text:
Table of Contents How to Use SemartHris!
==============================

Cara penggunaan SemartHris dibagi dalam beberapa tahap berikut ini :

 1. Administrator
	 - User
	 - Konfigurasi
 2. Master Data
	 - Lembaga Pendidikan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Lembaga Pendidikan )
	 - Gelar Pendidikan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Gelar Pendidikan )
	 - Group Keahlian ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Group Keahlian )
	 - Keahlian ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Keahlian )
	 - Provinsi ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Provinsi )
	 - Kota ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Kota )
	 - Kontrak ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Kontrak )
	 - Hari Libur ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Hari Libur )
 3. Perusahaan
     - Perusahaan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Perusahaan )
	 - Departemen ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Departemen )
	 - Level Jabatan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Level Jabatan )
	 - Jabatan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Jabatan )
	 - Beban Gaji Perusahaan (view pengeluaran gaji perusahaan)
 4. Karyawan
	 - Profil Karyawan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Karyawan )
	 - Penempatan Karyawan  ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Penempatan Karyawan )
	 - Mutasi Karyawan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Mutasi Karyawan )
	 - Riwayat Karir ( Riwayat Karir Karyawan )
 5. Absensi
	 - Alasan Ketidakhadiran ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Alasan Ketidakhadiran )
	 - Shift Kerja ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Shift Kerja )
	 - Group Keahlian ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Group Keahlian )
	 - Jadwal Kerja ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Jadwal Kerja )
	 - Absensi ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Absensi )
	 - Riwayat Absensi ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Riwayat Absensi )
 6. Lembur
	 - Lembur ( Tambah / Edit / Delete / Upload Lembur )
 7. Cuti
	- Alasan Cuti ( Tambah / Edit / Delete / Alasan Cuti )
 8. Penggajian
	 - Komponen Gaji ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Komponen Gaji - Tunjangan - Potongan)
	 - Setting Gaji ( Tambah Gaji ke Karyawan)
	 - Tunjangan ( Tambah Tunjangan ke karyawan )
	 - Potongan ( Tambah Potongan ke karyawan )
	 - Penggajian ( Melakukan proses penggajian setiap bulan-nya )
	 - Riwayat Penggajian ( Melihat Riwayat Penggajian karyawan)
	 - Kontrak ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Kontrak )
	 - Hari Libur ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Hari Libur )
 9. Alamat
	 - Alamat Perusahaan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Alamat Perusahaan)
	 - Alamat  karyawan ( Tambah / Edit / Delete Alamat karyawan )


Reblog from SIWO, an interview with my great blog friend Amulya , Expertly done by the founder of Successful Inspirers World!
Amulya Bhardwaj, a charming, dynamic and promising young lady I met on the blogosphere has continued to intrigue me with her brilliant mind and charming heart. Amulya shines through her work. To know more about this rising star, I contacted her for an interview for SIWO. Amulya willingly accepted. Below is my chat with her. I hope you enjoy it.
From which country do you hail?
I belong to a small city in the Uttar Pradesh state of India, named Bareilly.
What is peculiar or unique about your people?
The culture. India has always been known for the variety and diversity in the culture of its people. The languages, the traditions, the culture, is so vibrant and diverse here. The richness in it's heritage and history is incredible.


Today, the Westminster government published its Civil Society Strategy. It rightly highlights the vital importance of a thriving, diverse civil society, which enriches lives and creates a fairer society for all.
"Charities and social enterprises – 'the social sector' – are the core of civil society. A healthy, independent, and engaged civil society is a hallmark of a thriving democracy. A robust sector is a sign of a confident democracy, which offers many ways in which citizens' views and concerns can be amplified" (p. 69).
As we and others recommended during the consultation, the strategy proposes a rejuvenation of grant-funding by government departments, rebalancing the split between grants and contracts as the basis of how the state funds work delivered by not-for profit organisations.
It also sets out a vision for the UK to become the world leader in philanthropy practice. The contribution of trusts and foundations to civil society is recognised throughout, and we are pleased to see the work of more than a dozen ACF members referenced. Several are featured in extensive case studies of innovative practice.
It is encouraging to see a cross-government commitment in the strategy, which will be vital to its success, and that the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) will "give a biennial public update report on the ambition and commitments of the Strategy" (p. 28). It is also essential that civil society plays an active and direct role in its interpretation and implementation.
There is, therefore, a lot to welcome, but this is tempered by the broader context from which the strategy emerges – one of unprecedented cuts to local authority and central funding upon which much of civil society's activity relies.
This is a time when many civil society organisations are facing growing pressure to meet the needs of the communities they serve, ongoing financial peril and funding uncertainty. Because of this, questions may remain on whether, over the long term, civil society will be able to thrive.
The foundation sector is absolutely committed to supporting civil society, and many philanthropic grant-makers want to work innovatively, collaboratively and cross-sector. But the foundation sector's annual giving of £6.5bn is already subject to very high (and rising) levels of demand. Even if new philanthropy can be encouraged, this could not possibly keep pace with the state's funding decline and rising need.
Implementing the strategy in this context will be a major challenge for government, and for civil society. ACF looks forward to playing a part in this collective endeavour, and to supporting our members to engage (for example through one of ACF's many issue-based funder networks) as the government begins the vital next phase of its work - making the strategy's many welcome statements a positive reality.
The strategy is more than 100 pages long, and there is much detail that cannot be presented here. It is likely that individual foundations may want to follow up on specific issue-based commitments in the strategy (for example those which work with children/young people, faith groups, the health sector, or on issues related to loneliness).
Below, we highlight 10 key points for the foundation sector as a whole, and some of the emerging questions that arise from them.
1. There is clear recognition of the vital role of philanthropy in our society, and commitments to increase philanthropic activity.
Key quote: "This country has a long tradition of philanthropic organisations, both small and large, set up independently of government to respond to the challenges of society…Although the government should never seek to influence or direct the way that private philanthropy is directed, the government is ambitious for the UK to become the global centre for philanthropy practice, including the role of corporate philanthropy" (p. 69).
- How do we ensure that the charitable foundation/trust model is central to these plans?
- In what ways might ACF's issue-based networks work with government to take forward related aspects of the strategy (e.g. place-based funders network, corporate foundations network)?
2. A renewed commitment is made to the principles of the charity Compact (a document which sets out a series of principles and commitments governing the relationship between the social sector and the government last published in 2010), the prominence of which has been fading in commissioning practice and policy engagement.
Key quote: "The government is committed to embedding open policy making across departments – giving civil society significant opportunities to achieve policy change…The government also recognises that there is a job to do to reach a collective approach across Whitehall in the way that we work with and for civil society. We are therefore keen to get our internal workings in order to ensure that we effectively join up at crucial stages of policy development to reflect the voice of the sector and to obtain valuable and early insight into how our policies are likely to impact communities and the sector." (p. 70).
-- How can charities hold government to account in this renewed commitment to the Compact, and can foundations play a particular role in this?
3. There is a commitment to support place-based innovation and the need to engage philanthropy and social investment models, as well as devolving power and decision-making to communities.
Key quote: "The government will…develop new models of community funding, which bring together social impact investment with philanthropic funding, crowdfunding, community shares and corporate investment to create substantial place-based investment programmes" (p. 60).
- How can foundations that are already embedded in the social investment marketplace share more of their learning with government?
- How can funders with expertise in place-based initiatives share their expertise, and be linked into emerging opportunities?
- Could foundations be considering more explicitly the role of participatory grant-making, and do more to catalyse the existing potential, power and creativity in communities?
4. The strategy sets out an intention to work with charities and their regulator to identify ways for them to amplify their campaigning and voice, shine a light on dark corners and raise concerns. Many charities reported a 'chilling effect' as a result of the Lobbying Act 2016, in curtailing their freedom to campaign.
Key quote: "Civil society has a long and proud tradition of campaigning for change and providing voice for the disempowered and disadvantaged in society…The government will work with civil society, the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission to explore what other non-legislative steps could strengthen civil society's confidence in its campaigning and advocacy role" (p. 70).
- Will charities who have expressed concern about their voice being curtailed in recent years be sufficiently reassured by the positive words in the strategy?
- How can charities raise concerns with government if in practice the 'chilling effect' continues to be felt?
- What more can foundations do (both financially and in other ways) to support the efforts of civil society advocacy and campaigning initiatives?
5. There is a plan to create a forum of civil society organisations to help shape government policy, an ambition to create a leadership pipeline.
Key quote: "The government will convene key civil society stakeholders over the next year, to explore the potential for a common vision and mission for strengthening the leadership of social sector organisations and the potential for specific government interventions" (p. 70).
- How do we ensure that foundations' expertise and voices are around the table, and contribute to these conversations and plans?
- What more can foundations do to enable civil society leadership to develop and be heard?
6. There is a welcome commitment to rejuvenate the use of grant funding, which the sector has long called for following a sharp decline in recent years. There are also commitments to increase government transparency in grant-making, and calls for others to do the same (many foundations are openly committed to and engaged in these efforts, such as through 360Giving).
Key quotes: "The government wishes to broaden the range of funding options for community initiatives. This includes a revival of grant-making – 'Grants 2.0' – to reflect the fact that grants can combine flexibility with the accountability and performance rigour of a contract, and also bring 'additionality', such as philanthropic or in-kind investment" (p. 111).
- Given the commitment to reverse the downward trend, how should foundations continue to champion the added value of grants as a principal way for government to fund civil society organisations?
- How should foundations respond to a likely increase in approaches and opportunities for match-funding with government-backed initiatives?
- How can foundations do more to drive transparency in their own grant-making (transparency is the focus of a forthcoming ACF Stronger Foundations working groups)?
7. When the UK leaves the European Union, a Shared Prosperity Fund will be created as an alternative to some of the current EU funding streams (many of which at present support significant activity in civil society). It remains unclear whether and how civil society will be able to compete with other interest in accessing this funding.
Key quote: "The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will tackle inequalities between communities by raising productivity, especially in those parts of our country whose economies are furthest behind. The government intends to consult widely on the design of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund this year, as we committed to in the Industrial Strategy. There will be opportunities for civil society and communities to consider their role in supporting inclusive growth and driving productivity" (p. 58).
- How can foundations influence the design and distribution of the Shared Prosperity Fund, and support civil society to do so?
- How might foundations' respond to the likely shortfall of replacement funding post-Brexit?
8. There is a commitment to enable greater trustee board diversity, which ACF and others have highlighted as a key issue.
Key quote: "The government will work with civil society stakeholders and the Charity Commission to explore and agree on collective action to open up trusteeship to people from different backgrounds and with a broad range of skills, and encourage more young people under the age of 30 to become trustees (p. 77).
- How can foundations lead the way in supporting more diversity on trustee boards, both their own and the civil society organisations they fund (this is a key focus of ACF's Stronger Foundations Diversity, Equity and Inclusion working group)?
9. Money in dormant bank accounts will resource two new funding organisations.
Key quote: "The government will…direct £145 million from dormant bank accounts to two new organisations, both of which will be independent of government, with their own governance structures. With a small core team, they will be tasked with deploying this funding to tackle some of the most serious social injustices: youth unemployment and financial exclusion (p. 21).
- How will these new entities link with existing civil society initiatives that work on these issues?
- How can foundations engage with them?
10. The strategy acknowledges the important contribution of charity tax relief, which is currently the subject of an independent Charity Tax Commission. It also sets out a plan to review social investment tax relief so that more investors are attracted to opportunities that offer both a financial and social return.
Key quote: "Reducing restrictions on the size and type of projects which can claim Social Investment Tax Relief could accelerate communities taking ownership of important community assets and expand the use of small scale finance for community energy projects. In these areas Social Investment Tax Relief could play a bigger role in helping social sector organisations to be more financially resilient" (p. 75).
- How will the strategy be interpreted by the Charity Tax Commission?
- What are the potential implications for the social investment marketplace of the review of social investment tax relief?


