proceedings where they would have to offer evidence of actual wrongdoing and instead offered this underhanded attack. The claim that Yoo and Bybee failed to offer independent analysis is specious and unsupported by the facts. Indeed, what got Yoo and Bybee in hot water. is their very independence from the prevailing belief in the left legal community that America is subject to international law as interpreted by the EU. The claim that Yoo and Bybee failed to offer "balance" gets closer to the root of the complaint. Yoo and Bybee committed the "thought crime" of not citing to foreign law as controlling or even persuasive precedent concerning the American Constitution and the American torture and war crimes statutes. Indeed, Yoo flat out stated that such law has nothing to say on the issue of what the American torture statute means. Oh the heresy! One would think that legal academics of all people would defend to the death Yoo and Bybee's ability to offer their unvarnished legal analysis without threat of sanction. Apparently, that belief in intellectual freedom only applies to leftists offering various radical legal theories in defense of al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and not to rightists offering arguments in favor of the use of military power against those same terrorists.
Margolis' "opinion" serves only to call his own competence and honesty into question. I wonder if he bothered to read the very first Yoo memo of 2001.09.25?
Read the last paragraph: "In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. (32) In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make." In short, there is only one branch of government and it is at liberty to ignore ALL of the laws entirely. If that's not incompetent legal advice, what is? In reality it wasn't intended or offered as advice, it was a pretext for committing whatever war crimes Dick Cheney ordered. Everything that followed derived from that one memo, and the whole composed a criminal conspiracy that continues today. Yoo and Haynes were willing tools, Addington was driving the bus for Cheney, and all of them should be indicted and convicted for their crimes.
Sounds like the ordinary everyday practice of constitutional 'interpretation' since the days of the New Deal, to me. The only thing that differs is the ideology and the end in mind.
Interpretation is unnecessary since every law and the Constitution is written clearly and words have only one meaning. We shouldn't attempt to disbar Yoo--that's thinking small. Since every citizen is capable of understanding the legal code, let's get rid of the legal profession entirely. Oil change places: you are SO next.
For your consideration (there was no comment capability for the post from which this originally spun off):
From http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/241366
Margolis finds, for example, that OPR applied the wrong legal standard, the "preponderance of evidence" rather than the more stringent clear and convincing evidence" standard that state bar proceedings would utilize. (p. 11) Margolis also concludes that OPR's findings "do not identify violation of a specific bar rule." ( p. 12) Can any critic of Yoo and Bybee find any action of theirs that is such clearly shoddy legal work as these two examples from the draft OPR report? What would be really fun would be to do a head-to-head of Yoo's opinions with those of previous OLC lawyers, looking for errors, omissions, and dubious arguments in each. The question here is not whether Yoo's advice was good or bad public policy— we are supposed to be talking about legal malpractice. It's dismaying how many people are willing to punish Yoo with no concern for whether he did anything against the rules. It's enough to make you think that what liberals really care about is something else and not civil liberties.
As usual, the real scandal is what's within the rules. That's why I said that I'd be glad to see Yoo disbarred, but he'd have a lot of company.
Being wrong, even badly wrong, does not necessariy constitutcarcmnoe an ethical violation. Very smart lawyers do dumb things all the time. Consider Deval Patrick and the other very smart lawyers in the Civil Rights Division of Justice who took a position in the Piscataway case that was so bone-headed that the NAACP had to write a check on the steps of the Supreme Court to prevent a disastrous opinion. I personally support the Patrick et al. view of Piscataway from a policy perspective, but polcy advice and legal advice are miles apart -- especially with this Supreme Court. It is all too frequent that smart lawyers with deeply held views that are reinforced by their contact with like-minded idealogues give really, really bad legal advice.
"It's dismaying how many people are willing to punish Yoo with no concern for whether he did anything against the rules."
Who are these people? Sounds like you are letting a reasonable, or even shoddy, disagreement of the meaning of the rules suggest a high test is being violated, perhaps because you have a disagreement of policy or something.
I realize that this is perhaps beyond the scope of your post, but to me the most troubling aspect of the Margolis decision is this: the "insanity defense" to a war crimes charge is now firmly established and easily available to all comers.
Step 1: Party intent on committing unambiguous war crime (herein, the "Cheney") begins interviewing lawyers. Step 2: The Cheney finds a Constitutional Mad Hatter -- an attorney convinced that moon is made of green cheese, humans come from Xenu, and the auto da fe' is an appropriate interrogation technique for interviewing suspects (herein, the "Yoo"). Step 3: The Yoo presents the Cheney with a legal opinion based upon the Yoo's insane beliefs. Step 4: The Cheney begins burning suspects at the stake. Step 5: The Cheney asserts advice of counsel at his war crimes trial, and wins. Step 6: The Yoo asserts his heartfelt belief that burning heretics is legal at his disbarment proceeding, and wins. Thus the consequences of our legal system as capped by the Margolis ruling are that (1) there is zero accountability for war crimes, and (2) every bad actor now has overwhelming incentive to find the WORST lawyers possible. Lovely.
Yoo makes it clear (in his many interviews and writings), that in wartime, (a state of permancy, by design), that the president is (by Yoo's design), above the law, nay, that the president IS the law, the absolute law of the planet. This was a coup conspiracy, above and beyond merely conspiracy to apply color-of-law to war crimes.
cf: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." ~~George W. Bush (Dec 19th, 2000)
@Charles Gittings, I'd like to see them prosecuted under 18 USCA 2340-2340A more than 2441. I think there are two benefits to this: (1) You're likely to set a stronger precedent about the extraterritorial rights and obligations of US officials and (2) the only defenses available to Yoo, et al., are the doubtful "it wasn't torture" or the ironic "Guantanamo actually *is* a US territory or possession." It also limits the wrangling over which protections the GTMO detainees were entitled to at the time of Yoo's writings since the existence of an armed conflict or "really, really bad guys" aren't defenses under 2340A.
Hi Tara,
Well I'd be happy to see them prosecuted under 2340-2340A also, but that is secondary to 2441 IMO. First, I want to vindicate the grave breach provisions of Geneva 1949, which were one of the major innovations added after WW2. That's 18 USC 2441(c)(1), and has the advantage of not getting into the distinction (if any) between torture and abuse, because abuse is an offense by itself. Equally, I want them prosecuted under 18 USC 2441(c)(2), which makes it an offense to commit any violation of arts. 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Hague IV 1907 Annex of Regulations ("HR"). Of particular interest is HR art 23[h], which states: "In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden [t]o declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party." That was one of the principal objects of Addington and Yoo's memo-writing enterprise. (See my blog article HERE for some further details.) As for extra-territoriality I'm not understanding your point, since 18 USC 2441 applies to any US national or service member "inside or outside the United States". But I'm certainly willing to have them prosecuted under both statutes, and others too -- e.g., murder, kidnapping, assault, etc. Charly
I don't think Yoo's past history, his sincerity, or that the quality of his analysis was poor is the point at all. Even if you accept some this this unitary executive claptrap, he offered support for policies that were illegal, unless you believe the president, using an undeclared war as an excuse, can do any damn thing he want's. It's illegal for an officer of the U.S. government to suborn torture and certainly it is a violation of treaty agreements to kidnap people on another country's sovereign soil. If they didn't cross some ethical, much professional, boundaries with that, then there's no point in standards and practices for a profession. We're not talking politics here. This is set against a long history in or country where no one ever pulled this kind of stuff. Manzanar was bad enough, but we didn't kill anybody or rip out toenails, or whatever else those amateur interrogators where doing. And when I call them amateur's, I know a little bit about the business of collection of information.
