Conditions that lead to poisoning, special feed given to cows that produce milk will react to improper storage and people with certain diseases, it is extremely rare for a similar occurence

Tuesday, Dec 06, 2011

BEIJING – Local authorities in northeast China said Tuesday drinks made by US giant Coca-Cola that left one child dead and three others ill last week were deliberately poisoned.
In an incident that caused nationwide concern, a boy who drank a Pulpy Milky yoghurt drink made by Coca-Cola subsidiary Minute Maid died on November 28 in Jilin province, prompting a mass recall of the products.
The boy’s mother was also poisoned and remains hospitalised in Changchun city, while another mother and daughter were made ill but have since recovered.

“Following a technical analysis and a detective investigation, it has been preliminarily confirmed that the November 28 poisoning case involving Minute Maid Pulpy Milky is a case of deliberate poisoning,” the Jilin government said.
In a statement on its website, the government said no other contaminated drinks had been discovered after authorities tested products pulled from store shelves, as well as Coca-Cola plants and sales companies in Jilin.
While the government did not explicitly detail what caused the poisoning, it said in the statement that authorities had tested the pulled products and plants for pesticides, indicating these may be responsible for the death.
The investigation was continuing, the statement said. It did not say whether inquiries were focusing on any particular suspects or motives.
Coca-Cola said in an email to AFP that “the police’s technical tests and investigations have preliminarily confirmed that this incident is a criminal case in Changchun.”
This “reaffirms that it is not related in any way to our product quality. We are 100 per cent confident in the safety and quality of our products.”
The poisonings prompted authorities to remove tens of thousands of bottles of Pulpy Milky from store shelves in Jilin, while several other Chinese cities including Beijing and Shanghai also stopped selling the drink.
According to the official Xinhua news agency, this is not the first time Coca Cola has been a victim of the deliberate poisoning of its products in China.
In 2009, two people were reportedly poisoned after ingesting bottles of the popular soft drink Sprite, which were tainted with mercury, Xinhua said.
Diary products need to be stored at a constant temperature at all times and once expired will cause food poisoning due to the bacteria culture that grows in the milk that turns it bad, therefore, that is why ice cream is so tightly controlled but not milk, but milk does function the same as ice cream, and the same standards should apply. Yoghurt and cultured milk functions the same, but the QC is higher and the conditions are more strict, so there is less problems, but in a mixture it functions the same, and should be treated the same like yoghurt and cultured milk drinks. Storage at room temperature the lifespan is very short that requireds preservatives, without it must be stored in cold storage. The risks for soya bean milk products is negligible because it does not comes from the cow, so the lifespan is very much longer.
– Contributed by Oogle. 

Pre-nuptial agreement laws in Singapore

By Alicea Tan
Love is amorphous and indeterminate. But this has not stopped many couples contemplating marriage from putting down their love in exact terms in a pre-nuptial agreement. A pre-nuptial agreement is a contract entered into before marriage and can govern a wide range of aspects within married life. A couple can dictate where they should live, when they should have sex, when they should conceive and how many children they are to have. Couples may also include “force-majeure” clauses dictating how the matrimonial assets should be divided, how much a spouse should receive in maintenance when the marriage breaks down or terms for the forfeiture of assets should either party commit adultery[1].
Are pre-nuptial agreements legal? Singapore has yet to officially legalise pre-nuptial agreements. But in 2009, the Singapore Court of Appeal affirmed the legality of a pre-nuptial agreement executed by a married couple before a Dutch civil law notary in 1991 before the couple moved to live in Singapore, where the couple agreed not to have any community of property[2]. Under the law regulating marriages in Singapore, in the absence of contrary intention, there is a presumption of joint ownership of matrimonial property. The effect of this pre-nuptial agreement was to constitute the required evidence of contrary intention between the parties to displace the presumption such that in the event of a divorce and granting of a decree nisi, there would be no division of matrimonial property. The marriage eventually broke down and the trial judge, honoured the pre-nuptial agreement and made no order as to division of matrimonial property. However, the disgruntled wife appealed to the highest court asserting her rights to division of matrimonial property under s.112 of the Women’s Charter (“The Act”). The Court of Appeal judges were not persuaded. They upheld the lower court’s ruling and confirmed that pre-nuptial agreements were part of Singapore law that co-existed with The Act. It was a contract formed between consenting parties and in the absence of any unconscionability or vitiating factors, the Court saw no reason to deny the validity of the pre-nuptial agreement.
Nonetheless, couples would be misguided to think that they are free to dictate all terms of their married life. An important distinction between a pre-nuptial agreement and a commercial contract is that when considering whether or not to give effect to a pre-nuptial agreement, courts are caught in the tension between two competing policies of freedom of contracts and the public regulation of married life under family law. For this reason, the Court of Appeal has emphasized that insofar as The Act expressly covers a certain category of prenuptial agreement, those provisions would be the governing law. And even where The Act is silent regarding the maintenance of children, the courts would be especially vigilant and slow to enforce agreements that are apparently not in the best interests of the child or children concerned.[3]
The courts have imposed other limits to a couple’s freedom to draft pre-nuptial agreements. Singapore courts have confirmed that a pre-nuptial agreement that seeks to negate the marriage is unquestionably against public policy and void. In 1917, a couple in England sought to challenge the limits of law and policy in the often-cited case of Brodie v. Brodie[4]. The woman was expecting a child and the father agreed to the marriage on the condition that the woman signed a contract stating that he could live separately from her after the marriage, as though they were unmarried. The wife had to promise never to compel him to live with her. Such a pre-nuptial agreement was met with abhorrence in both the UK and Singapore courts. The husband was seeking to use the pre-nuptial agreement to resile from the marriage and evade his marital obligations altogether[5], not to mention his moral obligations. Such an agreement was ‘inherently wrong’, and if implemented and enforced, ‘would make a mockery of the law regulating marriages’[6].
Terms of the pre-nuptial agreement are also required to be fair and reasonable. Pre-nuptial agreements have been recognized for its protective function of a spouse’s financial assets, especially if one spouse is significantly wealthier than the other. Unsurprisingly, they have been used frequently by wealthy men who have much to lose should their marriages end in divorce and the court orders a just and equitable distribution of matrimonial property under s.112 of The Act. But courts will deny parties the desired protection of their wealth if the terms of the agreement were only beneficial to one spouse and detrimental to the other, raising an inference that the agreement was procured through bad faith[7], for example through trickery or undue influence, where there was no competent consent to the agreement given by the other spouse. Although wives have not had much luck alleging trickery in the local courts[8], but in a case where the spouse in question is not well-educated or is ignorant in financial matters, it is highly probable that the agreement will be treated as void. Hence, a spouse who wishes to enforce the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement is well advised to ensure that the other party receives independent legal advice and enters into the agreement with open eyes.
Terms in the pre-nuptial agreement may become inoperative through other means as well. For example, an unfortunate accident rendering one spouse unable to work and maintain him or herself, would cause the courts to seriously reconsider enforcing a term regarding the maintenance of a spouse, which was drafted under radically different circumstances where the spouse was still capable of maintaining him or herself. A couple may also voluntarily terminate the pre-nuptial agreement at any time by including a ‘sunset provision’ which typically nullifies the pre-nuptial agreement upon a significant event such as the birth of a child. Alternatively, the agreement could simply be allowed to expire after a designated number of years, in reasonable and realistic expectation that the couple is going to have a long married life together.
Unmoved by the functional utility of pre-nuptial agreements, critics and romantics are repulsed by the notion of preparing for the end of a marriage even before it is entered into. It is also demeaning to spell out the sacred love between a couple in cold terms via a transaction made at arm’s length. While noting the emotional appeal of such criticisms, the number of divorces in Singapore has been on the rise and when love takes a turn, couples would be relieved to be spared the hassle of fighting over matrimonial assets while dealing with the emotions of a divorce. Like the Troggs sing every Christmas, “Love is all around”. Perhaps this might be true, but couples contemplating marriage are well advised to read the fine print.
Drafting the rules ;
1) Allowance
up to S$10k a month until death but only S$1k if divorced.

