Logicly Product 40
Logitech Select is a comprehensive service plan that delivers reliability, continuity, and peace of mind for each room you designate. Select provides 24/7 support, a Dedicated Service Manager,Available with purchase of a service plan with 50 or more rooms. product replacement, accelerated RMA, onsite spares,Available with purchase of a service plan with 50 or more rooms. and advanced Sync analytics including customizable alerts through ServiceNow integration.Available for users of Logitech Sync.
Logicly Product 40
An intelligent composable business radically re-engineers decision-making by accessing better information and responding more nimbly to it. For example, machines will enhance decision making in the future, enabled by a rich fabric of data and insights. Intelligent composable business will pave the way for redesigned digital business moments, new business models, autonomous operations and new products, services and channels.
Gartner research shows only 53% of projects make it from artificial intelligence (AI) prototypes to production. CIOs and IT leaders find it hard to scale AI projects because they lack the tools to create and manage a production-grade AI pipeline. The road to AI production means turning to AI engineering, a discipline focused on the governance and life cycle management of a wide range of operationalized AI and decision models, such as machine learning or knowledge graphs.
After a reverse search of the image, Logically found that the image was used for several fake posts since 2015. We did not find the source of the image. In 2015, the same image was used to claim that Burger King used horse meat in its products, which other fact-checking companies have debunked.
According to Wendy's website, they use beef in most products. It adds that By 2020, "approximately 40 percent of Wendy's U.S. fresh, never frozen beef supply is sourced from Progressive Beef-certified feedlots." They source their meat from North American states and are a part of the Progressive Beef Program, which is a sustainable practice for sourcing beef. There are no reports from the FDA stating that Wendy's uses horse meat.
An old image commonly connected to misinformation has been used again to claim that Wendy's uses horse meat in its products. There is no evidence that Wendy's uses horse meat in any of its products. Hence we have marked this claim as false.
Products are how APIs are surfaced to developers. Products in API Management have one or more APIs, and can be open or protected. Protected products require a subscription key, while open products can be consumed freely.
When a product is ready for use by developers, it can be published. Once published, it can be viewed or subscribed to by developers. Subscription approval is configured at the product level and can either require an administrator's approval or be automatic.
Administrators can also create custom groups or use external groups in an associated Azure Active Directory tenant to give developers visibility and access to API products. For example, create a custom group for developers in a partner organization to access a specific subset of APIs in a product. A user can belong to more than one group.
Developers represent the user accounts in an API Management service instance. Developers can be created or invited to join by administrators, or they can sign up from the developer portal. Each developer is a member of one or more groups, and can subscribe to the products that grant visibility to those groups.
When a product comes on the mainstream market that is actually user friendly to people who are blind, word travels fast in our community. So it has been with the new Olympus DS-30, DS-40, and DS-50 digital voice recorders, released early in 2007. Although not intended specifically for use by people who are unable to read the display, these small but mighty player-recorders are extremely, although not completely, accessible for those without vision. The three models vary only slightly, the primary difference being storage capacity. The DS-30 offers 256 MB, the DS-40 offers 512 MB, and the DS-50 offers 1 GB (up to 275 hours) of stored music, books, podcasts, or personal recordings or a mix of all of them. For this evaluation, the DS-40 with 512 MB was used.
The Olympus DS series of digital recorders are not 100% accessible to a user who is blind, but come closer to the mark than any other commercially available product of their kind. They offer clear speech and easy navigation, sophisticated yet simple recording capabilities, and outstanding sound quality. It is important to note that these units do not have a built-in text-to-speech feature, so playing computer files, other than audio ones, is not an option. If you are looking for an attractive, compact device that performs well in all kinds of recording settings and plays music, audio books, and podcasts to boot, the Olympus DS series has carved a unique niche of excellence.
The three primary, most frequently invoked privileges that have been held to be incorporated into Exemption 5 are the deliberative process privilege (referred to by some courts as "executive privilege"), the attorney work-product privilege, and the attorney-client privilege. (16) First, however, Exemption 5's threshold requirement must be considered.