There are multiple problems with Tamanaha's analysis. And I say this, without regard to the fact that the good professor gave me a measly B in his Torts class, several years ago.
1) First, Tamanaha adopts the now-conventional jurisprudential approach of assuming that an interpretation of statutory and/or constitutional law consists in a prediction as to what a court will decide. That's the common view, but I don't think Tamanaha can defend it. Tamanaha has written extensively on jurisprudence, and I'd like to see him try to defend the idea that the Executive Branch has no independent responsibility to interpret the law, or that such interpretation consists wholly in predicting the decisions of a judicial clerisy. 2) But let's say Tamanaha is right, and that Yoo's task was to guess the behavior of judges, some of whom are real twits. If so, then it looks like Yoo did a pretty good job; he guessed right! See the 2008 3rd Circuit case - Pierre v. AG of the United States - which interpreted Congress' anti-torture statute in Yoo-ian fashion, as requiring "the additional deliberate and conscious purpose" to inflict torture. Now, at this point, Tamanaha's jurisprudential approach conflicts with his substantive legal views (and we all know how painful that can be.) If he says that the 3rd Circuit is wrong in its analysis of the statute, then that implies that the law is what it is independent of the judges, which would further imply that the Executive Branch is duty-bound to identify that law, irrespective of what the judge think. But if Tamanaha concedes that the 3rd Circuit - as the highest and most recent court to decide this issue - is necessarily right, that implies that Yoo is right, and Tamanaha wrong, on the issue of torture (under the anti-torture statute.) I'd like, at this point, to personally attack most of the academics of the anti-torture brigade. This isn't an ad hominem, because the insult is an end in itself. The moral outrage underlying your purportedly legal analysis is grounded in a primitive approach to moral reasoning. It's the 10 Commandments approach to ethics; some actions are just intrinsically wrong, period. Thus the common pronouncement, uttered with sanctimonious pride: "We don't torture, period." This approach is wrongheaded, as can be demonstrated by citing the many instances in which, e.g., killing people is not merely permissible or justifiable, but morally good. Maybe we'll think more clearly about torture when we clear away the a priori pronouncements, based upon emotion and ideology, and attempt to make our moral reasoning as complex as the choices we face. Having said all this, I anticipate Professor Tamanaha reply: Based on the quality of your argument here, I can't believe I didn't give you a C or less. Too late.
Brian, in the interest of moral goodness, I'd love to have the opportunity to torture you. I'd be interested to hear what you think of torture when I'm done witb you.
I'm also looking forward to Brian's denunciation of the primitive moral reasoning by which we denounce child molestors.
Brian, The obligation wasn't to guess judges' future response, but to base his legal advice on relevant jurisprudence and advice the client (often times in this case that was the military or CIA, not Bush/Cheney) of all potential outcomes. When defining torture, this would mean at least taking account of relevant jurisprudence from the the TVPA, ATCA, War Crimes Act, etc. Instead, he pulled out a medicare reimbursement statute that suited his needs and ignored the rest. Perhaps justifiable if he was defending the WH before a court but Yoo wasn't acting as an advocate in these memos - he was acting as a counselor. Or at least he was supposed to be.
Charly, My thought on the extraterritoriality issue as that we already have jurisprudence showing that US officials who commit war crimes outside the US are criminally liable. It's also not a leap to understand that if we have laws governing our actions in armed conflict, and most of our armed conflicts occur outside the US, Congress intended this to constrain US actors outside the US during times of war. 2340a is different in that it's not limited to armed conflicts. It ostensibly constrains the US in all its extraterritorial activities, but it hasn't yet been applied against a US official (I believe it's still only been applied against Chuckie Taylor). It could set interesting precedents regarding the rights and obligations of the US's extraterritorial obligations in other areas of human rights beyond torture. I do recognize the uniqueness of torture on this b/c of the existence of this specific statute, but I think you could find a dwindling down of the presumption that the US's human rights obligations do not extend extra-territorially that you won't get just from the War Crimes Act. Other than that, I completely agree w/ you. I hadn't really considered the importance of HR art 23(h) here, but I think you're right to place an emphasis on the importance of reinforcing that standard in any criminal prosecutions.
In the fictional film Judgment at Nuremburg, which depicts the trial of four German jurists accused of "legalizing" Nazi atrocities, the "sincerity" defense doesn't help. Yoo should not be let off for that or for incompetence either, but held accountable (via his law license) for his quick willingness to undermine human dignity in the most blatant way.
Yes, the decision does not provide John Yoo with a "clean bill of health." Rather, the decision serves as a "scarlet letter" for the balance of Yoo's life (and perhaps beyond). Yes, he has his tenure, there will be no disciplinary bar proceedings, but he is marked for life. Yoo can be expected to continue to defend his actions at OLC. But in the end he remains the patsy. We have recently heard from former VP Cheney on the virtues of torture and he is expected to come out with a book that no doubt will elaborate on his connections with torture, including via David Addington with Yoo. In addition, George W. Bush has a book in the works that also no doubt will address the torture issue during his presidency. There seem to be potential cleavages between Bush and Cheney relative to torture that perhaps may be explored in their books. Surely both Bush and Cheney, neither being an attorney, will rely upon legal advice from Yoo et al at OLC. So Yoo will continue to bear the burden as it would be difficult for him at this late date to point to perhaps political pressures applied by Bush/Cheney that resulted in the torture memos. But there are others with information that just may surface. Keep in mind that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. And I somehow have my doubts that the books of Bush and Cheney will be coordinated on the issue of torture, especially since Bush at a point disavowed torture whereas Cheney continues in support of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. In years to come, Yoo's torture memos will be rehashed every time torture is in the news. That's real punishment.
By the way, those defending Yoo (you know who you are) on the basis that he did nothing more than what many attorneys do is not only lame but weasely, suggesting perhaps their own deficiencies as attorneys.
TPMMuckraker has a 2/19/10 post by Zachary Scott titled: "DOJ Investigators Were Told Yoo's Emails Had Been Deleted" that references a footnote to the decision that perhaps Prof. Tamanaha might address with an addendum to his post.
The moral outrage underlying your purportedly legal analysis is grounded in a primitive approach to moral reasoning. It's the 10 Commandments approach to ethics; some actions are just intrinsically wrong, period.