text:
Sony's Shuhei Yoshida Explains Why Final Fantasy XV Is His Game of The Year
Sony Interactive Entertainment Worldwide Studios President Shuhei Yoshida isn't just one of the highest profile executives in the gaming industry, but he is also a big gamer. Not only he managed to achieve the platinum trophy on challenging games like Bloodborne, but he has been known to show skill as well. Today we learn his pick for game of the year, and it's Square Enix's latest JRPG Final Fantasy XV.
Yoshida-san explained in detail the reasons for his choice as part of 4Gamer's traditional year end mass interview:
"Final Fantasy XV dropped the rules of the so-called JRPG, and I think it was successful in the bold attempt to redefine Final Fantasy on the same level with the current standard of RPG in the western industry with high action combat and open world.
The attitude "FF=Challenger" isn't just about technology. I thought it was wonderful to share the situation of development by communicating directly with the users, and to convey the feeling of the world and the characters in advance with a movie and animation.
I think it's a monumental achievement that will go down in the history of RPG, showing overseas game fan that the Japanese AAA gaming industry is also working hard"
If you're wondering, Yoshida-san actually finished the game, and has kept going afterwards, flying around on his Regalia Type-F.
The ending was very nice, still a lot left to play after this. #FFXV 😀 #PS4share pic.twitter.com/qHWaY5o7Ml
— Shuhei Yoshida (@yosp) December 27, 2016
See we are flying! #FFXV #PS4share pic.twitter.com/CDC3SQvBow
Shu Yoshida definitely isn't the only one enjoying Final Fantasy XV. If you want to know what we think about it, you can read our review.
You can also check out which games ended up as the favorite among a large number of Japanese developers, and if you want to express your own opinion, don't forget to vote for our Rearders' Choice Game of the Year 2016.
Shuhei Yoshida: Developers Tell Us They Never Worked on Hardware as Easy to Develop on As PS5
The latest issue of Dengeki PlayStation magazine included an interview with Shuhei Yoshida, who explained Sony made it very easy to develop games on PS5.
PlayStation Will Open a New Development Studio in Malaysia
Hermen Hulst from Guerrilla Games Takes Over at PlayStation as Head of Worldwide Studios
Sony's Shuhei Yoshida Speaks on Death Stranding, Next Gen
Resident Evil 2 Gets New Brief Gameplay Showing HUNK and Tofu in Action
Sony's Shuhei Yoshida Comments on the Tremendous Rush of Games Coming Between September and February
Sony's Shuhei Yoshida and Morikatron's Yukihito Morikawa Discuss the Future of AI in Console Games
Days Gone Will Release in 2018 According to Shu Yoshida; More Info on the Game Shared

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
How to Unfollow on TikTok | Pros & Cons 2022
September 15, 2022 Ramzan Lifestyle 0
How to Unfollow on TikTok can be tricky because there are strict limits on how many people you can unfollow at one time. The most you can unfollow per day is 200 people, and any more than that could result in your account being permanently deactivated. Moreover, the TikTok algorithm detects accounts that are engaging in spam activity and will automatically deactivate them.
Extended Period of Time
If you are experiencing this error, you should first know that there are a few different reasons why this could be happening. First of all, you're likely following too many people, and that's a bad thing. If you continue to follow too many people, your account could get blocked for an extended period of time.
Prevent Spamming & Account Abuse
How to Unfollow on TikTok implements this limit in order to prevent spamming and account abuse. It's important to remember that the following limit is more severe for new accounts than it is for existing ones. This is because new accounts have not yet earned the trust of TikTok users.
To fix this issue, you should first clear your cache. This means deleting and re-installing the app. After doing so, log into your How to Unfollow on TikTok account again to verify whether the problem has disappeared. Sometimes it may take up to 24 hours for the problem to go away.
You can also try to follow more people at once. Generally, the following limit is 140 per day, or 30 per hour. If you follow more than that, you'll get an error message. People want to avoid getting this error, you need to follow several accounts at a time.
If you have any issues, you can report the problem. How to Unfollow on TikTok is committed to preventing excessive unfollowing. It may even permanently ban accounts using bots.
To prevent getting permanently banned from How to Unfollow on TikTok, you need to remember that you can't unfollow too many people at once. The service has an algorithm that limits how many people you can unfollow in a single day. You can unfollow up to 200 people a day, but we recommend that you keep this number under 150.
There are several ways to avoid getting banned from How to Unfollow on TikTok for unfollowing too many people. You can try switching to a Pro Account, which will give you access to analytics and also remove shadowbanned content. After switching over, you will need to clean up your account by deleting any videos that you don't wish to keep.
Sharing Spoilers
Another way to get banned from How to Unfollow on TikTok is by sharing spoilers on your videos. If you post a movie trailer or spoiler, you run the risk of being shadowbanned. Shadowbans happen when your content is hidden from others and can lead to a sharp decline in views, engagement, and account growth.
A permanent ban is not uncommon, but the time frame may vary. In some cases, it can be as short as a day or as long as a month. To avoid getting permanently banned, you need to first check your profile analytics and engagement rates to make sure you're not following too many people. Also, it's important to update your TikTok app and clear its cache memory. Then, contact TikTok support for further assistance.
Unfollowing people in bulk on TikTok is possible but you must be careful not to unfollow too many people. Luckily, there is a way to mass unfollow people in under half an hour. The trick is to find the person's profile and look for the person icon with a checkmark. Click on this icon, and change it to the follow button.
Mass unfollowing means unfollowing multiple profiles at once. The process varies depending on your device and app settings, but it is possible to unfollow multiple profiles at once. Third-party apps are available that help you bulk unfollow multiple profiles in a single session.
TikTok Application
First, you need to open the TikTok application. Then, tap on the profile icon located at the lower right corner or sidebar. Next, you must find the profiles that you wish to unfollow. Once you've located their profile, tap on the 'Following' option and click 'Unfollow'.
Unfollowing someone will delete their videos from your feed. However, you can still view their videos by visiting their profile page. In this way, you can declutter your TikTok feed without having to mass unfollow people. Besides, consistency is key to success. Make sure to use the same icons on your profile for your videos.
Another way to mass unfollow people on TikToK is by using a third-party app, called FuelTok. It offers different features to help you mass unfollow people in TikTok. This software also has a free trial so you can try it before you make the purchase.
How to Unfollow on TikTok
Snaptik.con- Download TikTok Videos Without Watermarks
How To Succeed In Your Honey Business- Guide 2021


