Problem is that second fact of yours isn't one. This issue isn't one where the behavior is the same on both sides of the aisle.
I'm a librarian, and I've been on the other end of a few attempts at book bans, and have probably heard more about them than most non-librarians. I have never seen nor heard an account of an "overly liberal parent" who objects to "books that they consider too racist or insensitive" to the point that --and this is an important distinction-- said person demands to have a book removed from a collection and made unavailable to students/people/kids.
I've never seen this behavior, I've never heard of it, and your own links don't provide even any anecdotal references to it. Your second link does describe how many liberals will often stock their libraries with books that support their own worldview, and how they will push to have these books included on school reading lists. That might be true enough, but it is absolutely inaccurate to equate this with book banning/censorship, as the article does. Sure, it is advocating one's own world view. However showing preference to certain books is very, very different from removing access to certain books. Only one of these things is censorship.
Book banning is censorship, and it is a typical (and a stereotypical) conservative solution, not a liberal one.
Both of those countries were already on the nuclear path by 2003. It's not as if North Korea went from no-nuclear-weapon-program to successful-nuke-test in the span of 3 years. And Iran has been building facilities, shopping for plans, and mining uranium since the early 1990's.
The axis of evil speech was certainly a catalyst for increased activity, but both of those countries had already been walking on the nuclear path for years before it.
I'd like to propose an amendment to this bill that expands the requirements to every state employee who has to get the standard DOJ/FBI background security check that requires fingerprints.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to direct the very same concerns that concluded with this bill at the security screening process for state government employees as part of an enhanced standard background check. Do that, and it would go a long way toward addressing my concerns with this bill.
Privacy issues notwithstanding, I happen to agree that there are mainly legitimate, beneficial uses for tracking DNA just as we do fingerprints. Once the governor, AG, cops, etc are all in the system, I believe they will have a much more of a vested interest in those very same privacy concerns.
Consider your environment -- the women you encountered were those who *go out to the club*. It's not a representative sample. Bands try to project an image of material success and excess; of course this will attract materialistic, controlling people.
I'm lucky enough to work in a field that both (1) attracts a lot of women and (2) has a decent amount of ethnic diversity. The black women I've encountered in my work and personal life, and those that I've dated, do not behave the way you describe.
You should try chatting up the next cute black librarian you encounter, and see if you encounter the same problems.
I take a lot of pictures of inanimate objects that I never share or send, and am amused to think of these shots confusing people. It sounds like you're describing purely functional pics. These are just visual notes-to-self: a pic to remember which parking level my car is on, a picture of an item in a store so I can have the model name/number to more easily comparison shop, pics of parts I need to replace or fix so I make sure I get the correct size, an address or cross street of a location I need to remember, etc. There is no more of an aesthetic approach to a functional pic then there would be to writing a grocery list. I'm often not trying to create some work of art, but this doesn't mean all my confusing pics of random inanimate objects are the result of being brain dead.
Darn, pressed submit too soon. I was fascinated when I first learned that lying is actually a standard part of police interview/interrogation training. "Criminal Interrogations and Confessions" by Inbau gets into the detail of how to usefully manipulate suspects, it's a very interesting read. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45556160 Last time I checked this was available on google books, ymmv.
The constitutional rights don't differ here, so cops don't even need to permit a parent/guardian's presence, not even if the kid directly asks. What's more, the police can *also* knowingly lie to kids, just like they can to adults, with or without a parent/guardian present. The technique of just making shit up on the spot is useful for controlling children's behavior, and is legal. Example: a friend of mine was threatened with arrest for "insubordination" when we were in HS. The cop was lying and he knew it... and that's allowed. My friend didn't know he was lying, so the fake threat of arrest was enough to get the him to stop bothering the cop.
Also, undercover cops do not have to tell a kid that he's a cop even if they ask directly.
I don't want to pay to put someone in jail when they aren't actual a dangerous threat to society.
It seems to me that they are actually a dangerous threat to society. The inevitable consequence of their actions is that *innocent people have been thrown in jail.* Wrongful imprisonment is a terrifying idea, and those who are responsible for it are pretty goddamn dangerous.