Has the idea of ius cogens been downgraded from "legal" to "purportedly legal"? Some actions actually are intrinsically wrong, period. That what separates the Jesus from the Jack Bauer.
David Luban's post (2/22/10) includes not only a link to his Slate article on Yoo et al but one to TPM that provides several interesting related links, including the item noted in my earlier comment.
We're lowerin' the bar,
for John Yoo, yes we are, We're lowerin' the bar, for Yoo (but not for you). We're lowering the bar, so he won't be disbarred, but I wouldn't hire him m'self (nor would you). Now you may be wonderin', just what a guy's gotta do, around here to get fired -- is it enough for Yoo? We're lowering the bar, 'bout as low as it can go, the guy meant well, felt strongly; that's good enough for Yoo! We're lowerin' the bar, for John Yoo, and by far; the law ends meanin' nothin' to Yoo (and you and you).
"By the way, those defending Yoo (you know who you are) on the basis that he did nothing more than what many attorneys do"
Actually, it's not a defense of Yoo, it's an indictment of the legal community. As anybody who's gotten billed a half hour of an attorney's time for each page of a legal boilerplate he had his secretary photocopy could tell you.
I'm not a lawyer, but even a layman's cursory review of American legal history would enable familiarity with Justice Robert Jackson's three categories of executive power that he famously described in the Youngstown Steel case. It is my understanding that John Yoo didn't refer to Youngstown in his memos. If that is true, this appears to be prima facie evidence that Yoo, a highly trained lawyer, purposely skewed his memos to meet the needs of Cheney, et al.
Poor Yoo and Bybee, they thought the worst was behind them but with this recent exoneration by Associate Deputy Attorney General Margolis they are again in the center of legal and moral ridicule. And so richly deserving it.
Anyway John Yoo seems of little use to Berkeley or in fact anybody in the country at the moment which given how much need is out there for creative legal memo writing strikes as a total waste of perfectly good legal talent. So here is an idea, we should lend them to others, spread the democracy so to speak, to the Syrian DoJ for example. Given their reputation for "enhanced" interrogation techniques they could use a clever memo or two. Or North Koreans, same thing. Unfortunately too late for poor Saddam Hussein which is a shame given how much "President has power to order massacre of an entire village" type of note would have been of use to him. See Halabja. But it's not too late for our friends Israelis - it looks they need a memo or two and they need it fast. So how about it, Mr. Yoo and Bybee?
Brett, you continue to accuse and when confronted come up with something lame about boilerplate, a half hour of billing, a photocopy, now as an indictment of the legal community, not as a defense of Yoo. Crapola.
Attorneys and their clients appearing before judges may sometimes wonder what the judge they are appearing before had accomplished to get his/her robes. Judge Bybee accomplished what for his appointment by the Bush appointment, in addition to his OLC role?
RPC 8.4 It is professional misconduct to
a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Margolis writes: " While I have declined to adopt OPR's findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo's loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client. These memoranda suggest that he failed to appreciate the enormous responsibility that comes with the authority to issue institutional decisions that carried the authoritative weight of the Department of Justice." Doesn't Margolis's argument collapse upon itself if we simply and fairly paraphrase his rationale and add its logical conclusion: "John Yoo was irresponsible. His rationale is legally incompetent and driven by his ideology. Because of the great power of his official position his analyses caused great harm. A reasonable fact-finder could therefore conclude that Yoo violated RPC 1.1 Competence because his conduct was grossly negligent. - GWC
Brett wishes to make more general points. I don't understand his New Deal line, since the Court did a lot of nefarious things before then, but I put that aside. Suffice to say, there are lawyers and there are lawyers:
The proper role for presidential lawyers is actually quite clear, although more nuanced than either zealous advocate or neutral arbiter. The Constitution explicitly commands the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and it is up to the attorney general and, under his direction, DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel to provide the analytical expertise the president needs to ensure the legality of his administration's actions. Presidential lawyers should operate first and foremost as stewards of the rule of law and our constitutional democracy. Their legal advice must reflect an accurate and principled view of the law, not just plausible, ends-driven rationalizations. And in order to do that with any effectiveness, they must be allowed to tell the president "no." -- Dawn Johnsen, nominated as head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Likewise, "an accurate and principled view of the law" in this context includes doing so when analyzing what accepted authoritative sources -- even if you find their reasoning specious, the point is not as an "advocate" to change them here -- held. So, a general attack of legal interpretation doesn't necessarily deal with the specific issue at hand. None are without sin, but the sin (or wrongdoing) is simply not of the same caliber. This too is a point -- we can rail against unjust criminal sentencing, but the death penalty is different from five years in prison all the same. And, thus different focus is placed on it.
"Doesn't Margolis's argument collapse upon itself if we simply and fairly paraphrase his rationale and add its logical conclusion"
No, your paraphrase ignores Margolis' finding that Yoo's errors don't rise to the level required for incompetence under the rules of professional conduct.
It is a bit too inside baseball for me to fully enjoy, but Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging by Prof. Tamanaha is recommended.
He discusses the book here. A taste: I call this "balanced realism" because it acknowledges the limitations inherent to law and human judges—which cannot be eliminated—yet it also recognizes that law nonetheless works, that judges can and do render rule bound decisions. For at least two centuries, the book shows, judges and jurists have described law and judging in balanced realist terms. The formalist-realist divide that dominates contemporary views of judging tends to obscure this common ground. The need for judgment, one that will open up some disagreement, is relevant here because he still believes that the "rule of law" is both possible and fundamental. This requires some minimum standards, and he cites research to show that judges as a whole do agree in most cases. frequently there are legally "correct answers" and "incorrect answers," as determined by prevailing legal conventions and practices Thus, though some don't agree it has been violated, there is some minimum standard here that someone in Yoo/Bybee's place could have violated. I fear from reading some of the discussions that some disagree. That in effect they had a job to spin the law to meet the needs of the administration and to challenge them on that is the outrageous thing.
Just wondering -- is there a documented instance of Yoo telling Shrub that the answer is no? That there's no way inside the law to do what Shrub wants?
Not that I'm aware of. The very first post-911 Addington-Yoo memo spells out their basic theory of everything: THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM (2001.09.25) See especially the conclusion: "In light of the text, plan, and history of the Constitution, its interpretation by both past Administrations and the courts, the longstanding practice of the executive branch, and the express affirmation of the President's constitutional authorities by Congress, we think it beyond question that the President has the plenary constitutional power to take such military actions as he deems necessary and appropriate to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. Force can be used both to retaliate for those attacks, and to prevent and deter future assaults on the Nation. Military actions need not be limited to those individuals, groups, or states that participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: the Constitution vests the President with the power to strike terrorist groups or organizations that cannot be demonstrably linked to the September 11 incidents, but that, nonetheless, pose a similar threat to the security of the United States and the lives of its people, whether at home or overseas. In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make." According to them, there is no law the President is obligated to respect in any degree. Laws are merely tools they use selectively to do whatever they want.
