I don't know of any he ended - he followed the game plan in Iraq that was already laid out. If you don't think carpet bombing is starting a war, you'll have to acknowledge he started a terrorist action in Libya. At least in that case the only boots on the ground were mercenaries and CIA. Obama was in office when the war against the American people started in earnest, when they started openly killing American citizens (and their children) without charges or trial (Holder just says "Well due process doesn't mean judicial process" - whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean), and Panetta sat in front of Congress and said that the military start killing people anywhere in the world any time they want without needing permission, but "We may inform Congress about it later".
When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
DuBois?
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Which is brings to mind another old canard: "Politics makes strange bedfellows."
Verily 'tis tough to vision the owners as hapless, guiltless martyrs as they use visual reproductions from the features in their marketing materials ans stuff... that is only leaving the door open to conflict.
So your entire argument that ACORN was corrupt was because on person in one office was found guilty of voter registration fraud?
Math not your forte, huh? 7 != 1. That's also NOT the "entire argument". There was fraud, failure to meet grant requirements, failure to account for spending, failure to follow agreements.
On a side note, they were in fact found not guilty.
That's ONE case in ONE state. Out of hundreds of offices that received $48 million in public dollars, most of which went to primarily partisan activities. If, say, Tea Party Coalition of America got $48 million in Federal money and couldn't say how they spent it, would you be like "Oh, that's not an issue because only 7 people plead guilty to crimes, and the organization was acquitted, so it's all good!"???
they did not prove that ACORN was in any way attempting some systemic scheme to create voter fraud.
But what is CLEAR is that they were clearly involved in systematic fraud, using taxpayer money for partisan electioneering, that went so far that some people indicted and plead guilty of criminal misconduct, while others were sanctioned with civil penalties, and MANY were cut off for failing to account for the spending of Federal monies.
By the time the GAO report clearing the organization of any wrongdoing
Mischaracterization of the highest order. The GAO didn't "clear" the organization, they identified many issues, but simply identified that most (but not all) criminal complaints did not present enough evidence for prosecution. In addition, the report also said there was no way to tell whether their spending was illegal because their accounting practices were so shoddy and money was slushing everywhere that no one could trace it. And that was probably intentional. A few choice quotes:
Audits conducted by inspector
general offices or the internal audit unit at six of the agencies
supplemented agency monitoring and identified issues regarding the
organizations’ use and documentation of funding—-such as lack of
proper recording and accounting for how funds were spent—-that were
not detected by the agency
One of the eight cases and investigations
identified by the Department of Justice resulted in guilty pleas by
eight defendants to voter registration fraud and seven were closed
without action due to insufficient, or a lack of, evidence. The
Federal Election Commission (FEC) reported five closed matters; for
one, the FEC reached a conciliation agreement with a penalty.
Hardly "cleared" - there was enough wrongdoing for prosecutions. ACORN was a clearly partisan organization and received $48 million in taxpayer funding during the period in review. That's bad enough by itself, but in addition to the above, there were other clear indications that ACORN organizations were violating rules. There are a number of observations like this:
HUD reported this award was terminated due to the grantee's
failure to effectively manage and monitor the project
HUD reported this award was terminated before any activities were
completed due to inaccuracies in the grant agreement and negotiation
difficulties.
A total of $42,554 was disbursed before the award was canceled
because of noncompliance with reporting requirements.
According to NeighborWorks' internal audit and letter from MHDC,
this subaward was terminated by the Commission due to non-compliance
with the agreement by the subawardee. AHCOA [this is an ACORN organization that changed its name] has disputed this claim,
stating that the termination was mutually agreed upon.
And perhaps most damning was this:
All 5
agencies that completed audits of direct awards identified problems
with the way ACORN or a potentially related organization managed
federal funds, with the lack of proper recording and accounting for
how funds were spent by the grantees being the primary problems
identified. For example, the EAC Inspector General found that Project
Vote's use of federal funds was not accounted for or properly recorded
and recommended that EAC recover all unsupported and unallowable costs
paid to Project Vote under the grant.
"This is my worry: the homeless turned not just into walking, talking hotspots, but walking, talking billboards for a program that doesn’t care anything at all about them or their future..."
I don't get why that's a worry. The homeless are providing a service, which makes the productive members of society, and should provide them with a little self-respect. So what if the program doesn't care anything at all about them or their future? How is that different from the situation that almost every wage slave on planet earth - they're all providing a service for a company that pays them for it, and I don't think there are many employees that are under the impression that the company they work for is doing because the "care about them."