At least in the USA police are typically not allowed to interview minors without at least notifying the parents,
That's simply not at all correct. In the US, police can interview minors without parental notification. Often they need to, such as if they are dealing with suspected child abuse.
Also, prison does not have to be unpleasant. In theory, prison can serve both its public safety role --keeping violent criminals away from innocent people-- and (don't laugh) its rehabilitation role without also being intentionally punitive.
It's a common belief that justice = making a guilty party suffer in kind, but that is *exactly* the mentality that turns prisons into nothing more than graduate school for criminals.
if you honestly haven't learned yet that crime for corporate profit or expansion of government power is completely ignored while anyone who challenges the status quo is given life in Federal PMITA prison
"Completely ignored", really? I find that this level of hyperbole detracts from one's credibility, and that's a shame because I agree with your underlying concerns. Honest question: are you aware that there have been an increasing number of successful prosecutions for fraud in the financial sector, particularly insider trading? It just doesn't make great news copy, so maybe it's been off your radar. Even the Raj Rajaratnam case, as major as it was, didn't get all that much coverage.
Is every guilty & corrupt person currently at risk of arrest? Of course not. But it is actually a rather difficult process to investigate and prosecute these kinds of crimes. It requires a lot of resources, expertise, time, and taxpayer money. I get the sense that you'd be very troubled to see the expansion of the justice department that would be necessary to obtain a higher rate of successful prosecution.
I get that you're talking about a playback sampling rate, but it seems to me there are obvious, other musically useful purposes for higher sampling recording rates. Say you're a hummingbird drummer, and each limb can easily drum steady beats from 110 KHz and 440 KHz: three octaves. The tambre of any specific tone, to human ears, would change if you were drumming it on a carpet, rather than drumming it on a snare. Similarly, it would if each hand were drumming on an alternating surface: left on carpet, right on snare.
Increased sampling frequency would allow for an increased combination of surfaces, and the patterns could be either repeating or asymmetric. IOW, it seems as if the greater the sampling frequency, the higher the range of possible tambres.
It matters because it's impressive. It also seems fair to associate some of the positive impression with DragonflyBSD, and I cannot see any downside to throwing good PR at any BSD flavor.
I suspect the porn company is not liability limited and probably has lots of cash. Sue them, and let them sort it out with Flickr.
Under US copyright law, unless Gorman had already registered his copyright on the picture in question, he will be limited to suing only for real (IOW minimal) damages, not punitive damages. It doesn't look like there is much, if any, in the way of real damages here. He would have to have been actively selling the picture, or using it in some other way to directly generate revenue.
Under the US and other WIPO compliant countries (most of them), creative works are copyrighted at the moment of creation. But in the US, if you want the protection of being able to sue someone's pants off for a copyright violation of your pic/book/song/painting/sculpture/computer program, you need to pony up the $65 fee and register your work with the US Copyright Office.
The deeper one looks into this, the more bizarre it looks. The current law is here: http://goo.gl/f0OyQ. Section 14-2 is the real meat of it, its amendments are 94-183 and 91-657, and it was introduced by 79-781.
According to Senator Millner, at the time in 1994 it was actually a class 4 felony for police officers to leave their dashboard cameras running. (pdf, @ page 32 http://goo.gl/sJlf7)
Going back further, the original motivation for the committee that started drafting the bill in 1975 seems to track back to then Senator Partee's mention of a report from the IL State Comptroller which claimed that there were a number of electronic eavesdropping devices unauthorized by any court around and within the State Capitol (pdf page 9 http://goo.gl/vssR9.) The outrageous abuse of this law to prevent police accountability certainly doesn't seem to have been the original intention of the bill at any point down the line, at least from the legislative material I've seen.
Am I the only one who feels the urge to raise a toast to someone who adopted not 1, but 5, children from foster care? Well done.
This. Here here.