text:
Ethical and Effective Testimony During Direct Examination and Cross-Examination Post- Daubert
Harold J. Bursztajn, M.D.
Archie Brodsky, B.A.
Published in Practicing Psychiatry Without Fear: Guidelines for Liability Prevention edited by Lawrence E. Lifson, M.D., and Robert I. Simon, M.D.
Portions of this chapter are adapted from an article previously submitted for journal publication. Portions of this chapter are adapted from seminars given by Harold J. Bursztajn, M.D., between 1994 and 1996. The authors gratefully acknowledge audience participation and feedback.
The professional expertise, ethics, and objectivity a witness brings to the courtroom are the best tools for communicating effectively with a judge and jury. Some attorneys advise professionals testifying in court to consider the courtroom a stage for a theatrical performance calculated to elicit a desired response. That is bad advice. Likewise, a common mistake is to think that the way to communicate in the courtroom is to act like a lawyer. Although it is important to understand how lawyers work and how to communicate with them, the witness has a different responsibility from the lawyer's. The witness's duty is best done by maintaining the highest ethical standards of one's own chosen profession.
Professionals may appear in court either as fact witnesses, who testify to events within their own personal observation or knowledge, or as expert witnesses, who are retained by one side or the other to provide an informed opinion on matters beyond the scope of the layperson's knowledge, such as the standard of care in a medical specialty. The defendant in a medical malpractice case, for example, would testify as a fact witness, while expert witnesses would be retained to testify for either the plaintiff or the defendant. Although the duties of a professional who is a fact witness and one who is an expert witness are quite different, certain principles apply to both.
Increased scrutiny of expert professional testimony has been brought about by the U.S. Supreme Court's much-discussed Daubert [1] decision in 1993. In Daubert, which concerned the admissibility of expert testimony about the birth defects allegedly caused by the prescription drug Bendectin, the Court responded to the growing importance of advanced science and technology in courtroom testimony. Ruling that the Federal Rules of Evidence had set appropriate (but not rigid) limits on the admissibility of purportedly scientific evidence, the Court affirmed that the trial judge must make the determination of admissibility so as to ensure that an expert's testimony is both reliable and relevant. When a psychiatrist's expert testimony fails to meet these criteria, as when the methodology used to support the opinion is found by the trial judge to be unreliable, such testimony is disallowed with explicit reference to Daubert (as in Gier v. Educational Serv. Unit No. 16). [2] Similarly, the Daubert language of reliability is being used to disallow testimony on the basis of well-established clinical and forensic standards. [3] Thus, in the Daubert atmosphere, professional standards become legal standards.
Although the Daubert ruling applies only to expert testimony, professionals who testify as fact witnesses, such as defendant physicians in malpractice cases, should be aware of it as well. In the first place, defendants who are professionals can work more effectively with colleagues who are retained as expert witnesses on their behalf if they understand what an expert needs to do. Secondly, even defendant physicians testifying as fact witnesses increasingly will be held to the standards of expertise and objectivity that Daubert has set, at least by association, for all professionals testifying on complex matters.
The impact of Daubert on the evaluation of not only expert but also fact-witness testimony was made explicit by the Second Circuit Court in 1995 in Borawick v. Shay. [4] The court, using a case-by-case or "totality-of-the-circumstances" standard, ruled that a plaintiff's testimony about childhood sexual abuse, based on memories allegedly recovered through hypnosis, was inadmissible because her hypnotist lacked adequate academic qualifications and had not kept sufficient records of her hypnosis to corroborate her testimony credibly. Moreover, the plaintiff's allegations of abuse were inherently incredible. The court noted that although the Daubert ruling on admissibility did not apply to fact witnesses' testimony, even if it were applicable, it would allow for the totality-of-the-circumstances approach used by the court to rule the plaintiff's testimony inadmissible. In the words of one commentator, [5] "Lawyers and trial courts must now think as scientists do" (p. 49). By extension, so must testifying clinicians, as applied scientists.
Foundations of Effective Testimony
The witness's responsibility begins long before entering the courtroom. In addition to gaining a thorough understanding of the issues specific to the case, there is a more general type of preparation for being an effective witness. This preparation involves mastering the principles of ethical and effective testimony, beginning the dialogue with the attorney that will continue throughout the case (and will be enlarged to include the jury or judge), and confronting unspoken emotional dynamics that might interfere with clear communication. If these foundations are in place, the witness can approach both direct and cross-examination more confidently.
Ethical, effective testimony is an application of certain fundamental principles, which may be summarized as follows:
At its best, a trial can be an extended "continuing education" dialogue for all concerned: the witness, the attorney, the judge, and the jury. Learning and teaching are ongoing. If you listen and keep your own mind open, you will be in a good position to educate your attorney, the finders of fact (judge or jury), and even a good cross-examining attorney.
The primary goals of a witness testifying on matters of professional expertise are as follows:
to communicate the truth to the jury in an ethical, objective, and effective way
to maintain your autonomy, authenticity, and integrity
to uphold the values of your profession
to interact with attorneys and with the judge and jury in an atmosphere of mutual respect
to engage in an ongoing dialogue with your attorney so that, together, you can educate as well as learn from the judge and jury as to what questions each may have
to speak directly to the issues
to make complex matters understandable without oversimplifying
Tricks and formulas are no substitute for a thorough and deep understanding of the facts of the case and their interrelationships. Resist any attempts to be portrayed as a performer or magician, whether these come from an opposing attorney's adversarial projections or your own attorney's well-intentioned projections. Instead, you want to present yourself as just what you are — an authentic, compassionate, but objective seeker of understanding. Whether as a fact witness (treater) or an expert witness (evaluator), you first use your deep knowledge of the case to arrive at your understanding, and then you communicate it as a professional.
The pitfalls for a witness to avoid include the following:
grandiosity or false humility
verbosity or non-communicativeness
adversarial partisanship or complacent detachment
overcomplexity or oversimplicity
Understanding Projected Affects
Psychiatrists and other practicing clinicians who testify either as expert witnesses or as fact witnesses need not and should not leave their understanding of human beings behind at the courtroom door. A case may well be influenced by unspoken witness attitudes which are nonetheless apparent to the observing juror. Particularly for a defendant accused of negligence, it is all too easy to project feelings of guilt or shame that may be taken as confirming the jury's suspicions. Other projected affects that can undermine a witness's credibility are fear of the process or outcome, anger at one's accuser or the opposing attorney, arrogance (perhaps in compensation for guilt or fear), and false humility and condescension toward the jury.
If you are the defendant, it is best to deal with feelings of pain resulting from the tragic outcome before you enter the courtroom. If you feel guilty or ashamed about anything related to the case, talk about it with your attorney and/or expert witness or with your own therapist before testifying. (Your attorney may not be able to help you deal with your feelings, but he or she needs to know how they may affect your testimony.) If, on reflection, you conclude that you have been negligent, leading to the negative outcome in question, direct your attorney to settle the case. Do not allow false pride to get in the way of a just settlement. On the other hand, if you conclude that you have not been negligent, allow yourself to feel regret over the outcome without assuming unjustified blame on the witness stand.
Another type of emotional dynamic to take into account is the typical fantasies of perfection encouraged by plaintiffs' attorneys in malpractice cases, which the defendant may pick up and reflect to his or her disadvantage. Among these fantasies are:
omniscience: "Didn't you know that...?"
omnipotence: "Couldn't you have saved the patient by...?"
omnipresence: "Weren't you there when...?"
These fantasies are to be countered by clear testimony by both the defendant and expert witness delineating the real standard of care and the limits on a physician's knowledge, power, and presence under actual conditions of prospective uncertainty.
In defending against claims of physical and/or emotional trauma, [6] it is possible that the judge and jury will feel some identification with the plaintiff's alleged trauma and therefore will, in varying degrees, process the testimony they hear as if they themselves had been injured. Or they may avoid such identification by taking the attitude that "it could never happen to me." The professionally informed witness avoids both theatrics and superficial detachment by creating and maintaining an atmosphere of calm, reasoned deliberation in the face of heightened emotional pressure.
Direct Examination
A common mistake of both witnesses and attorneys is to focus on cross-examination to the point of underpreparing for direct examination, It seems natural to take the direct examination for granted, since the questions are coming from a friendly source. This approach is shortsighted, however, since direct examination is your only chance to present your case in an accurate, clear, and convincing narrative.
One of the shorthand decision strategies that people use to process and act on information [7,8] is called anchoring and adjustment. As applied to jury decision making, this means that the juror makes a provisional judgment on the basis of earlier testimony and then adjusts that judgment on the basis of later testimony. Jurors may also use other, counterbalancing heuristics that give greater weight to the testimony heard more recently. Nonetheless, the likelihood that some jurors "anchor" their opinions on the direct examination of a witness, thus reducing the potential impact of cross-examination, suggests that those who do not prepare carefully for direct examination do so at their own peril.
Your role as a witness differs from a stage performance in being guided by the ethical imperatives of honesty and objectivity. These standards have been articulated most explicitly for forensic psychiatrists. [9] They can be especially difficult to implement in cases where there is a blurring of boundaries between clinical and forensic goals — for example, when a treating clinician testifies even as a fact witness for a patient involved in third-party litigation. The clinician, whose task is to alleviate suffering, should disqualify himself or herself from serving as an expert witness, whose duty is to be objective and to serve the goals of justice. [10]
Preparation for direct examination is just one pivotal moment in a dialogue with your attorney (or, in the case of an expert witness, the retaining attorney) that should begin early and continue to influence the conduct of the case right down to the closing arguments. Just as testifying is not a performance, preparation for testimony is not a rehearsal. Rather, it means achieving a deep understanding whereby you can communicate effectively both with your attorney and with the judge and jury. If the case is justly settled or dropped, then this deep understanding will have achieved its purpose without your having to testify. If you do go to court, your attorney will be communicating with the jury a good deal more than you will. Therefore, you will convey your understanding far more effectively if your attorney shares it in sufficient depth.
One purpose of this dialogue is to make sure your attorney has a sufficiently firm understanding of issues pertaining to complex scientific evidence to ask focused and relevant questions. To foster this understanding in complex cases, it can be useful to have an expert consultant in the presentation of scientific evidence available to you and your lawyer — a decided asset in satisfying the Daubert criteria. [11] Sometimes this expert consultant can also serve as the expert witness. Such a consultant not only can strengthen your preparation for direct examination, but can also help you withstand misleading cross-examination.
The pre-trial phase also gives you an opportunity to confront any problems that arise in communicating with your attorney. On your side, beware of projecting arrogance or superiority when educating the attorney on scientific matters. The imperial witness may find his grandiosity handed back to him on the witness stand with an "et tu, Brute" (even unintentionally from his own exasperated attorney), along the lines of Julius Caesar's dying words to Brutus in Shakespeare's tragedy of collegial betrayal. As in medical school or any other setting, the best way to educate is to support honestly the self-esteem of your student. If your attorney appears to disrespect your professional knowledge, try to move the attorney away from such a narcissistic position by modeling a climate of mutual respect. If that fails, raise the issue directly and without delay as a matter to be discussed and worked through. Otherwise, you need to withdraw from the case (as an expert) or change attorneys (as the defendant).
Coordination with Opening and Closing Statements
An additional benefit to be gained from close communication between witness and attorney is the achievement of thematic continuity from the beginning to the end of the trial. If the burden of the case rests largely on your testimony on medical and scientific issues, it will be advantageous to have the themes of your testimony reflected in your attorney's opening and closing statements. At the same time, you must balance the need for coherence between your testimony and the overall narrative presented to the finders of fact with the imperative of authenticity aspired to by Polonius in Hamlet: "To thine own self be true."
The credentialing of a witness should be completed quickly and efficiently at the beginning of the direct examination. Credentials most relevant to the case should be highlighted. In a medical malpractice case, these credentials include any documented expertise in medical decision making. Your professional fees, either as an expert witness or as a clinician, should be stated matter-of-factly. Make clear that you are paid for responsibly exercising your professional judgment, not for your testimony, opinions, or clinical outcomes, as the case may be. More important than anything said in the credentialing phase, however, is your overall demeanor and that of your attorney. If your attorney treats you as a stage prop, a hired gun, or a guilty party, so will the jury.
Narrative Structure
A witness's testimony can be heard as a narrative that weaves together many details into a coherent structure of meaning. [12] An expert witness's narrative consists of a clearly and convincingly stated opinion, followed by the basis of the opinion — that is, the data and reasoning by which it was reached. The expert reviews both supporting and opposing evidence, acknowledges gaps in documentation and difficulties in assessment, and shows how it was still possible to reach an opinion with reasonable medical certainty. A fact witness's narrative takes a different form, that of a chronological, "once upon a time and place" sequence of observations and decisions made in the course of treatment. Thus, as explained in the next section, both kinds of witnesses are testifying as to the decision-making process in the case. The difference is that the treating physician as fact witness testifies from the perspective of memory, whereas the expert witness reconstructs the same sequence of events by applying a general understanding of decision-making processes to the specific context at issue.
Whether you are testifying as a fact witness or as an expert witness, of course, be truthful and thorough in laying out your narrative. Admit when you don't know or need to think about something. By the same token, apparent contradictions need to be acknowledged, since it is not apparent paradox that undermines a witness's effectiveness, but glib superficiality or unnecessary abstruseness. Finally, while you do need to avoid boring the judge and jury, don't be afraid of repetition. You are trying to create a dialogue with people who are less informed and may even be more anxious than you. People who are anxious may not hear, understand, or remember everything the first time around.
Reconstructing Decision Making Under Conditions of Uncertainty
One key to a successful defense in a medical malpractice case is to free the jury's attention from exclusive focus on the tragic outcome (and the overwhelming feelings associated with it), so that the jury can also consider the decision-making process that occurred before the outcome could be known. Absolute certainty is a luxury of hindsight. On the other hand, the exercise of professional judgment requires reasonable and prudent decision making under some degree of uncertainty. Before the fact, all decision making in medicine, [13] including psychiatry, [14] requires working with degrees of uncertainty and turning them into estimates of probability. Since it is impossible to eliminate risk entirely, the communication of risk (both prospectively, to the patient, and retrospectively, to the jury) becomes an essential skill requiring subtle, in-depth understanding of context-sensitive professional decision-making processes. [15]
If the defense does not lay out the process of decision making and risk assessment from the prospective viewpoint, involving some degree of uncertainty, the jury may be left only with the plaintiff's hindsight perspective. It is advisable, therefore, that the defendant physician remember accurately his or her own decision-making process in the course of treatment. That will enable an expert in decision making to reconstruct the process by an assessment of both physician and patient decision making embedded in the informed-consent dialogue and the clinical context.
An example of such a successful defense, against unfavorable odds, is the case of Drewry v. Harwell. [16] A young woman who had suffered chronic pelvic pain sued her obstetrician/gynecologist following a hysterectomy during which an embryo of one month's gestation was discovered and, as a necessary consequence of the surgery, aborted. The plaintiff alleged that the physician had performed an unwanted procedure, causing an unwanted abortion. An additional charge of sexual misconduct was dropped before trial, subsequent to a court-ordered forensic psychiatric examination of the plaintiff for her claims of emotional and physical damages. The examining forensic psychiatrist was nonetheless able to use the results of the examination in testifying at trial as to the informed-consent and decision-making processes engaged in by the physician and patient.
This case had the potential for a major damage award based on the jury's sympathy for the plaintiff, a woman who had lost her baby and could never have another. The defense, however, presented a forensic psychiatric evaluation which relied on the testifying psychiatrist's analysis of the processes of medical decision making and informed consent. This analysis was based on his expertise in the area as well as on the data gathered in the court-ordered examination described above.
In his direct examination, this witness drew a decision tree on the courtroom blackboard to represent the choices made by the physician and patient at each stage of the process. He was thus able to help the jury move from a "hot" (emotional) to a "cool" (reflective) consideration of the issues in the case. Having established that framework, he testified that the physician and patient had appropriately considered the risks and benefits of four possible courses of action: medical treatment, psychiatric treatment, surgery, or no treatment. The patient had been competent to give informed consent and had in fact done so, both formally and in the course of the informed-consent dialogue. On the basis of these facts, the witness concluded that the physician's actions met the standard of care in the areas of medical decision making and informed consent. This testimony was reinforced by a psychological analysis of why the plaintiff might, in retrospect, have unwittingly revised her memory of the choices she had actually made.
Anticipating Cross-examination
The dialogue you have with your attorney on direct examination should include anything that, on cross-examination, might confuse your testimony as either a fact witness or expert witness. To make sure you have a complete understanding of the basis of your testimony, it is important to consider alternative, especially adversarial perspectives. Your direct examination should anticipate most of the significant issues the cross-examining attorney will raise.
Cross-Examination
In our adversarial system, cross-examination has several legitimate functions: (1) to expose weaknesses in the opponent's case, as reflected in the testimony of the opposing witnesses; (2) to bring out the strengths of the cross-examining attorney's own case; (3) to expose any problems reflecting on the credibility of an opposing witness's testimony, such as bias, lack of opportunity to perceive the facts at issue (for a fact witness), or inadequate professional training and experience (for an expert witness). The attorney who vigorously pursues these goals is providing effective advocacy in keeping with the ethical standards of the legal profession. Unfortunately, in the heat of a trial, even an ethical attorney may stray from this model of effective cross-examination and resort to tactics designed to mislead and confuse. These tactics usually prove ineffective against a witness who is thoroughly grounded in the issues of the case and is honest and straightforward in testimony.
You must prepare for cross-examination before you take the stand. Cross-examination is a continuation of direct examination in more than a temporal sense, since you will want to maintain in cross-examination the basic themes you have laid out in response to your attorney's questions. Typically, the cross-examining attorney is not trying to argue you out of your position, but rather to break the narrative flow of reasoning, or of time and space, that you have established. Your job is to maintain that flow in the face of challenges to your character, credibility, and the content of your testimony.
Principles for Responding to Cross-Examination
The following are principles of effective testimony applied specifically to cross-examination:
Avoid the natural tendency to identify with the aggressor. You can protect yourself from the aggression of some cross-examiners without being aggressive yourself. You may, however, need to set limits on the cross-examiner who is verbally abusive. As explained in a later section, this is done by stating exactly what the cross-examiner is doing.
Maintain mutual respect. Follow the Golden Rule when you take the stand.
Maintain a spirit of inquiry. Your mission is still to seek understanding of the relevant issues in the pursuit of justice. Your cross-examination testimony should continue the inquiry begun in direct examination.
Maintain professional ethics. Stay on the high road (without being holier-than-thou) even if the cross-examining attorney tries to bring you down to the low road.
Listen and learn. Listen carefully and respectfully, whether it is your own or the other side's attorney who is questioning you. The following nine ways of not listening [18] are more likely to occur in an adversarial atmosphere. Indeed, some cross-examining attorneys may try to provoke these various forms of inattention in a witness to reduce the effectiveness of testimony:
Mind Readers wonder, "What is this person really thinking?"
Rehearsers think about what they're going to say after the speaker stops talking.
Filterers hear only what they want to hear.
Dreamers drift off and may ask for repetition.
Identifiers relate what is said to their own experiences.
Comparers are provoked by the messenger to respond personally to being insulted and thereby neglect the message.
Derailers change subjects too soon or too often due to lack of interest.
Sparrers belittle the value of what is said.
Placaters agree with everything to avoid conflict.
Don't be led into overcomplexity or oversimplicity. A cross-examining attorney may try to portray you as someone who obfuscates the issues or talks over the heads of the jury. At the other extreme, the attorney may lead you into the trap of oversimplification so as to expose your inadequate understanding of the complexity of the case. You need to keep your balance, steering a course between the Scylla of overcomplexity and the Charybdis of oversimplicity.
The Cross-Examiner's Techniques
Attorneys are taught specific techniques of effective cross-examination. As an example of what you can expect to face, here are law professor Irving Younger's Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination [19] :
Be brief.
Ask short questions using plain words.
Ask only leading questions.
Do not ask a question if you do not know the answer.
Listen to the answer.
Do not quarrel with the witness.
Do not allow the witness to repeat his or her direct testimony.
Do not permit the witness to explain.
Avoid asking one question too many.
Save the explanation for summation.
You must also be prepared for the possibility that a cross-examiner will go beyond these standard prescriptions and engage in diversionary tactics that run counter to ethical and effective courtroom practice. You should be aware of the tricks a cross-examining attorney may use to distort your testimony, but you should not respond in kind. In many instances, such tricks will elicit sustainable objections from your attorney. When you are left to respond on your own, the suggestions that follow will help you do so.
The Witness's Bill of Rights
You can continue to be an effective and ethical witness when responding to cross-examination. You can protect yourself while upholding your professional dignity and ethics by employing the remedies listed in what we call a "Bill of Rights" for witnesses, which is actually a list of standard courtroom procedures. As a witness you have the right...
To give and expect mutual respect.
To ask the cross-examiner to rephrase ambiguous or misleading questions.
To ask the judge whether the material asked for is privileged.
To refuse to answer questions you do not understand (instead, ask the attorney to repeat or clarify).
To say you don't know when you don't know.
To ask the judge whether you can qualify or expand on your answer when a simple yes or no won't do.
To ask to complete your answer when interrupted.
To refer to written records or notes (which the other side will then have the right to examine).
Character and Credibility
Many attorneys begin by questioning the character and credibility of the witness they are cross-examining. They may hone in on your fees, motives, training or experience in relevant areas, presence or absence of academic credentials, and how much or how little you have treated or testified about this type of case. Part of the purpose of this opening phase is to point out to the jury any weaknesses in your professional training and qualifications.
Fees. With an expert witness, a cross-examining attorney may give the impression that getting paid for your professional work makes you a hired gun. Testify truthfully as to how much you are being paid, but make clear that you are paid for time spent exercising professional judgment, not for your testimony.
A fact witness can expect questions about clinical fees, such as "Is it not correct that you were paid about $20,000 by Mr. G. for the care you provided him, and now he's dead?" This question is designed to make you look mercenary as well as incompetent. You must put these innuendos in perspective, showing that you are not paid for the outcome, but, again, for the exercise of professional judgment in clinical care. Otherwise, no one could treat very sick people. You can make these general points while bringing in specific reminders of your direct narrative testimony by answering, "Over the past four years, during which Mr. G. had three hospitalizations and three suicide attempts, I saw him for about 200 visits, and my average fee is $100 an hour." This shows how you have expended time to gain a deep understanding.
Writings and public appearances. Anything you have written or said in medical textbooks, journal articles, or taped lectures to colleagues or attorneys is fair game. If, as an expert witness, you teach your colleagues about testifying in court (as in this chapter), you may be defamed as a hired gun. Again, you respond by placing any quotes in context and straightforwardly (not defensively) demonstrating that your work is grounded in the ethics of your profession.
In the next phase of cross-examination, the cross-examiner turns to the content of your testimony. As the interchange draws to a close, an attorney who believes that his or her case is weak may shift into damage control, resorting increasingly to diversions to make the whole cross-examination, and your testimony, appear to have been a contest or debate. In this way the attorney hopes to undercut the meaningfulness of your testimony. Here are some of the many tricks you can expect in this phase, along with some suggested ways of answering them. Note that the latter do not involve answering one trick with another, but simply continuing to seek honestly an objective understanding in the pursuit of justice, in keeping with the ethical guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. [9]
The "shell game" (misleading facts or inferences). A trick question may appear in the guise of a simple statement of chronology: "Isn't it true that you saw Mr. G. on March 20, 1995?" When you say that you did, the attorney smugly reveals that it was March 21. You can avoid this trap by answering, "I saw Mr. G. on or about March 20, 1995" or "I'm not sure I can remember the exact date, but it was in March 1995."
What is true for dates is also true for quotations of things you have said or written. If you don't have your original statement in front of you, don't agree that the wording is accurate without checking. Your job is not a recitation of facts, but the communication of a reasoned opinion. You can put irrelevant memorization into the perspective of "I'm here to present my understanding of what I did and why" by saying as much when called for.
Out-of-context quotes. Anything you have said or written before (from teaching manuals to depositions) may be brought up as a challenge to your statements or actions in the case at hand. This is true both for the fact witness who has taught or written about relevant medical diagnoses or treatments and for the expert witness who has written about relevant medicolegal issues. "In 1986, in a case similar to this one, you said such and such. And yet now you say thus and so. Which is your true position, Doctor?" If the quote sounds unfamiliar, answer that you would like to see it in context. If the quotation is clearly misleading out of context, feel free to say so. Then your attorney can allude to such opposition tactics in closing argument.
An apparent contradiction between your past and present views can, when appropriate, be addressed by saying, "Thank, you for reminding me of what I said ten years ago. As I recall, I said that because of the following circumstances in that particular case.... Now this particular case is different because...." This also demonstrates how you have scrupulously paid attention to each individual patient/evaluee.
Imprecise characterizations. Don't give overly simplistic yes-or-no answers to questions phrased in vague generalities, such as "Isn't it true that you've been seeing Mr. G. for a very short (or very long) time?" when you answer this kind of question without qualification, you buy into what may be a mischaracterization of the situation. Just stick to the facts: "I saw Mr. G. for 200 hours over four years."
"Vain Caesar"/compound questions. Questions like the following simultaneously raise doubts about both your character and content: "Doctor, you direct the mental health program in New York City. And isn't it true, Doctor, that Mr. G. is now dead?" Here the attorney wants to make you look self-important while implying that the patient's death is your responsibility.
You should never be compelled to answer such compound questions. While you are pausing to process the question (which you should always do before answering), your attorney should object, and the judge should sustain the objection. If this does not happen, repeat the question silently to yourself. Can you really answer the question "yes" or "no" as worded, or do you need to clarify it? If it is a compound question, break it down and answer each part separately: "Yes, I have been medical director of the program for the past six years, during which I've treated over 600 patients. Of course, it is a tragedy that Mr. G., whom I also treated, is now dead."
"When did you stop beating your wife?" Here a question of chronology is reduced to an accusation: "When was it that you finally figured out that Mr. G. was suicidal? Was it only after he committed suicide?" You can answer by refraining the question as follows: "From hindsight it's easy to see that Mr. G. was suicidal. But when I assessed him for two hours, I checked for the following symptoms and signs____" Instead of damaging you, such questions can highlight a series of details that the jury might not have remembered from your direct examination.
Double-negative questions. A simple way of trying to confuse you — and the jury — is to pile on the negatives: "Isn't it true that you didn't....?" Again, a question that is unnecessarily complicated should be disallowed by the judge. If it is not, by pausing before answering, you can take apart the question and either answer it correctly or ask for a clarification: "Is this what you mean?" or "I don't understand." In other words, if the attorney is inviting you to play such verbal tennis, don't be afraid to decline the invitation and stick to ethical and effective testimony.
"Yes, yes, yes, no" questions. In what resembles a children's word game, a cross-examiner may hit you with a rapid-fire series of questions, all of them to be answered "yes," until the one that requires a "no" answer goes right by you. You end up saying, "Yes, yes, yes, yes — oops, what did I say?" Some cross-examining attorneys see the professional who is testifying as a master chess player and themselves as novices who can beat the master only in a speed game. By pausing to reflect before answering each question, you won't get caught up in the momentum of mindlessness.
The silent treatment. In Zen this is called "the question of no question." You answer one question, and the attorney says nothing. You can respond by looking with the jury at the attorney. Or ask, "Is there any other way I can help you?"
Interruption. If the cross-examiner tries to cut you off before you have finished answering, say, "May I explain?" If the attorney will not let you do so, the jury may well take away an accurate impression that the attorney's tactics are not in keeping with the search for truth and justice.
Sarcasm. If you maintain your professional demeanor, any sarcasm directed at you will cause the cross-examining attorney to suffer by contrast with your effort to formulate thoughtful answers. If the sarcasm is persistent or seriously out of line, your attorney can object, or you can just ask the judge, who may admonish the offending attorney. Finally, you yourself can call attention to the attorney's behavior: "Well, if I can separate the content of your question from the sarcastic language in which it was couched...."
Irrelevant, intrusive questions. Pause for your attorney to object.
Re-direct Examination
In some complex cases the decisive testimony is given in re-direct examination. Often, the questions asked on re-direct are in response to what transpired in cross-examination. You can always respond on cross-examination to a question requiring a complex answer by saying, "There is no simple way of answering this question yes or no." If you do not or are not allowed by the cross-examining attorney to clarify, your attorney can, on re-direct, ask you to complete your answer in your own way.
With or without such collaboration, it is the attorney's responsibility to listen to the cross-examination with a view toward re-direct. Cases have been lost unfairly because an attorney was not sufficiently attentive to a witness's testimony on cross-examination to be able to clarify or build on it on re-direct.
Recommendations for Testifying
The following recommendations (some of which have appeared in other sources [20]) distill some of the principles and concepts discussed above into practical guidelines for defendant clinicians as well as for expert witnesses. Keep in mind that, in line with the Daubert framework, the judge who sets the tone for courtroom proceedings will be assessing the relevance and reliability of all testimony in terms of the professionalism with which that testimony is presented.
Don't lose the forest for the trees. For example, don't be afraid to admit an oversight such as the failure to record something you (or the treating physician) did. It's not how you treated the record; it's how you treated the patient.
Don't lose trees for the forest. Although any particular detail usually will not by itself trip you up, you do need to lay out and explain a whole framework of details that constitutes your (or the treating physician's) handling of the case. It is essential to break down the components of the decision-making process to show whether the treating physician met the standard of care and acted in an ethically and professionally responsible manner. Familiarity with the use and presentation of medical decision trees can be particularly helpful in this area. [13]
Don't deny or overemphasize uncertainty. Distinguish clearly between uncertainty and confusion, and communicate awareness of uncertainty in a manner that is not confusing. Any effort by the plaintiff to hold up a standard of absolute certainty must be met with a clear demonstration that a degree of uncertainty is a condition of all medical decision making. [13] By the same token, avoid the temptation to take refuge in the extreme relativism of "it is all uncertainty" or "it is all judgment," which denies the real knowledge and responsibility professionals are expected to exercise.
Use common sense, but don't be a slave to it. When common-sense reasoning and analogies will help you communicate effectively, by all means use them. However, when common sense would lead the jury astray in understanding complex scientific or technical matters, feel free to address the paradoxes that put some subjects outside the boundaries of ordinary everyday thinking.
Speak to the jury and "listen" to their feedback. Professional expertise is beneficially applied in monitoring the dialogue you have with the jury. By speaking directly with the jurors and avoiding obfuscations such as engaging in a meaningless debate with an aggressive cross-examiner, you can observe jurors' nonverbal reactions and make educated guesses about what the jury seems to be understanding or not understanding. Do you sense that the jurors are puzzled, skeptical, or inattentive when it comes to specific areas of testimony? Share these observations with your attorney, who should be watching for the same things. The attorney can then decide what points need to be clarified in re-direct examination and/or closing argument.
If you believe that you are at a disadvantage because the other side is persistently oversimplifying complex matters, your attorney can file a motion to allow jurors to question witnesses directly under the judge's supervision. This procedure, which moves jurors' reactions from the nonverbal to the verbal realm, is vastly underutilized. [11,21] Some of the most useful questions a witness can be asked come from the finder of fact (judge or jury), precisely because the finder of fact does not operate out of an adversarial position, as do the attorneys for the contending parties.
Courtroom testimony by a professional is best understood not as a debate, but as a dialogue, informed by a deep understanding and a striving for meaningful truth. In the end, the most ethical testimony is also the most effective.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
Gier v. Educational Serv. Unit No. 16, 66 F. 3d 940 (8th Cir. 1995).
Rodriguez Cirilo v. Garcia, 908 F. Supp. 85 (D.P.R. 1995).
Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 1995).
Levy DM: Scientific evidence after Daubert. Litigation 22(1):48-52, 1995.
Read GC: Defending against the emotional distress claim. The Brief, Winter 1996, pp. 14-19, 42-49.
Hogarth RM: Judgment and Choice: The Psychology of Decision. Chichester, U.K., John Wiley, 1980.
Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds): Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, 1982.
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law: Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry, 1991.
Bursztajn HJ, Scherr AE, Brodsky A: The rebirth of forensic psychiatry in light of recent historical trends in criminal responsibility. Psychiatr Clin North Am 17:611-635, 1994.
Bursztajn HJ, Saunders LS, Brodsky A: Daubert without prejudice: Achieving relevance and reliability without randomness. J Mass. Acad Trial Att'ys 4(1):54-58, 1996.
Pennington N, Hastie R: The story model for juror decision making. In Hastie R (ed): Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making. Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 192-221.
Bursztajn HJ, Feinbloom RI, Hamm RM, Brodsky A: Medical Choices, Medical Chances: How Patients, Families, and Physicians Can Cope With Uncertainty. New York, Routledge, 1990.
Hamm RM, Clark JA, Bursztajn HJ: Psychiatrists' thorny judgments: Describing and improving decision making processes. Med Decision Making 4:425-447, 1984.
Fischhoff B: Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis 15:137-145, 1995.
Drewry v. Harwell, et al., No. CIV-94-1600-T USDC WD (Okla., 1995).
Janis IL, Mann L: Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York, Free Press, 1977.
The writing lab. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English, Purdue University.
Asbill HW: The ten commandments of cross-examination revisited. Criminal Justice, Winter 1994, pp. 2-6, 51-54.
Brodsky SL: Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness. Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association, 1991.
Shrallow C: Expanding jury participation: Is it a good idea? U Bridgeport L Rev 12:209-246, 1991.