This program just does for the homeless the same thing that almost every company and government employee does to people: turns them into human resources.
Yes, Okay, I should have read your entire post before expounding on the issues - I mixed up some things there. If this vague statute (that you won't quote) does restrict local LEO as you describe in the unknown state where you claim to live, then certainly there are [some number] of police activities typically taken that do not occur in your state in the same manner.
DUNN was based on a DEA case, but that is actually irrelevant - the point is that it defined a narrow definition of when privacy can be expected under the 4th Amendment, and your fully-surrounding privacy fence does seem to qualify in that 4-point test. But, of course, the other cases involving fly-over to defeat a privacy fence means there are other means to view your private property that are not considered searches requiring warrants, and would absolutely apply to the drone surveillance under discussion in this article. That is, unless if your nebulous state statute works as described, they are under control of the local police. Of course, if that's the case, they would always simply "request assistance" from the Federal authorities that own and control the drones, and the effect is the same.
I was assuming you live in one of the states in the United States of America, since the thread originated with the discussion of the US Constitution.
but if you paid attention at all, it should be obvious they are different here than in California.
I'm supposed to pay attention to laws in some state or other country without you even mentioning where that might be?
As I clearly stated, surveillance is illegal without a warrant, completely without regard to whether is being done from a "public" viewpoint.
You must live in a really strange place (Aruba?) because surveillance is constantly done without a warrant. It's typically a precursor to obtaining probably cause for a warrant.
And also without regard to whether it violates the 4th Amendment, as considered in CIRAOLO, since it is a specific, more restrictive State law that does not rely on 4th Amendment for its justification.
Oh, I see - you're ranting in ignorance. CIRAOLO is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States. It makes rulings on the Constitutionality of laws and their enforcement throughout the entire country. You see, the defense tried to argue that the police action violated the 4th Amendment, and the Supreme Court of the United States (a.k.a. SCOTUS) said it did not. That ruling, then, applies to ALL states in the United States. Get it?
Similarly, FLORIDA v. RILEY is also irrelevant because the officer engaged in behavior that is clearly in violation of our state statutes governing surveillance. As I clearly explained. I don't live in Florida.
Interesting. Since you seem disinclined to mention which state that may be, I must assume you are correct (probably not, considering, but I'll assume so since I can't check). But that doesn't keep Federal law enforcement (like the DEA) from doing the same thing, since Federal laws have primacy, and since the 30,000 drones authorized recently in the FAA bill will be Federally controlled.
And finally, US v. DUNN is a decision about a situation that is completely different from what I described, and in fact would not have contradicted the situation that I described, at all. Not only was the situation physically, totally different, but the officers in question already had warrants to be conducting at least some forms of surveillance.
Once again, you don't understand the legal theory in question. All it did is define when some areas OUTSIDE of the walls of your house are provided an "expectation of privacy". The answer, in short, is "almost never". It completely covers the situation you described, because police can be anywhere they want to be, and if they want to say they weren't conducting surveillance, all they have to do is say "No, I just happened to be there."
Also, it should be noted that US. v. DUNN directly contradicts the reasoning of the solid minority opinion of the Supreme Court in the recent US v. JONES decision.
No, not really. JONES only said that installing the GPS device AND tracking the car resulted in a technical trespass. Either one of these alone is NOT. They already decided that your yard and porch and environs can be entered without a technical trespass, so it doesn't change anything about the DUNN precedent.
At the same time, you have completely ignored my own explanation of our specific state statutes.
I didn't really ignore it, but your claim is... incredible. And you've offered no evidence to support it.
What I stated was that the police cannot come onto my property without official business or other legal "cause", according to State statute.
Wait - is that all it says? Really? Well that sounds pretty worthless. "Conducting an investigation" i
Not at all. Your own personal desire for privacy on your property does not make law, regardless of how outraged you may be at the situation. I'll simply point to a few cases such as CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO which held it legal for police to fly an airplane over someone's yard to get a look above the privacy fences, and the similar case FLORIDA v. RILEY which held that a helicopter fly-over that allowed observation through the openings in a green house did not require a warrant. Perhaps the most instructive case would be US v. DUNN, which sets extremely narrow definition of "curtilage" of a home - the area where you may have an expectation of privacy. This is a US Supreme Court decision, so note that it applies to your state, too. In Dunn, even a perimeter fence and another interior fence were crossed by DEA agents, and the SCOTUS held that this intrusion was perfectly reasonable, and the owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas.