Incredible talents can develop from a natural *disinclination* in a skill: see Demosthenes, or Eliza Doolittle. In some cases the intensive & extra effort needed to progress in an area will eventually bear fruit not only later than average, but with a corresponding intensive & extra depth.
The gun works by listening in with a directional microphone, and then, after a short delay of around 0.2 seconds, playing it back with a directional speaker. This triggers an effect that psychologists call Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF), which has long been known to interrupt your speech (you mightâ(TM)ve experienced the same effect if youâ(TM)ve ever heard your own voice echoing through Skype or another voice comms program). According to the researchers, DAF doesnâ(TM)t cause physical discomfort...
Privacy issues aside, as a practical matter the DAF effect can be neutralized with training. What the "gun" does is replay your words back at you with a short delay.
One can quickly get used to speaking through this kind of interference. While it's confusing for common speech, delay is frequently intentionally used in musical contexts. With a delay and a microphone, you can practice talking over yourself until you're used to the interference. It doesn't take long at all to get to the point where DAF will not interrupt your speech..
And since they're blasting a directed audio signal at you, earplugs would reduce or eliminate the effect of the DAF.
While they probably would be glad to assist in Assange's prosecution elsewhere, I believe that a US Attorney only has the authority to indict a person under US federal law. So if the indictment claim is accurate, it must have charged Assange with something that is a crime under US law.
"Stratfor intelligence analysts on January 26 last year, the company's vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks. He wrote: "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."
So Burton, a Stratfor VP, as "a sealed indictment"? Money & influence aside, on one at Stratfor has the power to directly indict anyone. If Burton is telling the truth, it means that someone committed a crime... by leaking a sealed indictment.
So here we have a prosecution team going after Assange for leaking classified information. In the course of doing so, someone on their team has leaked sealed information. Was it some ideological troublemaker, hell-bent on making secret government information public? Sounds like Assange!
Whoever it was, should really go after that person was. You know, for leaking sealed information. Which they seem to believe is a crime.
There certainly are interfaces that are easy to use from 10'+ away: quality wireless keyboards with an integrated cursor control. My screen is over ten feet away and has been for some time. Honestly, it's not advanced wizardry to set one's menu and input font sizes to something readable from a distance.
I currently use a high end wireless keyboard with an integrated mousepad, a Logitech DiNovo Edge. (Cheaper wireless keyboards with an integrated trackballs can do, but I've yet to find one that lasts.) Applications are set to escaped function keys, online streaming sources are prominently bookmarked, and the touch-activated lighted volume slider is an impressive stylistic touch. There is very little need to see and respond to a visual onscreen interface when watching or listening to media, only media selection.
Yes it's a big, thin remote, but I find it far less a PITA than four differently-sized remotes tied to various devices, with overlapping and inconsistent functions.
I've often wondered why a brief post-dump shower isn't as common a part of US cultural bathroom habits as post-dump hand washing is. Residential bathrooms usually have both a toilet and a shower already, so for most situations this would simply involve an adjustment of one's bathroom habits: no additional equipment required. A hand-held shower nozzle can speed things up, but isn't necessary.
A minor criticism; I think your overall idea of increasing the influence of non-profit corps is an excellent one.
First of all, there is not actually a total ban on for-profit business activities to support a non-profit's primary goals. Two ready examples are museum gift shops and girl scout cookies. The current rule is that any commercial activity must be closely related to the organization's non-profit activities.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons (at least in the smaller context of the current US tax scheme) that non-profit corporations are prohibited from "doing business commercially in order to raise money to do their charity work". It's practically a syllogism: doing business commercially to raise money is the very definition of a for-profit enterprise, and these are supposed to be not-for-profit enterprises.
Before this clarification, businesses could and were easily exploiting NFP status to avoid taxes. For example, WalMart could set up a trifling scholarship fund, claim its revenue is intended to further education, and suddenly be free of billions of dollars of income tax obligations.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is that second fact of yours isn't one. This issue isn't one where the behavior is the same on both sides of the aisle.