2) Cannot sell matrimonial home, can use or pass it on to child, if no children, the closest relative as beneficiary. This rule will be forever.
3) You can chose to work for institutions only approved by me, but can keep 100% of your salary.
4) In the event of adultery, you do not even have the rights to live or any claims against the matrimonial home, only a S$1k allowance for life.
5) The wife is not expected to pay for anything, in the event of accident or death, the foundation will take over.
6) The foundation will not have any family members as directors.
7) Nobody can buy insurance for me.
8) Everything will be taken care of, even the needs and education of the children, up to marriageable age, thereafter they are on their own.
– Contributed by Oogle.

Itanium servers will take off once you are able to create software to port from x86 to Itanium architecture

By Noel Randewich

SAN FRANCISCO | Thu Nov 8, 2012 2:00pm EST

(Reuters) – Intel and Hewlett-Packard Co unveiled new server technology based on the high-end niche Itanium processors at the center of a recent dispute between Hewlett-Packard and Oracle Corp.
The future of servers built with Itanium chips was thrown into doubt last year due to a bitter legal battle between long-time partners HP and Oracle and it remains unclear to some experts even after a California state court judge ruled in favor of HP.
Intel and HP held a news conference on Thursday announcing the availability of the newest version of Itanium and introducing new HP servers using the chips.
HP will keep offering its customers choices between servers based on heavy-duty Itanium chips and Intel’s more widely used “x86” chips, said Ric Lewis, vice president and interim general manager of HP’s Business Critical Systems.
Rory McInerney, vice president of Intel’s architecture group said that future Itanium chips would be built using some of the key features found in the company’s more widely used Xeon server processors. He did not say when future chips would be released.
Once envisioned as a high-end processor that could become pervasive across the server industry, Itanium suffered a series of setbacks and was eventually overtaken by 64-bit chips based on Intel’s x86 architecture, which is now widely used in the PC industry. Software created for x86 servers is not compatible with Itanium servers, which are mostly sold by HP.
In August, a California state court judge ruled in favor of HP and against Oracle over the latter’s decision to end support for servers HP makes using Itanium chips.
Oracle has since said it would support Itanium servers.
The dispute began after Oracle bought Sun Microsystems, which put Oracle into the server hardware business in competition against its partner, HP.
Oracle had said it would no longer make new versions of its database software compatible with Itanium servers because the chip family was nearing the end of its life.
Asked about the long-term viability of Itanium chips in an industry where x86 is dominant, Intel’s McInerney said, “I think that whole thing was litigated and I think the message back is that Oracle is supporting Itanium.”
Codenamed Paulson, the new Itanium 9500 has up to 2.4 times the performance of the previous generation, has twice as many cores and consumes less power, McInerney said.
HP’s Itanium-based servers are mostly used by large corporations with rigorous computing needs.
(Reporting By Noel Randewich; Editing by Bernard Orr)