They can knock on the door if they have official business but they may not walk up to my door in order to conduct any kind of search or surveillance without cause
That is entirely the opposite of the findings of the SCOTUS. The 8th Circuit court stated it this way:
Whether a police officer has commenced a “search” turns not on his subjective intent to conduct a search and seizure, but rather whether he has in fact invaded an area which the defendant harbors a reasonable expectation of privacy (US v REED).
Your porch or approach to the front door is pretty much NEVER considered a private area, and it doesn't matter at all WHY an officer is there. He can be there for any reason or none at all. So your legal theory is not one that is accepted by the courts.
They have NO presumed right or "invitation" to come onto my property at any time, regardless of the presence of any drive or walkway, or even "open house" signs on the front lawn. NONE. It simply doesn't exist.
Sorry, but the courts don't care. Police and LEO are allowed to enter these areas at any time and for any purpose, the entire point being that you do not have any "expectation of privacy" in those areas. Your theory here that they require some "presumed right" to enter those areas is simply not recognized by any court or law enforcement anywhere in the entire country. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you - it seems you're going to be really upset about it.
At least you found out now, instead of when you tried to actually assert this idea in court or with the police.
coming onto my property to sniff directly at my home is trespassing on my property if done without a warrant, making any evidence inadmissible
There is already ample case law that makes "your property" completely navigable and searchable by law enforcement. The prevailing legal theory is that having a walkway, a front door, a facade, etc., makes your front yard and environs an "invitation" to the public to approach the house. So you can't stop the police from wandering on your property and checking out the outside without a privacy fence completely surrounding your house and a locked gate at the driveway.
Everything going on in that region can be traced back to the pipelines. There is billions of dollars to be made. Natural gas is really cheap right now, there is lots of it, so the strategy is to destroy everybody else's pipeline so you can charge monopoly prices for transmission in yours. The US military is used for these energy companies. They are still in Afghanistan because it's an important transmission route for gas and oil. There is bombing and fighting is Homs Syria because that's where the construction of the Arab pipeline is stalled. The US is now supporting the TIPA pipeline, which will go through Afghanistan. The competition would be the TI pipeline, which is the real reason for all the saber rattled over Iran.
i remember the book because humanity was fighting against a much superior race of "invaders". when humanity "won", they left... but the parting words were something to the effect of "we are leaving because you are not worthy".
I read that one too - very memorable ending, almost made it seem like a bitter victory. Wasn't it an Arthur C. Clarke novel?
Umm... that would be Heir of Sea and Fire, and I second the recommendation. Patricia A. McKillip is one of the very few female authors that I actually like (don't blame me - I have really tried to read many female authors, but almost all fail for my taste). If you do like McKillip, you'll probably also enjoy Ursula K. Le Guin. The Wizard of Earthsea stuff is really good, and most of her other stuff is worth reading, too.
I remember reading both of those in school (late 1970's). Enjoyed both, but The Worm Ouroboros was the one that actually was memorable, as in, so unique and impactful that I remember it 30 years later. Not sure it's what I would consider "forgotten", although Lord Dunsany's stuff probably is. I happened upon The Worm Ouroboros from literary references used by authors in later generations. Steven R. Donaldson used references to it in the original Thomas Covenant series, IIRC.
There's some old stuff by David Gerrold I can recommend. His most popular is the "War Against the Chtorr" series, which is worth reading, if you haven't. But IMHO his best work was "The Man Who Folded Himself". Short read but really insightful bit of work.
Is there any reason why NASA can't start working out a 'asteroid impact playbook' right now instead of scrambling to make one when the big one does come, even if it's not this one? I fail to see how that would be a worse use of taxpayer dollars than, say, the shuttle program was.
That said, I do like having music in 192/24. Why? Because I can play with it. I can edit it, there's more headroom.
Right, and this is the point that the article entirely ignored. I'm usually listening to a lot of live stuff, and often encode to 44.1/16 (lossless) for listening, which works fine. But so much work goes into many of the recordings, if the source is 192/24, that's what gets archived and maintained.
I don't buy TFA's claim about 192kHz introducing distortion effects, from my experience that is totally false.
It's actually even worse than that. As illustrated by the Red Yeast Rice discovery, the FDA will even effectively ban natural, healthful products in order to protect the pharmaceutical's industry's ability to market expensive, patented alternatives.
