Net API and I have successfully made the app working under encoding. One problem we just discovered during our testing however, is that in our UNIX system the app supports both encoding and In other words, if I have two messages with the same contents but one with encoding and the other with , the UNIX based system can reads and process them equally well.
Net based app, it will break when processing a encoding. Maybe I should use something else instead? I tried quite a few but still doesn't solve my problem. Here are the two type of messages that I am testing with: Rwandan health care workers used the dongle to test whole blood obtained via fingerprick from 96 patients enrolling into care at prevention of mother-to-child transmission clinics or voluntary counseling and testing centers.
The dongle performed a triplexed immunoassay not currently available in a single test format: HIV antibody, treponemal-specific antibody for syphilis, and nontreponemal antibody for active syphilis infection. This work suggests that coupling microfluidics with recent advances in consumer electronics can make certain laboratory-based diagnostics accessible to almost any population with access to smartphones.
Online Banking Sign In
We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address. By Tassaneewan Laksanasopin , Tiffany W. Guo , Samiksha Nayak , Archana A.
Log in to view the full text
Sridhara , Shi Xie , Owolabi O. Chee , Jiyoon Kim , Curtis D. Rai , Veronicah Mugisha , Arnold R. Justman , Sabin Nsanzimana , Samuel K. Science Translational Medicine 04 Feb A smartphone accessory can perform a point-of-care test that simultaneously detects three infectious disease markers from fingerprick whole blood in 15 min, as operated by health care workers trained on a software app. The litigation in which the discovery is sought arises out of a long-term relationship between petitioner Hunter fn. The real parties in interest are present and past members or associates of the firm and will be referred to collectively in this opinion as Rosenthal.
In , Rosenthal entered into a written contract terminable on 10 days' notice with Hunter, a motion picture producer and director. The contract obligated Rosenthal to represent Hunter in all legal matters except litigation and to advise him on his professional career and his business and financial matters. The law firm also agreed to marshal Hunter's funds, to maintain his bank accounts, to prepare budgets, to make "all proper expenditures" for his account, to perform income and estate tax service, to advise with respect to insurance, and to represent Hunter in dealing with others.
In return, Hunter agreed to compensate Rosenthal in an amount equal to 10 percent of his earnings on existing contracts and those subsequently negotiated during the term of the agreement plus 10 percent of his pre-tax net income and gain from property acquired during the term of the agreement or concerning which Rosenthal rendered any service. In , Hunter and Rosenthal entered into another written agreement reciting that the earlier fee agreement "is to end automatically upon consummation of the MCA deal" and providing that Rosenthal's obligation to perform services was at an end.
Rosenthal accepted those amounts in satisfaction of Hunter's financial obligation to the firm.
- BBVA Wallet!
- Fuss v. Superior Court!
- Learn to Here is the Ways to do gps Spying on a Android phone?
On July 16, , Jerome Rosenthal directed a letter to Hunter stating that the firm had rendered services to Hunter [ Cal. Rosenthal's offer was refused by a letter from Hunter dated July 23, That letter stated that Hunter had decided to engage other counsel and another business manager. It denied that Rosenthal had been requested to perform any services in the period after July 5, On July 24, Rosenthal replied to Hunter in writing withdrawing the prior offer and enclosing a statement:.
On July 24, present counsel for Hunter replied to the letter and statement asking for the detail upon which the charge was based. Rosenthal answered on August 5, listing 18 categories of service. Counsel for Hunter responded on August 13 stating: Hunter answered and cross-complained.
The amended cross-complaint alleges five causes of action: Rosenthal filed an answer to the cross-complaint. Hunter pursued discovery in the action by written interrogatories served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section , by the taking of the deposition of Jerome Rosenthal, and by a motion to produce documents for inspection and copying pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section A series of motions were made in the trial court with respect to those discovery procedures eventually resulting in the rulings now before us on Hunter's petition for writ of mandate. On September 13, , Hunter served 31 written interrogatories upon Rosenthal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section The categories as listed in that letter are set forth in Appendix I to this opinion.
Each of interrogatories 2 through 19 sets forth a category of service described in the letter and as to that category seeks the names and occupations of persons who performed the service, the dates of the services performed by each, and the amount of time and the nature of services performed by each. Those interrogatories also ask that Rosenthal state the amount of its claim allocable to the category of service.
7 Apps Designed to Help Reduce Depression and Anxiety
In the majority of interrogatories 1 through 20 the request is also made for a listing of documents, if any, "reflecting" services in the category. Typical interrogatories numbers 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 are quoted in Appendix II to this opinion.