I'm a librarian, and I've been on the other end of a few attempts at book bans, and have probably heard more about them than most non-librarians. I have never seen nor heard an account of an "overly liberal parent" who objects to "books that they consider too racist or insensitive" to the point that --and this is an important distinction-- said person demands to have a book removed from a collection and made unavailable to students/people/kids.
I've never seen this behavior, I've never heard of it, and your own links don't provide even any anecdotal references to it. Your second link does describe how many liberals will often stock their libraries with books that support their own worldview, and how they will push to have these books included on school reading lists. That might be true enough, but it is absolutely inaccurate to equate this with book banning/censorship, as the article does. Sure, it is advocating one's own world view. However showing preference to certain books is very, very different from removing access to certain books. Only one of these things is censorship.
Book banning is censorship, and it is a typical (and a stereotypical) conservative solution, not a liberal one.
Oblig SNL reference: the All-Drug Olympics. http://www.hulu.com/watch/124975/saturday-night-live-update-all-drug-olympics
Well I'll be... It sounds like the biblical fundamentalists were correct about the ago of the earth, after all.
Both of those countries were already on the nuclear path by 2003. It's not as if North Korea went from no-nuclear-weapon-program to successful-nuke-test in the span of 3 years. And Iran has been building facilities, shopping for plans, and mining uranium since the early 1990's.
The axis of evil speech was certainly a catalyst for increased activity, but both of those countries had already been walking on the nuclear path for years before it.
I'd like to propose an amendment to this bill that expands the requirements to every state employee who has to get the standard DOJ/FBI background security check that requires fingerprints.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to direct the very same concerns that concluded with this bill at the security screening process for state government employees as part of an enhanced standard background check. Do that, and it would go a long way toward addressing my concerns with this bill.
Privacy issues notwithstanding, I happen to agree that there are mainly legitimate, beneficial uses for tracking DNA just as we do fingerprints. Once the governor, AG, cops, etc are all in the system, I believe they will have a much more of a vested interest in those very same privacy concerns.
Consider your environment -- the women you encountered were those who *go out to the club*. It's not a representative sample. Bands try to project an image of material success and excess; of course this will attract materialistic, controlling people.
I'm lucky enough to work in a field that both (1) attracts a lot of women and (2) has a decent amount of ethnic diversity. The black women I've encountered in my work and personal life, and those that I've dated, do not behave the way you describe.
You should try chatting up the next cute black librarian you encounter, and see if you encounter the same problems.
I take a lot of pictures of inanimate objects that I never share or send, and am amused to think of these shots confusing people. It sounds like you're describing purely functional pics. These are just visual notes-to-self: a pic to remember which parking level my car is on, a picture of an item in a store so I can have the model name/number to more easily comparison shop, pics of parts I need to replace or fix so I make sure I get the correct size, an address or cross street of a location I need to remember, etc. There is no more of an aesthetic approach to a functional pic then there would be to writing a grocery list. I'm often not trying to create some work of art, but this doesn't mean all my confusing pics of random inanimate objects are the result of being brain dead.
Darn, pressed submit too soon. I was fascinated when I first learned that lying is actually a standard part of police interview/interrogation training. "Criminal Interrogations and Confessions" by Inbau gets into the detail of how to usefully manipulate suspects, it's a very interesting read. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45556160 Last time I checked this was available on google books, ymmv.
The line varies by state, and I can't speak to every state law. This guide is a readable summary: http://www.ylc.org/pdfs/ChildInterviewonCampus-ParentsRights072007.pdf
The constitutional rights don't differ here, so cops don't even need to permit a parent/guardian's presence, not even if the kid directly asks. What's more, the police can *also* knowingly lie to kids, just like they can to adults, with or without a parent/guardian present. The technique of just making shit up on the spot is useful for controlling children's behavior, and is legal. Example: a friend of mine was threatened with arrest for "insubordination" when we were in HS. The cop was lying and he knew it... and that's allowed. My friend didn't know he was lying, so the fake threat of arrest was enough to get the him to stop bothering the cop.
Also, undercover cops do not have to tell a kid that he's a cop even if they ask directly.