Paris, October 16, 2018 – Acticor Biotech, a clinical stage biotechnology company involved in the acute phase of thrombotic diseases, including stroke and pulmonary embolism, today announced that it has completed a €15.3 million Series B round of financing from European and Asian investors. This new funding will enable the company to finance its first phase II in acute ischemic stroke with its lead candidate ACT017.
The Series B was led by Newton BioCapital, a Belgium venture capital fund, followed by Mirae Asset Capital, a Korean fund, CMS Medical Venture Investment Limited and A&B (HK), these last two funds are based in Hong Kong. Existing investors including CapDecisif Management also participated into this round.
Established in 2017, Newton Biocapital is a Belgian venture capital fund focused on financing biotech and life science projects in the "core of Europe" (B, NL, D, F) and Japan for the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases. The fund's approach as lead investor is to support promising start-up projects, as well as neglected or undervalued late-stage projects, in order to mitigate the risks and to create investor value. Its leadership team consists of specialists with long-standing management and investor experience who coach bio- entrepreneurs through the development stages of their projects.
Newton Biocapital's mission is to generate substantial financial and societal value.
Mirae Asset Capital Co,Ltd. provides financial investment, management, and consultancy services. The company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Mirae Asset Capital Co,Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Mirae Asset Financial Group. Originating from Asia, Mirae Asset was founded in 1997 in the wake of the Asian currency crisis. Today, Mirae Asset encompasses the global capability to deliver our best ideas to investors around the world via on-the-ground presence in 12 countries across 5 continents. Our goal is to provide our clients with insightful financial strategies and consistent performance through our diversified product offering.