The threshold issue under Exemption 5 is whether a record is of the type intended to be covered by the phrase "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums" -- a phrase which, at first glance, would seem to encompass only documents generated by an agency and not documents circulated beyond the executive branch. (17) Three years ago, the Supreme Court shed light on this issue when it ruled on the contours of Exemption 5's "inter-agency or intra-agency" threshold requirement for the first time in Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n. (18) In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the threshold of Exemption 5 did not encompass communications between the Department of the Interior and several Indian tribes which, in making their views known to the Department on certain matters of administrative decisionmaking, not only had "their own, albeit entirely legitimate, interests in mind," (19) but also were "seeking a Government benefit at the expense of other applicants." (20) Thus, records submitted to the agency by the Tribes, as "outside consultants," did not qualify for attorney work-product and deliberative process privilege protection in the case. (21)
The second traditional privilege incorporated into Exemption 5 is the attorney work-product privilege, which protects documents and other memoranda prepared by an attorney in contemplation of litigation. (166) As its purpose is to protect the adversarial trial process by insulating the attorney's preparation from scrutiny, (167) the work-product privilege ordinarily does not attach until at least "some articulable claim, likely to lead to litigation," has arisen. (168) The privilege is not limited to civil proceedings, but rather extends to administrative proceedings (169) and to criminal matters as well. (170) Similarly, the privilege has also been held applicable to documents generated in preparation of an amicus brief. (171)
However, the mere fact that it is conceivable that litigation might occur at some unspecified time in the future will not necessarily be sufficient to protect attorney-generated documents; it has been observed that "the policies of the FOIA would be largely defeated" if agencies were to withhold any documents created by attorneys "simply because litigation might someday occur." (176) But when litigation is reasonably regarded as inevitable under the circumstances, a specific claim need not yet have arisen, (177) and agencies can obtain necessary protection through the attorney work-product privilege. (178)
The attorney work-product privilege also has been held to cover documents "relat[ing] to possible settlements" of litigation. (181) Logically, it can also protect the recommendation to close a litigation or prelitigation matter, (182) and even the final agency decision to terminate litigation. (183) But doc-uments prepared subsequent to the closing of a case are presumed, absent some specific basis for concluding otherwise, not to have been prepared in anticipation of litigation. (184) Moreover, one court has held that documents not originally prepared in anticipation of litigation cannot assume the protection of the work-product privilege merely through their later placement in a litigation-related document. (185)
Second, Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the privilege to be used to protect documents prepared "by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative." Not only do documents prepared by agency attorneys who are responsible for the litigation of a case which is being defended or prosecuted by the Department of Justice qualify for the privilege, (186) but also documents prepared by an attorney "not employed as a litigator." (187) Courts have also accorded work-product protection to materials prepared by nonattorneys who are supervised by attorneys. (188) The premise in such cases is that work-product protection is appropriate when the nonattorney acts as the agent of the attorney; when that is not the case, the work-product privilege as incorporated by the FOIA has not been extended to protect the material prepared by the nonattorney. (189)
Third, the work-product privilege has been held to remain applicable when the information has been shared with a party holding a common interest with the agency. (190) The privilege remains applicable also when the document has become the basis for a final agency decision. (191)
In NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., (192) the Supreme Court allowed the withholding of a final agency decision on the basis that it was shielded by the work-product privilege, (193) but it also stated that Exemption 5 can never apply to final decisions and it expressed reluctance to "construe Exemption 5 to apply to documents described in 5 U.S.C. Â 552(a)(2)," (194) the "reading room" provision of the FOIA. (195) This result inevitably led to no small amount of confusion, (196) which was cleared up by the Supreme Court in Federal Open Market Committee v. Merrill. (197) In Merrill, the Court explained its statements in Sears, (198) and plainly stated that even if a document is a final opinion, and therefore falls within subsection (a)(2)'s mandatory disclosure requirements, it still may be withheld if it falls within the work-product privilege. (199) (For a discussion of the automatic disclosure requirements of subsection (a)(2), see FOIA Reading Rooms, above.)