I don't want to pay to put someone in jail when they aren't actual a dangerous threat to society.
It seems to me that they are actually a dangerous threat to society. The inevitable consequence of their actions is that *innocent people have been thrown in jail.* Wrongful imprisonment is a terrifying idea, and those who are responsible for it are pretty goddamn dangerous.
At least in the USA police are typically not allowed to interview minors without at least notifying the parents,
That's simply not at all correct. In the US, police can interview minors without parental notification. Often they need to, such as if they are dealing with suspected child abuse.
Also, prison does not have to be unpleasant. In theory, prison can serve both its public safety role --keeping violent criminals away from innocent people-- and (don't laugh) its rehabilitation role without also being intentionally punitive.
It's a common belief that justice = making a guilty party suffer in kind, but that is *exactly* the mentality that turns prisons into nothing more than graduate school for criminals.
if you honestly haven't learned yet that crime for corporate profit or expansion of government power is completely ignored while anyone who challenges the status quo is given life in Federal PMITA prison
"Completely ignored", really? I find that this level of hyperbole detracts from one's credibility, and that's a shame because I agree with your underlying concerns. Honest question: are you aware that there have been an increasing number of successful prosecutions for fraud in the financial sector, particularly insider trading? It just doesn't make great news copy, so maybe it's been off your radar. Even the Raj Rajaratnam case, as major as it was, didn't get all that much coverage.
Is every guilty & corrupt person currently at risk of arrest? Of course not. But it is actually a rather difficult process to investigate and prosecute these kinds of crimes. It requires a lot of resources, expertise, time, and taxpayer money. I get the sense that you'd be very troubled to see the expansion of the justice department that would be necessary to obtain a higher rate of successful prosecution.
I get that you're talking about a playback sampling rate, but it seems to me there are obvious, other musically useful purposes for higher sampling recording rates. Say you're a hummingbird drummer, and each limb can easily drum steady beats from 110 KHz and 440 KHz: three octaves. The tambre of any specific tone, to human ears, would change if you were drumming it on a carpet, rather than drumming it on a snare. Similarly, it would if each hand were drumming on an alternating surface: left on carpet, right on snare.
Increased sampling frequency would allow for an increased combination of surfaces, and the patterns could be either repeating or asymmetric. IOW, it seems as if the greater the sampling frequency, the higher the range of possible tambres.
It matters because it's impressive. It also seems fair to associate some of the positive impression with DragonflyBSD, and I cannot see any downside to throwing good PR at any BSD flavor.
I suspect the porn company is not liability limited and probably has lots of cash. Sue them, and let them sort it out with Flickr.
Under US copyright law, unless Gorman had already registered his copyright on the picture in question, he will be limited to suing only for real (IOW minimal) damages, not punitive damages. It doesn't look like there is much, if any, in the way of real damages here. He would have to have been actively selling the picture, or using it in some other way to directly generate revenue.
Under the US and other WIPO compliant countries (most of them), creative works are copyrighted at the moment of creation. But in the US, if you want the protection of being able to sue someone's pants off for a copyright violation of your pic/book/song/painting/sculpture/computer program, you need to pony up the $65 fee and register your work with the US Copyright Office.
it was wheelie hard.
The deeper one looks into this, the more bizarre it looks. The current law is here: http://goo.gl/f0OyQ. Section 14-2 is the real meat of it, its amendments are 94-183 and 91-657, and it was introduced by 79-781.
According to Senator Millner, at the time in 1994 it was actually a class 4 felony for police officers to leave their dashboard cameras running. (pdf, @ page 32 http://goo.gl/sJlf7)
Going back further, the original motivation for the committee that started drafting the bill in 1975 seems to track back to then Senator Partee's mention of a report from the IL State Comptroller which claimed that there were a number of electronic eavesdropping devices unauthorized by any court around and within the State Capitol (pdf page 9 http://goo.gl/vssR9.) The outrageous abuse of this law to prevent police accountability certainly doesn't seem to have been the original intention of the bill at any point down the line, at least from the legislative material I've seen.