text:
Hawaii Five-0 – Pu'olo
by egdcltd January 12, 2020, 12:10 pm 21 Views 7 Votes
"Pu'olo" is episode fourteen of season two of Hawaii Five-0 and it opens with a delivery truck being hijacked. One of the two men on board reaches for the radio, and the hijackers open fire, killing the other driver.
Then it goes back to 1992, when McGarrett's father is sending him and his sister away. He tells the 16 year old Steve that his Uncle Joe has got him a place in a military school, and that he and his sister are being sent away for their own safety. McGarrett Sr then tells Steve that he can always trust his Uncle Joe. This is important, because at the moment McGarrett doesn't really trust Joe, and is following him when he gets a call about the attack on the truck.
It turns out that none of the packages that were supposed to be on the truck were missing. This is because the surviving driver has been paid to smuggle other packages on the truck, although he doesn't know what is in them. That's what's been taken. To find what was stolen from the truck, they use Sang Min again to get close to the person shipping the package.
Adam Noshimuri makes an attempt on Joe's life in revenge for the death of his father. However, in the previous episode, "Ka Ho' Oponopono", Joe told McGarrett that Noshimuri wasn't dead – he'd helped him to go into hiding. At the end of the episode, Joe finally reveals the truth about Shelbourne.
Danny is called by his pregnant ex-wife as her husband is out of town and she's about to go into labour. I think that may be the first time this season she, or Grace, have appeared in an episode; I presumed they'd left the show.
This episode's name means "The Package".
Written by egdcltd


