text: Yes. The Plaintiff showed a past history of domestic violence and coupled with many other factors, showed she was not safe.
  The judge must take into account the previous history of the domestic violence between the parties and whether immediate danger to the person or property is present.
  In reversing and remanding for entry of a FRO, finding it significant that the violence resumed on the very first night of the parties “reconciliation,” and after the defendant had made assurances he would not engage in further acts. See S.D. v. M.J.R., 415 N.J. Super. 417, 440 (App. Div. 2010). Here, the harassment did not occur the very next day, however it did occur within a month of the mutual dismissal of cross-TRO’s and the voluntary agreement not to have any contact.
  The judge’s determination was conclusory and not based in the facts, ignoring the Plaintiff’s testimony and the pictures. The judge’s silence on the issue does not credit defendant’s general denial of any physical violence. No credibility determination was made by the judge for either party. It is also of note that the Defendant began harassing Plaintiff “shortly on the heels” of the October 17, 2011 mutual dismissal of the cross TRO’s. Silver does not require defendant to live next door to defendant or even reside in the same town, so the Judge considering that was in error.
  A judge considering a complaint for a domestic violence restraining order has a “two-fold” task: (1) the judge must determine whether the plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that one or more of the predicate acts set for in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19a has occurred and (2) whether a domestic violence retraining order is necessary to protect a plaintiff from immediate danger or further acts of domestic violence.Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 126, 128 (App. Div. 2006) Whether a restraining order should be issued depends on the seriousness of the predicaete offense, see Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 402, on “the previous history of the domestic violence between the plaintiff and the defendant including previous threats, harassment and physical abuse, and on whether immediate danger to the person or property is present.Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243, 248 (App. Div. 1995). See also, Peranio v. Peranio, 280 N.J. Super. 47, 54 (App. Div. 1995); N.J.S.A 2C:25-29(a).
  
  GLOBALFOUNDRIES® (GF®) announced a strategic partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to provide a secure and reliable supply of semiconductor solutions manufactured at GF’s Fab 8 in Malta, N.Y., the company’s most advanced semiconductor manufacturing facility. These semiconductor chips will be used in some of the DoD's most sensitive applications for land, air, sea and space systems.
  Under the agreement, GF will provide a supply of chips built at Fab 8 on its differentiated 45nm SOI platform. The agreement is made possible by Fab 8’s compliance with U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations and highly restrictive Export Control Classification Numbers under the Export Administration Regulations.
  The new supply agreement builds upon the longstanding partnership between the DoD and GF to provide chips for defense, aerospace, and other sensitive applications. GF currently supplies the DoD with chips manufactured at GF’s other on-shore facilities, Fab 10 in East Fishkill, N.Y., and Fab 9 in Burlington, Vt.
  “GLOBALFOUNDRIES is a critical part of a domestic semiconductor manufacturing industry that is a requirement for our national security and economic competitiveness,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who successfully passed new federal semiconductor manufacturing incentives in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act. “I have long advocated for GLOBALFOUNDRIES as a key supplier of chips to our military and intelligence community, including pressing the new Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, to further expand the Department of Defense’s business with GLOBALFOUNDRIES, which will help expand their manufacturing operations and create even more jobs in Malta.”
  In a supporting statement from the U.S. Department of Defense, “This agreement with GLOBALFOUNDRIES is just one step the DoD is taking to ensure the U.S. sustains the microelectronics manufacturing capability necessary for national and economic security. This is a pre-cursor to major efforts contemplated by the recently passed CHIPS for America Act, championed by Senator Charles Schumer, which will allow for the sustainment and on-shoring of U.S. microelectronics capability.”
  
  New for August 2009! Discrete microwave devices are semiconductor components (one or multiple identical components) configured onto a singular part, suitable for integration into a module or board, wihout matching or bias networks. For microwave systems, discrete transistors can be used to build power amplifiers or low noise amplifiers; discrete PIN diodes are often used in switches, discrete Schottky diodes are often used in detectors. Discrete is the opposite of monolithic, as in MMIC. Sometimes more than one device is configued onto a singular die, for example, five Schottky diodes could be on a single chip (to provide some spares). Our definition of discrete encompasses this type of device as well.
  Make sure you don't misspell "discrete" and not "discreet" or your presentation will be greeted with giggles, because the other word is used in sentences like "discreet encounters". Hubba hubba!