Yes, if you want a wish for hella more wishes, that will do.
But my question remains: did Yoo ever say no? In fact I'll expand it: is there any known instance in John Yoo's entire life where he told a client no, what you want to do is illegal, that's my advice as your lawyer? Or is he an indulgence seller from way back?
"Doug Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
John Yoo: No treaty
I should have added:
Are treaties laws? It's a simple yes or no answer. Is the president bound by the law? Again: yes or no.
My answers: yes and yes.
"[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur[.]" Const. Art. II § 2, cl. 4. "[The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed[.]" Const. Art. II § 3, cl. 4. "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Const. Art. VI, cl. 2. * For more on treaties, see also my amicus brief in Kiyemba v. Obama.
The questions weren't directed at you Charles, and they weren't written in ignorance.
I'm about as tired of your martyr complex as I am of S. Levinson's fixations of the structure of our government. CRS report on Signing Statements [PDF] ----------- Conclusion Presidential signing statements have a long historical pedigree and there is no discernible constitutional or legal impediment to their issuance. While such statements have become increasingly common since the Reagan Administration and have increasingly been utilized by Presidents to raise constitutional or interpretive objections to congressional enactments, that increased usage does not render them unconstitutional. While the broad assertions of executive authority contained in these statements carry significant implications, both practical and constitutional, for the traditional relationship between the executive branch and Congress, they do not have legal force or effect, and have not been utilized to effect the formal nullification of laws. Instead, it appears that recent administrations, as made apparent by the voluminous challenges lodged by President George W. Bush, have employed these instruments in an attempt to leverage power and control away from Congress by establishing these broad assertions of authority as a constitutional norm. It can be argued that the appropriate focus of congressional concern should center not on the issuance of signing statements themselves, but on the broad assertions of presidential authority forwarded by Presidents and the substantive actions taken to establish that authority. Accordingly, a robust oversight regime focusing on substantive executive action, as opposed to the vague and generalized assertions of authority typical of signing statements, might allow Congress in turn to more effectively assert its constitutional prerogatives and ensure compliance with its enactments. Every congressman has fantasies of being president and they all act more in service to that dream of individual authority than in defense of the prerogatives of the chamber where they sit. The corruption of the Presidency is not solely the result of recent presidents and the perverse culture of the community of our elected representatives is not solely the result of there being 50 states. You can't expect the courts to carry the weight that all should share. Neither can you expect that rules should carry all the responsibilities of people.
D. Ghirlandaio,
I don't have a martyr complex, and you can take your BS and shove it back where it came from. Did you have some actual point in mind?
D. Ghirlandaio speaks of "solely" and so forth. Passing through such hyperbole, in some part the last administration crossed the line and in some part prosecutors and the courts have a role to deal with it. And, signing statements et. al. in some part send a message to executive officials what the President wants, and thus are not meaningless drivel.
" in some part the last administration crossed the line and in some part prosecutors and the courts have a role to deal with it."
You can't and shouldn't rely on the priesthood alone. "The unelected elite will save us!!" Congress is not powerless unless it chooses to be. It's going to be a long hard slog.
"You can't and shouldn't rely on the priesthood alone."
Since I said the courts have "a role," not the "sole role," you are speaking to the choir. Also, Congress doesn't have the power to prosecute or reward damages pursuant to existing laws. On the level, yes, they are "powerless" to do some of the things necessary. thanks so much i like very so much your post حلي الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورتة حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot When I first visited your blog, I liked the concept of your blog posts. It is very well portrayed as well as depicted Arts de la table recette tiramisu gateau aux pommes creme patissiere creme anglaise recette chantilly recette gaufre recette galette des rois mélatonine pate a crepe recette crepe
The gladdest moment in human life, me thinks, is a departure into unknown lands.
Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya |
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |


text:
This call connection service will connect your call to HMRC. A direct number can be found here at no or lower cost. We are not affiliated with HMRC.
Barry HMRC Contact Number
Calls using this service cost £6 per call plus your phone providers access charge.
HMRC HM Revenue & Customs
HMRC Helpline
To connect to HMRC customer service please call the HMRC contact number displayed on this site, the call connection service will connect you directly with HMRC. You can find their direct number in the link above. If you choose to use our connection services your call will be connected to the HMRC customer services phone number at a premium rate which will cost more than calling directly. Callers must be over 18 and have the bill payer's permission. To contact us for a refund click here. Service provider helpline 0203 148 4628
HMRC Opening
Mon-Fri : 8:00AM – 8:00PM | Saturday : 8:00AM – 4:00PM | Sunday : Closed
Phone HMRC
HMRC is a massive agency and has many different departments. Before calling, it's a good idea to verify that you have the correct phone number for the division you need to contact. In addition, different divisions have their own hours of operation, so you will want to verify those as well. Calling HMRC from Barry has never been easier.
HMRC Contact Number
Information you need to identify yourself to a call center representative, which may include your National Insurance number. If you are calling on behalf of someone else, you'll need their information as well. Documents that are pertinent to your case, including any correspondence between yourself and HMRC. Pen and paper so that you can take notes during your conversation. HMRC's phone systems use voice recognition to get you to the right division or representative. When you call, He asked to say in a few words what your concern is. Try to be plane and specific in what you have to say. For example, if you are calling ceased family member's tax issues, you could say "deceased" and be transferred to the appropriate department.
HMRC Contact
If you are unable to use standard phone systems, HMRC does provide adaptive technologies as well, including those that meet the needs of deaf and hearing-impaired callers.
Contact HMRC
You'll usually have the option to contact HMRC through an online form, webchat, by phone or by post.
Call HMRC
by calling the number above you will be connected to HMRC, you will the be able to select the department you wish to speak to
HMRC Phone Number
You can use the number above to be connected to HMRC helpline. Use the number above to get connected to HMRC phone number UK
HMRC Contact Number UK
You can you use the call connection phone number to speak to a HMRC Contact in the UK


text:
Welcome to our website! As we have the ability to list over one million items on our website (our selection changes all of the time), it is not feasible for a company our size to record and playback the descriptions on every item on our website. However, if you have a disability we are here to help you. Please call our disability services phone line at 512-454-5896 during regular business hours and one of our kind and friendly personal shoppers will help you navigate through our website, help conduct advanced searches, help you choose the item you are looking for with the specifications you are seeking, read you the specifications of any item and consult with you about the products themselves. There is no charge for the help of this personal shopper for anyone with a disability. Finally, your personal shopper will explain our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, and help you place an order if you so desire.
Have Questions? 512-454-5896
Appliance Associates in Austin, TX is an authorized dealer of Hotpoint Products. Hotpoint has been around since 1918 and has launched many appliance industry firsts such as the first all-white, fully enameled electric range, electric "moistureless" clothes dryer, refrigerator on wheels. They also introduced the first 90 Day Replacement Guarantee of Satisfaction that allows any customer who is not satisfied with the performance of a Hotpoint appliance to replace it with a comparable model. They also brought in the first low-speed agitation clothes washer making it possible to machine wash clothing such as delicate lingerie, synthetics and cashmere sweaters which previously had to be washed by hand.