text:
Q: AWS ELB- HealthChecker sends unique request to app from different virtual hosts Currently hosting a nodeJS API back-end using AWS Elastic Beanstalk, where all unique requests generates a session data (IP address, userAgent...), and the session data is stored as a mongoDB document. However, I recently noticed that ELB-HealthChecker/2.0 sends unique request after about 30sec, thereby creating a new session, which will result in my app reaching the dreaded 16MB document limit of mongoDB in no time. I want to solve this by ensuring that ELB-HealthChecker sends non-unique request. However, this approach depends if the ELB-HealthChecker stores Cookies (as the app uses request cookies to identify unique requests).
Questions:

*

*Is the approach above feasible? If yes, how do I ensure ELB-HealthChecker/2.0 sends request from a single virtual host?

*What better (scalable, sustainable) way(s) is there to solve this problem.

I have tried extending the ELB-HealthChecker/2.0 interval, but this is not healthy for the app, and it still does not solve the underlying issue.
I have tried checking userAgent for ELB-HealthChecker/2.0, but this will have to change if the hosting provider is changed.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


What's a so bad it's good pickup line?
Gamers of Reddit: What's the worst experience you have had in a game?
What is the equivalent to bringing an atomic bomb to a knife fight?
Your Reddit user tag is now your superhero/villain name. What are your powers/abilities, costume, etc?
I can commit any crime and only get a warning from a cop and every time I say something it ends with "thanks dad"
Best title ever: "Equal rights for men!!!"


text:
> Religion and Politics
"Faced with change, those who feel threatened by it turn to religion as a source of stability, an expression of the things that do not change. The global market tends to reduce all things to economic terms. Religion offers a different kind of solace. It speaks of the dignity of the person and the power of the human spirit. It tells us that we are more, or other, than what we earn or what we buy. In the fast moving world economy there are winners and losers. Life takes on a ruthless, Darwinian struggle for survival. Religion reminds us that there are other sources of self-worth. We are not necessarily set against one another in a win-or-lose competition."
"Most importantly, no other system does what religion has traditionally undertaken to do, namely to offer an explanation of who we are and why, of our place in the universe and the meaning of events as they unfold around us. The great post-Enlightenment systems – science, economics, and political ideologies – have all retreated from their earlier roles as overarching philosophies. Science has become descriptive, economics transactional, and politics ever more managerial. They tell us what and how but not why. We turn to them to get what we want, but not to know what we ought to want. That is their power, but also, from another perspective, their weakness. Never before have we been faced with more choices, but never before have the great society-shaping institutions offered less guidance on why we should choose this way rather than that. The great metaphors of our time – the supermarket, cable and satellite television and the Internet – put before us a seemingly endless range of options, each offering the great deal, the best buy, the highest specification, the lowest price. But consumption is a poor candidate for salvation. The very happiness we were promised by buying these designer jeans, that watch or this car, is what the next product assures us we do not yet have until we have bought something else. A consumer society is kept going by an endless process of stimulating, satisfying, and re-stimulating desire. It is more like an addiction than a quest for fulfilment."
"The twenty-first century has arisen on the ruins of the twentieth, an age in which many of the great political ideologies – fascism, socialism, communism, even nationalism – were discredited. In Fukuyama's vision of the future we sense the return of a hope once expressed in the eighteenth century, that trade would do what politics did not: tame passions, domesticate man the fighter into man the producer and consumer, and lock nations into a win-win network of mutual exchange. The amalgamation of the nation states of Europe, which had spent the previous centuries in intermittent war, into the European Union seemed to be one augury. The collapse of the Soviet Union was another. What this overlooked, then as now, is that homo sapiens is not only, or even primarily, a maximising animal, choosing rationally between options. We are uniquely a meaning seeking animal. Our most fundamental questions are Who am I? and To which narrative do I belong? The great hope of the liberal imagination, that politics could be superseded by economics, replacing public good with private choice, was bound to fail because economics as such offers no answer to the big questions of 'Who' and 'Why.' Religion does, and that is its power in the contemporary world. The politics of ideology may have died, but it has been replaced not by 'the end of history' but by the politics of identity."
The Dignity of Difference, Chapter 1, p. 34