You are very wrong, the goals of standard and alternative medicine are completely different.
Standard medicine is there to improve the health of man kind
Alternative medicine is there to improve the wealth of man;
I have to assume you're not referring to the pharmaceutical industry in your description of "standard medicine" (maybe it often falls into the "alternative medicine" category). I think there is plenty of evidence that,
1) Drugs are marketed and sold that do more harm than good in order to profit from them, and
2) High-quality clinical trials are so expensive that they are almost never conducted unless there is a patent involved.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know of any he ended - he followed the game plan in Iraq that was already laid out. If you don't think carpet bombing is starting a war, you'll have to acknowledge he started a terrorist action in Libya. At least in that case the only boots on the ground were mercenaries and CIA. Obama was in office when the war against the American people started in earnest, when they started openly killing American citizens (and their children) without charges or trial (Holder just says "Well due process doesn't mean judicial process" - whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean), and Panetta sat in front of Congress and said that the military start killing people anywhere in the world any time they want without needing permission, but "We may inform Congress about it later".
Well, if you want to get technical about it, then I guess you have to say Hillary started it.
Why do I/we need to do this to remain in power, again?
Because you keep electing warmongers like Bush and Obama that would rather destroy the earth than cede one iota of control...
Yea, I'm pretty sure Clay stole it. Which is not surprising - he was a corrupt con artist and would steal anything - and often did.
Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?
Not anymore. Now it's "due process is not the same as judicial process", and you are free to go about your business until we drone you.
When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
DuBois?
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Which is brings to mind another old canard: "Politics makes strange bedfellows."
Verily 'tis tough to vision the owners as hapless, guiltless martyrs as they use visual reproductions from the features in their marketing materials ans stuff... that is only leaving the door open to conflict.
So your entire argument that ACORN was corrupt was because on person in one office was found guilty of voter registration fraud?
Math not your forte, huh? 7 != 1. That's also NOT the "entire argument". There was fraud, failure to meet grant requirements, failure to account for spending, failure to follow agreements.
On a side note, they were in fact found not guilty.
That's ONE case in ONE state. Out of hundreds of offices that received $48 million in public dollars, most of which went to primarily partisan activities. If, say, Tea Party Coalition of America got $48 million in Federal money and couldn't say how they spent it, would you be like "Oh, that's not an issue because only 7 people plead guilty to crimes, and the organization was acquitted, so it's all good!"???
they did not prove that ACORN was in any way attempting some systemic scheme to create voter fraud.
But what is CLEAR is that they were clearly involved in systematic fraud, using taxpayer money for partisan electioneering, that went so far that some people indicted and plead guilty of criminal misconduct, while others were sanctioned with civil penalties, and MANY were cut off for failing to account for the spending of Federal monies.
By the time the GAO report clearing the organization of any wrongdoing
Mischaracterization of the highest order. The GAO didn't "clear" the organization, they identified many issues, but simply identified that most (but not all) criminal complaints did not present enough evidence for prosecution. In addition, the report also said there was no way to tell whether their spending was illegal because their accounting practices were so shoddy and money was slushing everywhere that no one could trace it. And that was probably intentional. A few choice quotes:
Hardly "cleared" - there was enough wrongdoing for prosecutions. ACORN was a clearly partisan organization and received $48 million in taxpayer funding during the period in review. That's bad enough by itself, but in addition to the above, there were other clear indications that ACORN organizations were violating rules. There are a number of observations like this:
And perhaps most damning was this:
FTFA:
I don't get why that's a worry. The homeless are providing a service, which makes the productive members of society, and should provide them with a little self-respect. So what if the program doesn't care anything at all about them or their future? How is that different from the situation that almost every wage slave on planet earth - they're all providing a service for a company that pays them for it, and I don't think there are many employees that are under the impression that the company they work for is doing because the "care about them."
This program just does for the homeless the same thing that almost every company and government employee does to people: turns them into human resources.
Yes, Okay, I should have read your entire post before expounding on the issues - I mixed up some things there. If this vague statute (that you won't quote) does restrict local LEO as you describe in the unknown state where you claim to live, then certainly there are [some number] of police activities typically taken that do not occur in your state in the same manner.