So if you are looking for Hotpoint products in Austin, Round Rock, Leander, Pflugerville, Manor, Georgetown, Cedar Park, Buda, Kyle, Elgin and Hutto, or if you have any questions about Hotpoint products, please feel free to call us at 512-454-5896 or simply stop by Appliance Associates at any time and we would be glad to help you.


text:
Late last week, I was thrilled to have the opportunity to interview Thomas Sowell about his new essay, Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich. Here's the slightly edited transcript of our conversation.
This is probably a very basic question for you, one you cover with your Economics 101 students, but it's one that I think a lot of people in politics need to hear. As a general rule, why are low tax rates on everyone, including the wealthy, preferable to high tax rates?
For a number of reasons, but I think one of the most important reasons, especially for those in the upper income bracket, is that you can collect the low tax rates and you have great trouble collecting the high tax rates. Because if you were really one of those "millionaires" and "billionaires" that Barack Obama talks about, you probably have a vast amount of money in liquid form that you can send over to any country in the world with the click of the computer mouse. And so as the tax rate goes up, more money goes out to other places. Along with that money go jobs that those investments create.
One thing you note in the essay that would probably surprise a lot of Democrats is that among other people, John Maynard Keynes, Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy have all argued in favor of cutting tax rates to increase economic growth. Tell people a little bit more about that.
Well, they discovered when they first had income taxes back during the time of the First World War that as you raise the tax rates, more and more people no longer pay them because they put their money in tax exempt securities primarily. And so the, the amount of money in tax exempt securities rose at one point to where it was more than half the size of the national debt and several times the size of the federal government's annual budget –so huge amounts of money went into hiding. And so even though the tax rate that rose at one point to 73 percent, 73 percent of nothing doesn't bring in any revenue to the government.
Related question to that: Another thing that a lot of people don't seem to get is that higher tax rates on the rich don't necessarily mean higher revenue and it doesn't even mean that the rich will necessarily end up paying a higher share of the taxes. Here's an excerpt from the book, from the essay.
"The facts are unmistakably plain for those who bother to check the facts. In 1921 when the tax rate on the people making over $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little over 700 million in income taxes of which 30 percent was paid by those making over $100,000. In 1929 after a series of tax rate reductions had cut the tax rate to 24 percent on those making over $100,000 the federal government collected more than $1 billion in income taxes of which 65 percent was collected from those making over $100,000.
Explain to people how that can be.
Well if you're in one of those top brackets and the rates go up to very high levels, then it pays you to accept a low rate of return from say tax free municipal bonds even though a higher rate of return is available in the market. That's because the market rate, the government is going to take 73 percent of it. So you're going to end up with less than if you purchased municipal bonds. Once the tax rate gets down to 24 percent, then you're better off taking your money out of the municipal bonds, putting it in the marketplace where you can get a higher rate of return and even though the government taxes are there (because) you're better off on that balance. More important though, the economy is better off because instead of financing boondoggles by local municipal governments, you'll be financing the building of railroads, factories, and other kinds of capital that raise the national income and output.
Now, we have the world's highest corporate tax rate and many of the same trickle down arguments are used about that just as they are about cutting taxes on the rich. As a practical matter, what do you think the impact of having a tax rate that high is?
I think you can see it in the statistics that show Americans are sending more money to other countries than other countries are sending to America. That net export of American wealth means the other countries are creating jobs in other countries while large numbers of Americans are unemployed.
Last question, let's say that we took a page from the French and passed a flat 75 percent tax on every dollar made by people who make more than $250,000 a year. Let's say, you make $1 million by any method, you get to keep $250,000 all the way up. How do you think that would impact the behavior of wealthy Americans and what do you think the impact overall in America would be?
My gosh, you would cause all kinds of money to go to the Cayman Islands, to Bermuda, Switzerland, China, you name it. All that capital would be creating jobs in other countries while more and more Americans would find it harder and harder to get work.
Once again, you can read Thomas Sowell's new essay here.
Also see,
Interviewing Thomas Sowell On Intellectuals and Society (Mar 15, 2012) Interviewing Thomas Sowell On Race And Social Issues (Nov 9, 2011) Interviewing Thomas Sowell About Economic Facts And Fallacies (Apr 11, 2011) Interviewing Thomas Sowell On Basic Economics (Jan 24, 2011) RWN's Thomas Sowell Interview #5: Dismantling America (Nov 5, 2010) Interviewing Thomas Sowell On Intellectualism (Feb 15, 2010) An Interview with Thomas Sowell (March 9, 2009) An Interview With Thomas Sowell About "Economic Facts and Fallacies" (February 5, 2008) 10 Questions With Thomas Sowell (January 22nd, 2004)


text:
★ Pre-order ended ★
Scheduled Shipping Start Date : September 29, 2023
Red Velvet [CONNECTION] Acrylic Keyring
✅ The expected delivery date may be delayed due to product and logistics issues.
Item Components
Caution & Care
- SM Global Shop is SM Entertainment's Official Merchandise Store.
- All album purchases from SM Global Shop will count toward Hanteo / Circle Chart.
Product information
ATTENTION to all pre-order customers!
Pre-Order Policy
- PRE-ORDERS have a STRICT no cancellation policy. We are also unable to modify SKU quantity or change its versions after the initial order is placed.
- PRE-ORDERS shipping date may change if there is a delay with our vendors, carriers, or customs department. Thank you for your patience!
- PRE-ORDERS items are often very limited in availability. In the rare case an item is discontinued or no longer available, we will send a substitute with a similar item within the same artist or group.
- SM Global Shop does not offer split shipping at this time. Orders will ship COMPLETE when all items on the order become available.
Fraud and Hold Policy
Orders with different billing and shipping address may be on hold for high fraud risk and may require customers ID verification by our customer service team.
SM Global Shop reserves the right to cancel or modify high fraud risk orders to ensure safety and fairness for all our customers.
Return, Exchange and Refund Policy
SM Global Shop is not responsible for any lost, damaged, or confiscated packages by the shipping carriers and will not refund orders in these cases.
Packages that are returned because they were refused, unclaimed, or unpaid in custom duties (for international orders) are subject to 20% restocking fee.
Packages that are returned due to an incorrect or incomplete address including foreign characters or missing apt # are subject to 20% restocking fee.
Returns and exchange request must be made within the first 10 days of receipt. Items must be brand new and unopened (cannot be used, worn, or damaged by customer).
- Shipping cost is not refundable for any returned orders or packages.
- SM Global Shop reserves the right to refuse/discard unqualified returned items that did not meet our site policy guidelines.
Please allow 3-5 business days to inspect and process your returns.