At close of market on Friday, TORC Oil & Gas Ltd. (TSX:TOG) stock finished trading at -4.97%, bringing the stock price to $4.21 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The stock price saw a low of $4.17 and a high of $4.24.
The company's stock was traded 1,031 times with a total of 2,277,167 shares traded.
TORC Oil & Gas Ltd. has a market cap of $912.04 million, with 216.64 million shares in issue.


text:
Top 3 Streaming Pet Peeves – And Why They Really Happen	The DOJ And FTC's New Antitrust Heads Plan To Overhaul M&A Review (Someday)	More Details Revealed On Project Bernanke And Jedi Blue In Newly Unsealed Google Suit	New W3C Group Aims To Dial Back The Rhetoric And Get Practical About Post-Cookie Tech	The Future Of Retail Media Platforms Will Split From Walled Gardens, Says IRI's Pelino	Disruptel Partners With TCL To Bring Contextual Awareness To TV	T-Mobile Acquires Octopus Interactive And Says It's Still Committed To Ad Tech	Here's How Instacart Plans To Become A Major Ad Platform	Big News In Ad Fraud Land, As Human Raises $100 Million And IAS Makes Another Acquisition
Zeta Global Hones Its Martech Pitch To Wall Street
by James Hercher // Friday, August 13th, 2021 – 3:01 pm
Zeta Global has had a rocky first two months as a public company. Its stock is down by a little more than a third since IPOing on the New York Stock Exchange in June.
But the whims of Wall Street investors don't always align with the true value of a business.
Zeta CEO David Steinberg defended the company's balance sheet. For one thing, Zeta started off with a net loss of $95 million in Q2 2021, after a net loss of $15 million a year ago. But that's because Zeta paid off a one-time $119 million fee on pre-IPO shares of the business, he said.
"We've been around 14 years, so we had a lot of shares," Steinberg said.
The company's free cash flow for the quarter was $7 million, Steinberg said, up from a cash flow loss last year.
Even without that blotch on the quarterly profit, Zeta Global can be a confusing stock for investors. It's a marketing cloud with an ad tech business and a publishing data business, which powers the identity data for the company's martech and ad tech.
AdExchanger caught up with Steinberg on Zeta Global's pitch to the market, as well as the publishing technology business at the heart of the company's critical identity core.
AdExchanger: Congrats on putting your first quarterly earnings behind you. How do you feel about there being so many programmatic companies that have gone public recently?
DAVID STEINBERG: I appreciate it.
Though we're actually not a programmatic company. I'd say we're a marketing technology company. Though it's funny you say that, because our business encapsulates so many different things, it's been confusing to Wall Street. And I think your comment is emblematic of that.
We do happen to own a programmatic platform, but it's not a big percentage of our revenue. We're really a marketing cloud. We compete directly with the other marketing clouds. In this quarter, we added 30 new logos [business jargon for a brand client], and in 100% of the cases we're either displacing or competed with one or more of the other very large marketing clouds.
We're a software platform. The vast majority of our revenue is in the form of software fees. But we also own a data cloud, and we own an orchestration business where we do activation. So we've got the software, the data and the activation in one place. It can be confusing to new investors.
What was behind that confusion?
I think we did a poor job of iteration. We tried to get too granular. And the story just didn't didn't resonate. The way that we're repositioning the story is: "This software plus data plus activation in one platform, and that's the simple way of doing it."
I think it's our job to simplify the story as it relates to Wall Street. And the way to do that is, you really focus on the sum of the parts: the software, the data and the activation.
What's the breakout of your revenue between the activation, software and data business?
Seventy-seven percent of our revenue is on our software platform. Twenty-three percent is activating with third-party platforms like Facebook, or some other activation methodology on behalf of our clients. Software was 68% of our revenue a year ago, and it's now 77%.
We're better at finding customers using our data and our software, so we're doing more and more on our own platform, and a smaller percent on third-party platforms like Facebook, Google and others.
The reason Wall Street cares about that so much is because gross margins on our software platform are in the 70s. And our gross margins with third-party activation methodology, or what we call all platforms, are substantially lower.
Our goal is ultimately to get our own platform revenue to over 80%, which would be a good metric for us. That's why the way to think about us is as a marketing technology company, in that over 85% of our revenue today is subscription or reoccurring revenue, even though we own some advertising technology assets.
Where does your first-party identity data come from?
In our Data Cloud, we have about 20 different software tools for publishers and a publishing platform. So the vast majority of our data comes from the ownership of Disqus, which is the world's largest commenting platform. Over 5 million publishers have embedded Disqus into their tech stack, to allow consumers to comment, share, and interact with articles. And hundreds of millions of individuals log into Disqus accounts every month.
We also own a publishing platform, where people opt in to receive newsletters.
The US base number for consumers in our Data Cloud went from 220 million opted-in identities a year ago to 225 million in Q2. Two years ago, it was 190 million. We do expect that number to continue to grow.
Is that newsletter business software for publishers or people who send newsletters, or you producing content?
The content is created primarily by artificial intelligence at this point. They have multiple articles that sum the news of the day in certain topics, with links back to other publishers. We have an editorial group that worked through it. But we publish over 1,700 newsletters on a daily basis today to many millions of people.
We don't monetize that. We give it away for free to the consumer. But the consumer opts in, and we then use their data on the back end. We never share the consumer's identity with any of our customers. All they know is that Zeta ID number X now has a high level of intent to buy their product or switch services. That's one of the reasons our Data Cloud works from a CCPA and GDPR perspective.
Enjoying this content?
Sign up to be an AdExchanger Member today and get unlimited access to articles like this, plus proprietary data and research, conference discounts, on-demand access to event content, and more!
Talk about it:
dave E August 16, 2021
so much for clarifying what it is that Zeta does. Wildly confusing....