DUNN was based on a DEA case, but that is actually irrelevant - the point is that it defined a narrow definition of when privacy can be expected under the 4th Amendment, and your fully-surrounding privacy fence does seem to qualify in that 4-point test. But, of course, the other cases involving fly-over to defeat a privacy fence means there are other means to view your private property that are not considered searches requiring warrants, and would absolutely apply to the drone surveillance under discussion in this article. That is, unless if your nebulous state statute works as described, they are under control of the local police. Of course, if that's the case, they would always simply "request assistance" from the Federal authorities that own and control the drones, and the effect is the same.
CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO has no bearing in my state.
I was assuming you live in one of the states in the United States of America, since the thread originated with the discussion of the US Constitution.
but if you paid attention at all, it should be obvious they are different here than in California.
I'm supposed to pay attention to laws in some state or other country without you even mentioning where that might be?
As I clearly stated, surveillance is illegal without a warrant, completely without regard to whether is being done from a "public" viewpoint.
You must live in a really strange place (Aruba?) because surveillance is constantly done without a warrant. It's typically a precursor to obtaining probably cause for a warrant.
And also without regard to whether it violates the 4th Amendment, as considered in CIRAOLO, since it is a specific, more restrictive State law that does not rely on 4th Amendment for its justification.
Oh, I see - you're ranting in ignorance. CIRAOLO is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States. It makes rulings on the Constitutionality of laws and their enforcement throughout the entire country. You see, the defense tried to argue that the police action violated the 4th Amendment, and the Supreme Court of the United States (a.k.a. SCOTUS) said it did not. That ruling, then, applies to ALL states in the United States. Get it?
Similarly, FLORIDA v. RILEY is also irrelevant because the officer engaged in behavior that is clearly in violation of our state statutes governing surveillance. As I clearly explained. I don't live in Florida.
Interesting. Since you seem disinclined to mention which state that may be, I must assume you are correct (probably not, considering, but I'll assume so since I can't check). But that doesn't keep Federal law enforcement (like the DEA) from doing the same thing, since Federal laws have primacy, and since the 30,000 drones authorized recently in the FAA bill will be Federally controlled.
And finally, US v. DUNN is a decision about a situation that is completely different from what I described, and in fact would not have contradicted the situation that I described, at all. Not only was the situation physically, totally different, but the officers in question already had warrants to be conducting at least some forms of surveillance.
Once again, you don't understand the legal theory in question. All it did is define when some areas OUTSIDE of the walls of your house are provided an "expectation of privacy". The answer, in short, is "almost never". It completely covers the situation you described, because police can be anywhere they want to be, and if they want to say they weren't conducting surveillance, all they have to do is say "No, I just happened to be there."
Also, it should be noted that US. v. DUNN directly contradicts the reasoning of the solid minority opinion of the Supreme Court in the recent US v. JONES decision.
No, not really. JONES only said that installing the GPS device AND tracking the car resulted in a technical trespass. Either one of these alone is NOT. They already decided that your yard and porch and environs can be entered without a technical trespass, so it doesn't change anything about the DUNN precedent.
At the same time, you have completely ignored my own explanation of our specific state statutes.
I didn't really ignore it, but your claim is ... incredible. And you've offered no evidence to support it.
What I stated was that the police cannot come onto my property without official business or other legal "cause", according to State statute.
Wait - is that all it says? Really? Well that sounds pretty worthless. "Conducting an investigation" i
Complete horseshit.
Not at all. Your own personal desire for privacy on your property does not make law, regardless of how outraged you may be at the situation. I'll simply point to a few cases such as CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO which held it legal for police to fly an airplane over someone's yard to get a look above the privacy fences, and the similar case FLORIDA v. RILEY which held that a helicopter fly-over that allowed observation through the openings in a green house did not require a warrant. Perhaps the most instructive case would be US v. DUNN, which sets extremely narrow definition of "curtilage" of a home - the area where you may have an expectation of privacy. This is a US Supreme Court decision, so note that it applies to your state, too. In Dunn, even a perimeter fence and another interior fence were crossed by DEA agents, and the SCOTUS held that this intrusion was perfectly reasonable, and the owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas.
They can knock on the door if they have official business but they may not walk up to my door in order to conduct any kind of search or surveillance without cause
That is entirely the opposite of the findings of the SCOTUS. The 8th Circuit court stated it this way:
Your porch or approach to the front door is pretty much NEVER considered a private area, and it doesn't matter at all WHY an officer is there. He can be there for any reason or none at all. So your legal theory is not one that is accepted by the courts.
They have NO presumed right or "invitation" to come onto my property at any time, regardless of the presence of any drive or walkway, or even "open house" signs on the front lawn. NONE. It simply doesn't exist.