We don't accept order returns/exchanges when:
- Customized/personalized items
- Items that have been clearly used/damaged by customer
- SGS can refuse exchanges/refunds without discretion if the item doesn't seem to be in the condition it was sent in
Cancellation Policy
We don't accept order cancellations when:
- Non-defective, correctly shipped item
- Your order contains a pre-order item
- Customer teared off tag, label, or price from the product
- Items are worn or not in the condition they were shipped out
- Any damage made by the customer
- Prices found better elsewhere/change of mind.
Shipping Policy
**IMPORTANT: Please make sure your address is correct and is in English prior to check-out. Incorrect address information could result in delays.
Shipping Methods
1. US Standard Parcel Mail (7-10 days)
2. US Priority Mail Parcel (3 days)
3. International: UPS Standard International Mail (10-25 days)
4. International: UPS Priority Mail International (7-20 days)
Order Processing Time
Shipment date does not include processing time.
Processing time generally takes 1-3 days depending on stock and during high demand periods it could take up to 5-7 days.
Here is an info-graphic to compare pre-order and in-stock item's shipping times.
Tracking Information
(*IMPORTANT NOTE: Please keep in mind that sometimes tracking can be misleading. The first package scan may be upon arrival at a regional center near your address. This is common when packages are bulk processed by the USPS, FedEx or UPS. The first package scan may not happen until it is successfully delivered to your residence. So, if your tracking is not updating as expected don't panic.)
Tracking information will be sent out after the item has been shipped out. If your tracking number has the character "UM" then it's not 100% trackable. However, we can assure you that your package is still in transit. The tracking URL will inform you once the package is successfully delivered.
Customs/Duty Taxes
1. SGS is not responsible for any custom taxes or fees associated with the packages. By US law, we must list all contents in shipments. Cost for additional customs & taxes vary by country. (Ex. For Europe, any order over 15 EUR ($19.17 USD) will get charged customs fee and orders over 135 EUR (~$150 USD) will be charged an additional import tax.) For more information about custom taxes please contact your local customs tax office.
2. Customer is responsible for packages withheld by local customs office and any customs tax applied for the pick-up. In the case of a returned item due to rejected delivery, customer will be charged the shipping amount + 20% restocking fee.
3. EU customers will also be responsible for VAT (value added tax) fees on top of the customs fees until further notice.
Unfortunately, we only have access to as much information that is available on the tracking page. The carrier is responsible for any lost mail and we cannot issue any refunds on lost packages. The most we can do is file a case. We apologize for any inconvenience in this regard.
Shipping Address Changes
Once your order ships, we are unable to make any changes to the shipping address. You should still be able to update your address on the USPS website, though. If your package returns to us due to an incorrect address, it will be canceled and refunded and you will be charged a 20% restocking fee.
Delivery delays in your area
For more information on delivery delays worldwide, please contact your local post office to inquire about more information in your area.
Postal Holidays: No mail is processed during national and Postal Holidays. Please factor this into the delivery time when estimating arrival.
- Wednesday, January 1 (New Years Day)
- Monday, January 20 (Martin Luther King Jr. Day)
- Monday, February 17 (President's Day)
- Monday, May 25 (Memorial Day)
- Friday, July 3 (Independence Day*)
- Monday, September 7 (Labor Day)
- Monday, October 12 (Columbus Day)
- Wednesday, November 11 (Veterans Day)
- Thursday, November 26 (Thanksgiving Day)
- Friday, December 25 (Christmas Day)


text: Put a bright smile on their face with our fresh sunflower bouquet! This gorgeous arrangement is beaming with vibrant yellow sunflowers and accented with delicately folded aspidistra leaves for a unique and stylish touch. Set in a clear glass vase, it makes a charming party centerpiece, birthday gift or pick-me-up on a less-than-sunny day.


text:
These French yogart glass jars make perfect water containers. How often do you see a Vermeer in an American supermarket?
Formerly a French plastic yogurt container. Plastic is way easier to bring home than glass.
The contents of a tin or box are irrelevant to me. I'll toss them out to lighten the load home. When I was designing shoes I bought this beautiful tin in London. Pouring thick, gooey Lyle's Golden Syrup down your hotel sink is NOT a good idea.
I love the animals on European food containers. Do we only get to see animals on "organic" foods in the US? I'd like to see more cows and goats svp.
Aren't these yogurt boxes pretty? And you don't have to read anything to know what's inside.
Here's a container I discovered in the supermarket in Paris. It makes a terrific snack after walking all day. Real gazpacho from Spain - it tastes excellent. Would you believe Tropicana is the producer. Please bring this Spanish gazpacho to New York.I'd like to buy a ton of it.


text:
NASCAR: Earnhardt starts wreck during Daytona testing
Published 12:00 am Friday, January 11, 2013
Associated Press
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla.— New cars, same results at Daytona International Speedway.
Dale Earnhardt Jr. started a 12-car accident at Daytona on Friday that essentially shut down a three-day test session designed to hone NASCAR's redesigned cars.
Stock-car racing's most popular driver was trying to bump draft with Marcus Ambrose on the back straightaway when he lifted Ambrose "like a forklift" and turned him into the wall. Ambrose's Ford bounced back across the track and triggered a pileup that collected a host of others.
"It was a big mess and tore up a lot of cars down here trying to work on their stuff," Earnhardt said. "Definitely the drafting is not like it used to be. You can't really tandem certain cars; certain cars don't match up well."
Two of Earnhardt's Hendrick Motorsports teammates, Jeff Gordon and Kasey Kahne, also were involved. So were defending Sprint Cup champion Brad Keselowski, new teammate Joey Logano, Carl Edwards, Kyle Busch, Jamie McMurray, Martin Truex Jr., Aric Almirola and Regan Smith.
There were no injuries, but the wreck caused several teams to leave Daytona. At least 10 teams, including Michael Waltrip Racing, Penske Racing and Richard Petty Motorsports, packed up their haulers and headed back to North Carolina.
"It is unfortunate, but sometimes you have to wreck them to learn," Keselowski said. "The sport is rewinding. That is the important thing to say. The sport advanced to the two-car tandem three or four years ago, and there were certain things you could do then that you couldn't do in the past without wrecking.
"Now the rules package is back to where we were in the early 2000's when the fans enjoyed the racing better. We as drivers have to rewind to how we used to drive these cars. This is how you do it. You make mistakes and learn and that is part of it. I might be the guy who makes the mistake next time, so I can't be mad about it."
Manufacturers Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are using new cars in 2013, ones that have unique front ends that make race cars more closely resemble those on the streets and in the showroom.
The new cars have considerably less downforce than their predecessors and perform differently on the track. The previous models had identical designs that made it easier for bump drafting because the front and rear bumpers lined up squarely.
But with redesigned parts in low supply as vendors try to keep up with demands, many teams came to Daytona without backup cars. Drivers took a cautious approach to the test, trying to gain information about speed and handling while hoping to avoid the kind of huge wrecks typically associated with racing in tight-knit packs at nearly 200 mph.