text:
That next morning, Queequeg informs Ishmael that his little wooden god, named Yojo, has told him that Ishmael is to select the sailing vessel on which they will voyage, and that, furthermore, Ishmael is to do this according to his own free will and inclination. Although Ishmael wants Queequeg's advice in choosing the ship, he acquiesces and goes out to find a boat. Ishmael isolates three possibilities: the Devil-dam, the Tit-bit, and the Pequod, the last named for an "extinct tribe of Massachusetts Indians." Ishmael's inclinations guide him to the last ship, and so he chooses it.
A good example of the interplay of fate and free will in the novel. On the one hand, Yojo and Queequeg both want Ishmael to choose the ship on which they will sail. Therefore, they trust implicitly in Ishmael's judgment. But they also believe it is preordained that Ishmael's good judgment will result in . . . their fate, meaning that whatever their future is, it will come about according to Ishmael's wishes. In some sense, too, Ahab's quest for Moby Dick is both self-initiated and (he believes) beyond his immediate control.
Ishmael looks over the Pequod, and finds it to be an old and beautiful ship, adorned, as he would later find out, by its owner and former captain, Peleg, with a great deal of carving and a dark stain of paint—all of which indicate its many voyages around the world. Ishmael goes up to the decks and sees a teepee-like structure pitched there. Going inside, he finds an old sailor and asks if that man is the captain of the boat, and announces that he, Ishmael, would very much like to serve as a sailor on the Pequod.
Melville knows that, in order to "build up" the character of Ahab, he must first provide the reader with several "false starts" in that direction. He therefore makes it seem that Peleg might be the captain of the vessel—until, that is, Peleg admits that the ship's captain is an even more mysterious man, one who very rarely shows his face above-decks.
This old sailor asks whether Ishmael has any experience on boats, and when Ishmael says he has been on merchant ships, the old man becomes enraged, saying that sailing on a whaling vessel is different, and far more difficult, than sailing on a merchant ship. The old sailor then asks if Ishmael is trustworthy, and tells him to look at Captain Ahab before he decides to sail on the Pequod. Ishmael is surprised, thinking that the old man is the captain of the boat, but the man introduces himself as Peleg, part owner of the boat along with another man named Bildad. Peleg tells Ishmael that Ahab lost his leg to a whale—and not just any whale, but the "monstrousest parmacetty [Spermaceti] that ever chipped a boat."
The first introduction of Ahab's disability—the loss of his leg. Peleg makes it seem that, in some sense, Ahab's quest is understandable—that any man who has been "dismasted" might reasonably hold a grudge against the whale who ate his leg. But other characters in the novel, notably Starbuck and, later, Boomer, say it is wrong to impute human motives to Moby Dick—that he is, instead, simply an animal, and a ferocious one, and that one cannot exact revenge against a "dumb brute."
Peleg pushes Ishmael further, asking if Ishmael is willing to throw a harpoon down a "whale's throat," and whether Ishmael can't "see the world," as many potential whalemen wish, by just standing on the docks and looking at the ocean, instead of putting himself in danger on the high seas. But Ishmael insists that he is up to the challenge and ready to be a whaler, and at this, Peleg tells him to go below-decks, talk to Bildad, and sign up for the next voyage.
Ishmael places special importance on the notion of sailing on a whaling ship, rather than on any merchant vessel. As will be revealed later on, Ishmael believes that whaling itself is a noble calling, prefigured in history, with a vast number of literary, philosophical, and religious dimensions unknown to common fishing ships.
Get the entire Moby-Dick LitChart as a printable PDF.
Ishmael writes that both Peleg and Bildad were Nantucket Quakers, but are hardly peaceful for that—though they speak the odd Quaker vernacular, which sounds like the language of the Bible, they are angry men with a fighting spirit. Ishmael says that Peleg is a "blusterer," a talkative and somewhat hypocritical man, and that Bildad is "more pious," more like a typical Quaker, though he also works his men hard and gives them very little in the way of rations or money. Ishmael believes his pay should be the 275th lay, or 1/275 of the ship's profits at the end of whaling. But Ishmael is shocked to learn that Bildad and Peleg will offer him only 1/777 of the profits, known in the industry as a "long lay."
In the novel, characters tend to be caricatures, in a positive sense of the word—they are often defined by a few strong characteristics, and might be interpreted as embodiments of a given set of values. Thus, Peleg believes religiosity isn't important in a sailor; Bildad does. Peleg freely takes the name of the Lord in vain; Bildad would never do so. The way pay on a whaling ship works is important: the men do not make a salary. The make a percentage of the profits of the ship. Speaking in modern language, every sailor has "equity" in the voyage. They make their fortune—literally and figuratively—through the luck and skill of their collective effort.
Ishmael is offended at this paltry offer, but believing this is the ship for him, and not caring too much for the pay, he signs anyway, and asks if he can bring his friend Queequeg along the next day. Peleg and Bildad agree. As Ishmael is walking back to Queequeg, however, Ishmael asks Peleg if he can meet Ahab, now that he is signed on for the voyage. But Peleg says that Ahab is out of sorts, not taking visitors at the moment. And when Ishmael asks if Ahab isn't the name of a Biblical king so wicked that, when he was killed, "dogs wouldn't lick his blood," Peleg warns Ishmael not to bring up this story around Ahab.
The Biblical tales told in Moby Dick, including the references to Rachel and her orphans, to Ahab, and to Jonah, are typically stories of discomfort, sadness, and cruelty. Although the story of Jonah has a positive ending, the stories of Ahab and Rachel do not, and Melville appears especially awed by the overwhelming power and mystery of these stories—by the idea that God, rather than being just a source of infinite goodness, is also a force of "fate," or apparently indiscriminate cruelty to men.
Before Ishmael leaves, Peleg tells him that Ahab was a little "out of his head" after his leg was bitten off by a certain whale, and that Ahab is somewhat "moody," but he is a good captain, and he has a young wife and child living in Nantucket. Ishmael thinks a little on the idea of Ahab as he walks back to the Try Pots, but says that other ideas and excitement about the voyage began to preoccupy him, and so he forgets Ahab for the time being.
This is the first explicit reference to the fact that Ahab might not be entirely of sound mind. It is not clear, as the novel progresses, to what extent Ahab is "insane," and to what extent his pride, drive, and anger have simply taken control of his life. Ahab does appear, at best, to have a total disregard for anything except his personal whale-hunt.
Schlegel, Chris. "Moby-Dick Chapter 16: The Ship." LitCharts. LitCharts LLC, 11 Aug 2014. Web. 17 Jul 2019.
Schlegel, Chris. "Moby-Dick Chapter 16: The Ship." LitCharts LLC, August 11, 2014. Retrieved July 17, 2019. https://www.litcharts.com/lit/moby-dick/chapter-16-the-ship.


text:
Global Film Industry Losses Could Reach $5B In Coronavirus Wake
The global film industry had its year in 2019, raking in a record-breaking $31.1 billion internationally and $42.5 billion all together. But as the Coronavirus, a virus which causes the respiratory illness known as COVID-19, continues to ravage Asia and parts of Europe, the entertainment industry is preparing to take a major hit — up to $5 billion.
There have been over 90,000 reported cases of Coronavirus and 3,000 deaths so far, mostly occurring in China where the virus originated.
As people are instructed to avoid large crowds of people, many malls, multiplexes and movie theaters in affected countries have become near ghost towns. As stated in The Hollywood Reporter, some Coronavirus analysts are stating that between the impacted areas of China, South Korea, Italy and Japan, COVID-19 could result in up to $5 billion in total losses for the film markets there. That number has the potential to grow if the virus begins to affect the U.S. market.
Around 70,000 movie theaters in China have already closed their doors. Last weekend, Universal's The Invisible Man made its debut in South Korean theaters only to be met with a relatively lukewarm $1.1 million. CGV, South Korea's largest theater chain, has shut down all nine of its venues for the time being.
Trepidation over the Coronavirus outbreak has also spread to Europe, where Disney was initially planning to launch Disney+ on March 5. According to Deadline, the ritzy London event was cancelled "due to a number of media attendee cancellations and increasing concerns at the prospect of traveling internationally at this time." Disney has opted instead to promote Disney+ through social media and press notices.
Gallery — The Biggest Box Office Second Weekends In Movie History
Source: Global Film Industry Losses Could Reach $5B In Coronavirus Wake
Filed Under: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Coverage, Disney, The Invisible Man


12 vibrant high-quality crayons, perfect for making art and for doodling. Honey Sticks are handmade in New Zealand from 100% natural locally-produced beeswax and non-toxic dyes. They smell incredible and are safe for children and the planet. Colours include; white, pink, yellow, orange, green, red, black, dark green, brown, mustard, dark blue and purple.
The size and shape of the 'original' Honey Sticks are perfect for little hands learning how to hold and draw. Each crayon measures approximately 2cm x 6cm. All packaged in a pretty recycled cardboard box measuring 12cm x 4cm x 6cm.


text:
Varaždinsko zelje (Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. alba)  hrvatski je autohtoni proizvod registriran i zaštićen na zajedničkom tržištu EU, gdje je dobio oznaku izvornosti i zemljopisnog podrijetla u listopadu 2017. godine.

Proizvodi se od istoimene sorte Varaždinski kupus, U proizvodnji se koristi certificirano sjeme ili domaće sjeme proizvedeno na poljoprivrednom gospodarstvu, koje potječe iz domaćih biljnih genetskih izvora s područja Varaždinske županije.

Izvori

Izvorno hrvatsko
Povrće
Kupus

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Enrichment Center for the Disadvantaged (ECD).
Supports disadvantaged children and train child caregivers.
Early experiences shape the architecture of the developing brain for better or for worse.
Occupying children with an amusement or recreation.
Every child deserves the opportunity to develop to his/her unique potential. Child advocates must consider all factors that interfere with optimal development and press for circumstance.
Playing contributes to the cognitive, physical, social development, and emotional well-being of children.
Play also offers an ideal opportunity for parents to engage fully with their children.
It is through play that children at a very early age engage and interact in the world around them. It allows them to create and explore a world they can master by conquering their fears.
Training of child caregivers on "Attachment and Socio-emotional" development of children at Kidanmiheret orphanage in Addis Ababa city.
When children grow up in an environment of constant threat that influence everyday function, the stress system is activated excessively and hinders the development of a healthy immune system.
Add professional values, tools and techniques to their background knowledge.
Globally it is believed that 10% of the world population is suffering from one or more forms of disabilities which include psycho – social problems.
Human brains are larger relative to our bodies in terms of size than any other species in the world. The human brain undergoes a longer period of physical and cognitive immaturity.
Brain development is at its most rapid. Humans are most sensitive to environmental influence both enriching environments and adverse environments.
The human brain has 16 billion neurons compared to 5 billion for an elephant or 9 billion for close gorilla and ape families. Brain has a larger brain, many, many more neurons to develop.
Evidence:- Neuroscience shows how brain architecture develops and developmental sciences like psychology or anthropology, show how children learn.
Economists and their evaluations indicated that childhood programs result in higher earnings, lower depression, and lower crime into adulthood.
Millions of children worldwide are denied the right to achieve their full potentials. More than 220 million children under five worldwide are either stunted or living in extreme poverty.
Researchers shows 37% of children, on average, are showing low levels of either cognitive or socioemotional development in low-and middle-income countries. Concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the most powerful interventions society can provide to accelerate learning in early childhood is pre-primary education of good quality.
UN set basic rights for children. It obligated ratifying governments to uphold those rights, and it required governments to act based on the best interest of the child.
Millions of children worldwide are denied their right to achieve their full potentials. Adversity and early experiences starts before birth.
Quality early childhood development programs for children under age 5!
No advances in sustainable development will occur in coming decades without multiple generations contributing to societal improvement.
Beyond sheer survival, children have a right to thrive, develop to their full potential, and live in a sustainable world.
A powerful set of neuroscientific and economic evidence over the last 20 years now shows that early childhood is a critical stage of human development.
Early experiences in the home, in care settings, and in communities interact with genes to shape the developing nature and quality of the brain's architecture.
Show children you love them - Children need physical comfort from both parents and caregivers. Let the children see you cuddle each other too.
Maintain boundaries - children need to know what's acceptable and what's is not. Make sure you define and protect the boundaries of tolerable behavior.
"Beauty is not who you are on the outside, it is the wisdom and time you gave away to save another struggling soul like you."
"As you grow older, you will discover that you have two hands — one for helping yourself, the other for helping others.
Why we help disadvantaged children?