Sorry, but the courts don't care. Police and LEO are allowed to enter these areas at any time and for any purpose, the entire point being that you do not have any "expectation of privacy" in those areas. Your theory here that they require some "presumed right" to enter those areas is simply not recognized by any court or law enforcement anywhere in the entire country. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you - it seems you're going to be really upset about it.
At least you found out now, instead of when you tried to actually assert this idea in court or with the police.
None of these seem terribly far-fetched as regulations on the Internet...
But they do seem terribly tyrannical.
coming onto my property to sniff directly at my home is trespassing on my property if done without a warrant, making any evidence inadmissible
There is already ample case law that makes "your property" completely navigable and searchable by law enforcement. The prevailing legal theory is that having a walkway, a front door, a facade, etc., makes your front yard and environs an "invitation" to the public to approach the house. So you can't stop the police from wandering on your property and checking out the outside without a privacy fence completely surrounding your house and a locked gate at the driveway.
Everything going on in that region can be traced back to the pipelines. There is billions of dollars to be made. Natural gas is really cheap right now, there is lots of it, so the strategy is to destroy everybody else's pipeline so you can charge monopoly prices for transmission in yours. The US military is used for these energy companies. They are still in Afghanistan because it's an important transmission route for gas and oil. There is bombing and fighting is Homs Syria because that's where the construction of the Arab pipeline is stalled. The US is now supporting the TIPA pipeline, which will go through Afghanistan. The competition would be the TI pipeline, which is the real reason for all the saber rattled over Iran.
Here's a clue: Why is Gohmert trying to carve out an independent province in Pakistan? Because that's where the TAPI pipeline would be built through. The Pakistanis are rightfully pissed about it.
i remember the book because humanity was fighting against a much superior race of "invaders". when humanity "won", they left... but the parting words were something to the effect of "we are leaving because you are not worthy".
I read that one too - very memorable ending, almost made it seem like a bitter victory. Wasn't it an Arthur C. Clarke novel?
Umm... that would be Heir of Sea and Fire, and I second the recommendation. Patricia A. McKillip is one of the very few female authors that I actually like (don't blame me - I have really tried to read many female authors, but almost all fail for my taste). If you do like McKillip, you'll probably also enjoy Ursula K. Le Guin. The Wizard of Earthsea stuff is really good, and most of her other stuff is worth reading, too.
Do not read if you are homophobic.
Is it okay to read if I'm a bi-curious male?
I remember reading both of those in school (late 1970's). Enjoyed both, but The Worm Ouroboros was the one that actually was memorable, as in, so unique and impactful that I remember it 30 years later. Not sure it's what I would consider "forgotten", although Lord Dunsany's stuff probably is. I happened upon The Worm Ouroboros from literary references used by authors in later generations. Steven R. Donaldson used references to it in the original Thomas Covenant series, IIRC.
There's some old stuff by David Gerrold I can recommend. His most popular is the "War Against the Chtorr" series, which is worth reading, if you haven't. But IMHO his best work was "The Man Who Folded Himself". Short read but really insightful bit of work.
Didn't SyFy channel do one of their made-for-tv miniseries movies based on that. River World?
Is there any reason why NASA can't start working out a 'asteroid impact playbook' right now instead of scrambling to make one when the big one does come, even if it's not this one? I fail to see how that would be a worse use of taxpayer dollars than, say, the shuttle program was.
Oh, you mean like this one?
That said, I do like having music in 192/24. Why? Because I can play with it. I can edit it, there's more headroom.
Right, and this is the point that the article entirely ignored. I'm usually listening to a lot of live stuff, and often encode to 44.1/16 (lossless) for listening, which works fine. But so much work goes into many of the recordings, if the source is 192/24, that's what gets archived and maintained.
I don't buy TFA's claim about 192kHz introducing distortion effects, from my experience that is totally false.
It's actually even worse than that. As illustrated by the Red Yeast Rice discovery, the FDA will even effectively ban natural, healthful products in order to protect the pharmaceutical's industry's ability to market expensive, patented alternatives.
You are very wrong, the goals of standard and alternative medicine are completely different.
Standard medicine is there to improve the health of man kind
Alternative medicine is there to improve the wealth of man;
I have to assume you're not referring to the pharmaceutical industry in your description of "standard medicine" (maybe it often falls into the "alternative medicine" category). I think there is plenty of evidence that,