NASCAR asked teams to simulate race conditions Friday by forming the large drafting packs, and there were 18 cars on the track when Earnhardt triggered the big one.
" You can't push, which I think is a good thing," Gordon said. "The bad thing is you can still get to the guy's bumper, but the cars just don't line up very well. … It's something that is going to have to be dealt with very carefully. You are going to have to be cautious when you do it and do it with the right guys, but most of the time you're going to need to stay away from it. That is certainly something we learned."
Backing up Gordon's sentiments, Earnhardt said the nose of his Chevrolet slid under the rear bumper of Ambrose's Ford.
"It's going to take a lot more care and concentration and just knowing kind of what is at stake," Earnhardt said. "Certain cars you line up OK with and can push fine and for whatever reason mine and Marcus' car didn't line up good. We got our bumpers together and it hooked him. For whatever reason, you've got to be careful who you are working with."
One driver who avoided the melee was five-time series champion Jimmie Johnson. He and crew chief Chad Knaus decided before the session to stay.
"It doesn't make any sense to go out there and draft," Johnson said before the crash. "You don't learn anything. You're just taking a chance of ruining your best race car."


text:
Six exceptional early-career scholars from around the world will come to Princeton University in the fall to begin a year of research, writing and collaboration as the first Fung Fellows.
The Fung Global Fellows Program, administered by the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, brings together international faculty members from the social sciences and humanities around a common theme. During the 2013-14 academic year, the theme will be "Languages and Authority" — an examination of how languages interact with political, social, economic and cultural authority.
The fellows — all of whom have been awarded doctorates in the past 10 years — will be expected to conduct research, write and participate in a weekly public seminar series, where they will have the opportunity to present their work to the University community.
The six Fung Fellows selected for 2013-14 are:
- Adam Clulow, a senior lecturer in the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia;
- Helder De Schutter, an assistant professor in social and political philosophy at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium;
- David Kiwuwa, an associate professor of international studies at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China;
- Pritipuspa Mishra, a lecturer in the Department of History at the University of Southampton, U.K.;
- Brigitte Rath, an assistant professor of comparative literature at the Universität Innsbruck, Austria; and
- Ying Ying Tan, an assistant professor in the Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
"This first cohort of the Fung Global Fellows Program is a milestone not just for this initiative — designed to bring some of the world's most brilliant young academics working on the topic of 'Languages and Authority' here to Princeton — but for the globalization and interdisciplinary focus of our university," said Michael Gordin, director of the Fung Global Fellows Program and a professor of history.
"Among this excellent first group we have individuals ranging from Southeast Asia to Europe to Africa to South Asia, and they work on even more diverse regions to boot," Gordin said. "But they also range across different fields: we have a sociolinguist, a literary scholar, a political philosopher, a scholar of international relations, and two historians, all tackling important questions from a diversity of angles."
The program is funded by a portion of a $10 million gift from Princeton alumnus and trustee William Fung of Hong Kong that is designed to substantially increase the University's engagement with scholars around the world and inspire ideas that transcend borders.
The following is more information on the newly appointed Fung Fellows:
Clulow, originally from South Africa, received a master's degree in Japanese history from Niigata University in Japan in 2002 and a doctorate in East Asian history from Columbia University in 2008. Since completing his first book on the Dutch East India Company's engagement with Tokugawa Japan — "The Shogun and the Company: The Dutch Encounter with Tokugawa Japan" — he has begun work on the project "Possessing Asia: Languages, Power and European Ceremonies of Possession in Early Modern Asia," focusing on the rituals performed by colonizing powers when they arrived in new territories.
De Schutter received a master's degree in 2002 and a doctorate in philosophy in 2006 from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. De Schutter is a political theorist who has published broadly on theories of linguistic justice, drawing most of his examples from European cases such as Belgium and Spain. In his current project titled "Intralinguistic Justice," he attempts to construct a novel theory for language policy.
Kiwuwa received both a master's degree and a doctorate (2006) from the University of Nottingham, U.K., in international studies. His research interests revolve around questions of nationalism, ethnopolitics, conflict and post-conflict reconstruction, and democratic transitions, with a focus on Africa, but also including China and Europe. Currently, Kiwuwa is working on "Post Conflict Reconstruction and the Politics of Language in Rwanda," which explores the fraught case of linguistic politics in post-genocide Rwanda.
Mishra received a master's degree in modern Indian history from the University of Hyderabad, India, in 2002 and a doctorate in 2008 in modern South Asian history from the University of Minnesota. Her special interests lie in the cultural and intellectual history of South Asia. With her present project "Vernacular Homeland: Language and the Making of the Region in Eastern India," Mishra is writing the history of the territory of Orissa from its creation in British India up through the formation of an independent India.
Rath received a master's degree in modern European literature from the University of Sussex, U.K., in 1999, and a doctorate from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany, in 2007. Although her research project ranges both earlier and later, Rath focuses on 18th- and 19th-century texts in French, German and English that claim to be translations from original languages — languages in many cases that the authors did not or could not know. For her project "Presenting an Absent Language — Original Translations," she reads these texts as both original creative productions and as translations.
Tan received a doctorate in linguistics from University of Singapore in 2003. Tan is writing a sociolinguistic and political account of the attempts by the government of Singapore — which recognizes four official languages: Chinese, English, Malay, and Tamil — to enforce Mandarin Chinese and "Good" English as standardized forms of communication, and the effect on a variety of dialects. In her research project "Contesting Language Policies," Tan combines ethnographic work with analyses of how the campaigns worked in practice in order to examine how multilingual environments like Singapore have dealt with problems of linguistic fragmentation over time.


text:
Storyboard of the Trailer |
Below is a visual trailer analysis I have been working on (with a bit of help) for the past few hours and includes most, if not all, of the references in the trailer. Did you get them all? Did I miss anything that you got or make a mistake? Let us know!
UPDATE 1: Added several more labels, with thanks to those who have pointed them out. There are still two things that have had a couple of suggestions but still unidentified. Firstly, on the 5th picture, there is a computer just above the pub sign. Secondly, on the 2rth, there is a device sticking out of Matt's shoulder. What could these be?


text:
NEW YORK (AP) — Federal prosecutors want Bank of America Corp. pay about $864 million over losses incurred by the government after it bought thousands of home loans made by Countrywide Financial during the housing boom.
U.S. attorney Preet Bharara made the request in documents filed late Friday with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
A jury last month found Bank of America Corp., which acquired Countrywide in 2008, liable for knowingly selling thousands of bad home loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between August 2007 and May 2008.
The panel also returned the verdict against Countrywide and a former executive, Rebecca Mairone.
The trial related to mortgages the government said were sold at break-neck speed without regard to quality as the economy headed into a tailspin.
The government had accused the financial institutions of urging workers to churn out loans, accept fudged applications and hide ballooning defaults through a loan program called the Hustle, shorthand for high-speed swim lane, which operated under the motto, "Loans Move Forward, Never Backward."