Am I the only one who feels the urge to raise a toast to someone who adopted not 1, but 5, children from foster care? Well done.
This. Here here.
Incredible talents can develop from a natural *disinclination* in a skill: see Demosthenes, or Eliza Doolittle. In some cases the intensive & extra effort needed to progress in an area will eventually bear fruit not only later than average, but with a corresponding intensive & extra depth.
The gun works by listening in with a directional microphone, and then, after a short delay of around 0.2 seconds, playing it back with a directional speaker. This triggers an effect that psychologists call Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF), which has long been known to interrupt your speech (you mightâ(TM)ve experienced the same effect if youâ(TM)ve ever heard your own voice echoing through Skype or another voice comms program). According to the researchers, DAF doesnâ(TM)t cause physical discomfort...
Privacy issues aside, as a practical matter the DAF effect can be neutralized with training. What the "gun" does is replay your words back at you with a short delay.
One can quickly get used to speaking through this kind of interference. While it's confusing for common speech, delay is frequently intentionally used in musical contexts. With a delay and a microphone, you can practice talking over yourself until you're used to the interference. It doesn't take long at all to get to the point where DAF will not interrupt your speech..
And since they're blasting a directed audio signal at you, earplugs would reduce or eliminate the effect of the DAF.
While they probably would be glad to assist in Assange's prosecution elsewhere, I believe that a US Attorney only has the authority to indict a person under US federal law. So if the indictment claim is accurate, it must have charged Assange with something that is a crime under US law.
"Stratfor intelligence analysts on January 26 last year, the company's vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks. He wrote: "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."
So Burton, a Stratfor VP, as "a sealed indictment"? Money & influence aside, on one at Stratfor has the power to directly indict anyone. If Burton is telling the truth, it means that someone committed a crime... by leaking a sealed indictment.
So here we have a prosecution team going after Assange for leaking classified information. In the course of doing so, someone on their team has leaked sealed information. Was it some ideological troublemaker, hell-bent on making secret government information public? Sounds like Assange!
Whoever it was, should really go after that person was. You know, for leaking sealed information. Which they seem to believe is a crime.
There certainly are interfaces that are easy to use from 10'+ away: quality wireless keyboards with an integrated cursor control. My screen is over ten feet away and has been for some time. Honestly, it's not advanced wizardry to set one's menu and input font sizes to something readable from a distance.
I currently use a high end wireless keyboard with an integrated mousepad, a Logitech DiNovo Edge. (Cheaper wireless keyboards with an integrated trackballs can do, but I've yet to find one that lasts.) Applications are set to escaped function keys, online streaming sources are prominently bookmarked, and the touch-activated lighted volume slider is an impressive stylistic touch. There is very little need to see and respond to a visual onscreen interface when watching or listening to media, only media selection.
Yes it's a big, thin remote, but I find it far less a PITA than four differently-sized remotes tied to various devices, with overlapping and inconsistent functions.
I've often wondered why a brief post-dump shower isn't as common a part of US cultural bathroom habits as post-dump hand washing is. Residential bathrooms usually have both a toilet and a shower already, so for most situations this would simply involve an adjustment of one's bathroom habits: no additional equipment required. A hand-held shower nozzle can speed things up, but isn't necessary.
A minor criticism; I think your overall idea of increasing the influence of non-profit corps is an excellent one.
First of all, there is not actually a total ban on for-profit business activities to support a non-profit's primary goals. Two ready examples are museum gift shops and girl scout cookies. The current rule is that any commercial activity must be closely related to the organization's non-profit activities.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons (at least in the smaller context of the current US tax scheme) that non-profit corporations are prohibited from "doing business commercially in order to raise money to do their charity work". It's practically a syllogism: doing business commercially to raise money is the very definition of a for-profit enterprise, and these are supposed to be not-for-profit enterprises.
Before this clarification, businesses could and were easily exploiting NFP status to avoid taxes. For example, WalMart could set up a trifling scholarship fund, claim its revenue is intended to further education, and suddenly be free of billions of dollars of income tax obligations.