Interrogatory 20 asks for similar information with respect to any services not described in 1 through Rosenthal's response to each of interrogatories 1 through 20 as amplified by further answers after the granting of an earlier motion for further response was the same. It states that an answer to the interrogatory requires "a compilation, abstract, audit or summary of business records," and that such is not available but "may be compiled from relevant portions of the following: Services Performed Sheets, 81 in number; 2.
Services Performed Code; 3.
- BBVA Wallet | BBVA Compass!
- Spy on childs SMS Easily for Android Devices?
- Best and Easiest Way to Hack a Facebook Account?
- New Monitoring App to Spy on kids cell?
- Day One Premium FAQ | Day One Help!
Attorneys' Appointment Books; 4. Telephone and Appointment Call Sheets; 5. Legal files whose names are contained on the list attached Recollections of [ Cal. That exhibit is described in the preamble to the further answers to interrogatories as "a substantially accurate summation of material portions of services performed generally by persons who recorded their time for Ross Hunter from the period July 5, , to and including March 31, The information in Exhibit W is provided in the form of a code, a purported explanation of which is appended to the answer to interrogatories.
There is then a disclaimer to the effect that "there may be some duplication or omission. With respect to manner of computation of fees allocable to each category of service, the answer states that charges for the services described were computed "by considering facts and data related to" 15 designated factors the traditional items utilized in determination of attorneys' fees plus such matter as: All of the factors were used as guides in ascertaining the total value of all of the services rendered.
After due consideration of all of the foregoing factors, a charge was made for the totality of services rendered. No specific amount was allocated to the particular services referred to in the Interrogatory. Services are not entirely reflected in time records and files, since some services were not recorded. Interrogatory 21B asks whether Rosenthal made any demand or request for payment prior to July 16, , and, if so, the detail of the demand or request.
Day One Premium FAQ
Rosenthal responded [ Cal. The answer adds that "[e]ach was oral, substance was either Hunter's voluntarily stating that he expected to and would pay either on prior basis or on reasonable value Conversations were face to face, telephone or both and took place between July and June There are no formal documents.
As to some conversations there may be internal memos which will be supplied if determined necessary and not excludable under work product Effort currently in progress to locate such memos as may exist. Interrogatory 22A seeks the identifying date of records maintained by Rosenthal of compensation received from Hunter and his corporations for the period through See Exhibit W, Schedules through and records supplied Defendant.
Interrogatory 24 asks for the identifying information with respect to time records pertaining to services rendered by Rosenthal to Hunter for the period after July 5, , and of office records regarding the amount due, the dates of performance, and the nature of performance of services. The response refers to the answer to the answer to interrogatory 1 and to Exhibit W, schedules through Interrogatory 28 seeks identifying data of written communications and conversations with respect to the fee agreement. Interrogatory 29 requests similar data with respect to the letter terminating that agreement.
The response states that documents have been supplied to defendant and no others have been located. It states also "if continuing search discloses, will be supplied. That motion was denied, and the application for writ of mandate which is now before us followed. We conclude that the petition is well taken with respect to the trial court's order denying further response to those interrogatories.
Review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused the discretion vested in it by Code of Civil Procedure sections through That discretion, while broad, nevertheless must be exercised in the manner required [ Cal. Superior Court, 56 Cal. Interrogatories 1 through 21 and 24 were answered in part by resorting to the mode of response permitted by subparagraph c of Code of Civil Procedure section which states: There are two clear defects in the manner in which Rosenthal has attempted to respond to the interrogatories in the manner provided in Code of Civil Procedure section , subparagraph c.
The response on its face belies its use as a complete answer to the interrogatory since one of the sources of information to which Hunter referred is "8.
Recollections of persons who performed the work. The offer contained in the purported subdivision c answer provides access only to "pertinent and proper portions" of files and records.
realestate.cretechbd.com :: View topic - How to support both and encoding in .Net API app?
An opportunity to examine records and files which the opposing party to the litigation deems pertinent and proper is no opportunity at all for the purpose of civil discovery. State Bar, 57 Cal. The exhibit is stated to be "a substantially accurate summation" and contains the disclaimer "there may be some duplication or omission. The description of the content of the exhibit and the disclaimer render the answer valueless to the interrogating party who may seek at trial to use the response for impeachment or to use it in advance of trial for the purpose of evaluating Rosenthal's claim or for preparing a defense.
Irrespective of the limitations placed upon it by the answer to interrogatories, Exhibit W is itself deficient as a response.
- Easy Ways to Monitor Calls Free?
- Read Someones Text Messages Verizon?
- Wink | Help | Amazon Alexa!