Bank of America, based in Charlotte, N.C., denied there was fraud.
Thousands of loans made through the Hustle program were sold to Fannie and Freddie, which packaged loans into securities and sold them to investors. The companies were effectively nationalized in 2008 when they nearly collapsed from mortgage losses.
In the filing Friday, Bharara asked the court to make the penalty on BofA equal to the maximum losses racked up from the Hustle program by the government-run mortgage buyers.
Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson said Saturday that the lender plans to respond to the government's penalty filing before a Nov. 20 deadline.
"We believe the filing overstates the volume of loans and the appropriate measure of damages arising from one narrow Countrywide program that lasted several months and ended before Bank of America acquired the company," he said.
Bharara also wants the court to impose a penalty on Mairone — who prosecutors say was the driving force behind the Hustle program — that is in line with her ability to pay.
Mairone's lawyer, Marc Mukasey in New York, said Saturday that he intends to file papers with the court arguing there should be no penalties imposed on his client.
Countrywide, once the country's largest mortgage lender, played a major role in the collapse of the housing market because of its heavy reliance on subprime mortgages. Facing serious financial challenges, it was acquired by Bank of America in 2008 in an all-stock deal valued at about $4 billion.
In 2010, Bank of America agreed to pay $600 million to settle class-action lawsuits claiming that Countrywide officials concealed mounting financial risks as they loosened lending standards during the housing boom. That same year, former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo agreed to pay $67.5 million to settle accusations by the Securities and Exchange Commission that he had misled investors and engaged in insider trading.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
This is an exclusive business profile of Indira located in Ngri, Hyderabad. From this Page, you can directly contact Indira from the enquiry form provided on the right. On the left you can get the Verified Mobile Number of Indira – feel free to call us to know more about our products & services. We will soon update our Catalog which you can download to get latest information about all our products & services and latest deals & offers by Indira. Do check out our Job Openings section to know about all the vacancies in Indira. You can also check out our Photo Gallery section to see latest photos of Indira. Before leaving, do not forget to give us your review and rating if you have been a customer of Indira in the past.
List your business on Indiaonline.in to get a similar business profile to improve your online presence


text:
Is Your Personal Device Personal?
November 13, 2012
This month's question on our LinkedIn System & Product Design Engineering Group had to do with your personal mobile device(s).
In two parts, the question was, "Do you use your personal mobile device in your plant, and does your company expect you to use your own iPad or smartphone for company use?" Another question we could have asked but didn't is, "Do you use your company mobile device for personal reasons?" I bet many of us are guilty of that one.
One reader says that using his personal device makes his life easier:
It just took me five minutes to connect and solve an errant parameter problem at the mill using my personal iPad over a 3G network connection. I am championing this type of use and would hope to be reimbursed by the company for my efforts and expenses since the benefits are extremely obvious.
Another reader, Walker Reynolds, uses his personal smartphone and iPad for company business, up to and including troubleshooting, data collection, research, and trialing on the plant floor:
I'm happy to use company-provided tools if the other techs in conjunction with the management team determine the cost is worth the benefit. I have already come to that conclusion. However, I'm normally ahead of the curve when it comes to these things. As such, I will continue to use my personal tools to benefit the operation as a whole.
Says Thierry Vuillaume:
Use of an iPad or iPhone in plant operation is taking place as applications are being developed by vendors to ease the maintenance or training activities of the personnel. Use of these devices benefits both the company and operators or plant managers. But these are to be corporate tools and not private for cyber security issues. Smartphone or tablet use should be limited to the building area, not in the field.
Jeffery Frost says:
When I began at my position with my present company, it took close to a month to get my new laptop. I was told I would also be getting a company phone. I used my personal smartphone in the meantime -- necessity is the mother of invention. After a while, I got tired of asking for the company phone; I had bigger fish to fry.
From the opposite perspective comes Fernando Chua:
We issue corporate electronic devices to our employees. We insist that they use these official devices for company business only. We do not expect them to use their personal devices. And they are warned that any data accumulated in these devices belong to the company. They are not allowed to format the HD or blow away the data in the memory prior to turning them in when they leave. They use these devices for personal reason at their own risk.
One reader, Steve Leavelle, says:
In general, I don't use my smartphone for company business unless absolutely necessary. If I'm in the office, I will use an office phone to make all business-related calls. My mobile and home phone numbers are available to those in our organization that need to be able to contact me if I'm not in the office. But I don't publish those numbers in the company phone directory. My outlook is that if the company wants me to have a mobile number accessible to any company employee, they should provide me with a company-paid phone. I do not give out my mobile or home phone numbers to clients.
Related posts:
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like


text:
Your Happiness Guarantee
Every product you order at SickTeezz is an individual item, manufactured by hand for you. That's what distinguishes us from other e-commerce retailers. Returns aren't put back on our warehouse shelves, as we can't resell them. This is why we want to make sure you're 100% content with your order. And if you should not be completely happy for any reason, just make use of our
30-day return guarantee
Simply return your product within 30 days of receipt. Whether it doesn't fit you, suit you or it's not what you expected – just send it back. You can choose from the following options:
- Exchange for a new product
- Exchange for a voucher to be redeemed towards your next order
- Refund of your product cost as long as the product was not designed specifically for you
Before you send the product back, please contact our friendly Service Team and provide your Order ID.
This is how you can avoid returns
1. Receive a sample before placing a volume order
When planning an order for you and your team, you may be unsure about what sizes, styles, and colors to order. Please order plain products without prints first, as we can take these back without a problem. If you order e.g. one T-shirt with print to test the print quality, we will accept the return and give you a voucher or a new product. This way, you'll help protect the environment and save resources.
2. Read the order confirmation email straight away
Maybe you feel like changing the text or design. If this is the case, please follow the link in the confirmation email and cancel the order immediately before it goes to print. You can then go back to your order, change it and place it again.
3. Calculate with a buffer period
We're quite fast, but we can't make any guarantees. This may be due to reasons relating to design issues, product stock and delivery times. If your order doesn't arrive in time for a birthday, wedding anniversary or the farewell party of your colleague, this does unfortunately not constitute a reason for a return.
You'll find all the information you need including cancellation rights and our complete return policy in our T&C.


text:
Microsoft is continuing to expand the availability of its two computer systems: the Surface Pro and Surface RT. The company says new markets are being added "in coming months," starting in "late March."
Microsoft is adding Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, and Taiwan to the twenty-odd countries the ARM-powered Surface RT tablet is already sold in. Surface Pro's first new markets will be Australia, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the UK. More specific information will be provided closer to the launch date.
The expansion comes after Surface Pro arrived slightly late for its US and Canada release—it was set to arrive 90 days after Surface RT but ultimately debuted more than 100 days after. Demand for the devices is still a relative mystery (despite the unavailability of certain models), and additional markets may only make this picture murkier. Ars has already reviewed the device, and we'll continue to follow how it fares in the market as info comes out.