Check out this website I found at 9elements.com
WOW! This is the fun internet!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Corporations Are People, Too | The Big Money
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that rolled back longstanding restrictions on corporate campaign finance donations has already generated a lot of sturm und drang from proponents of campaign reform and the White House itself. At the crux of the decision was a determination that corporations have a right to free speech. The Court ruled that limiting the amount companies can spend promoting their favored candidates is tantamount to denying First Amendment rights.
Since when do corporations have civil liberties?
Actually, this concept has been coalescing into its current state since about the late 19th century, and we can thank railroad barons for this precedent. While corporations had always been afforded limited rights, such as property ownership or contract-making, since the Renaissance, the idea that an inanimate entity was eligible for rights of personhood sprung from the 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The corporation in this case was able to wield the newly minted 14th Amendment to argue that it, as a corporation, was entitled to the same tax benefits as individuals.
Southern Pacific was hardly the only corporation to invoke the Bill of Rights in the name of deregulation; although the law had been added to protect the rights of African-Americans following the Civil War, only 19 individuals invoked it for protection between 1890 and 1910. Businesses, on the other hand, claimed 14th Amendment protection 288 times during the same time period. A 1976 Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Valeo, explicitly ruled that political donations were free speech and constitutionally protected.
Media such as the Canadian documentary and book The Corporation have explored this curious anthropomorphism of corporate America, going so far as to bring in a psychiatrist who conferred a diagnosis of psychopath on the average modern commercial enterprise.
Other aspects of the law treat companies as though they were people. In last year’s settlement with the SEC, Bank of America (BAC) agreed to pay $33 million in fines, although no individuals were charged with wrongdoing. The inability of the prosecution to lay the blame at the feet of any actual individuals exasperated the judge, who sarcastically asked the agency’s lawyer if a ghost was responsible for the malfeasance.
Ironically, businesses eschew personhood when it comes to other areas, such as paying taxes. As an individual, you pay taxes on what you earn as well as on what you spend. If you buy a new TV or hire a nanny, you pay taxes on those dollars twice. Corporations and some think tanks disagree with applying this two-tiered taxation system, arguing that it inhibits commercial efficiency.
Whether you find the idea of company-as-person and the resulting freedom on political spending troublesome hinges on whether or not you believe more money buys you a louder bullhorn in the political arena. At least one ardent capitalist thinks so. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, three-term mayor of New York City, is estimated to have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of his own fortunes winning his position, breaking records with his spending every step of the way.
Some people—including five Supreme Court justices—believe the political theater is a level playing field, a street-corner basketball court where anyone can join a pick-up game. Others see it more like a country club; unless you have the means to pony up for a membership, you can't play. This worries those in the latter camp. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that since companies are without feelings, consciences, or desires, they shouldn’t benefit from laws that protect ordinary citizens.
He’s two-thirds right. Corporations don’t possess a conscience or feelings (no matter what that cause-marketing campaign tells you). They do have one desire, though: earning money. This troubles opponents of the Court’s ruling, who predict that companies will flex considerable economic muscle to chip away at legislation that limits earning potential in the name of things like environmental preservation and public safety.
The prospect of these protections undermined in the pursuit of profit has proponents of corporate regulation—not to mention campaign finance reform—discouraged. On the bright side, though, freeing corporate coffers to spend all they want on political campaigns may have come just in time to save the advertising industry.
Explainer thanks Joel Bakan of the University of British Columbia.
via thebigmoney.com
Apple tablet concept | 27rayArt
The Apple Tablet
Tomorrow is the day. The day i have personally been waiting for for 10 years. I thought the iPod announcement would be the tablet. It wasn’t but it was also huge and has directly lead to this day. The day before Steve will release the Apple tablet that we will know we have always wanted. Any way i have been thinking about this for a long time and have some thoughts as to what i would like to see.
1. always connected to my data. Not just the sync to my iTunes, and e-mail, i want the table to be a window into my computer from no matter where i am. I want all my music, video etc, and e-mail and all my files.
2. I want it to be my physical interface to my data and my computer. so a super track pad, gestures and data display. Imagine an iPhone hooked up to your computer that lets you type, rotate images with your fingers flick though iPhoto, grab and move elements on a page layout. Instead of having a second display for pallets and tools with keyboard short cuts and such for pro apps how about the tablet becomes this, stitching tools with your fingers and painting with an airbrush coming out of your fingers…
I remember the first time i played with a mac. Mac paint specifically. It was like learning to draw again for the first time, the joy ins being able to make shows and fill them with patterns and edit individual pixels. the guy at the store ran me out after 2 hours. This will be like that. Only better. This will change how EVERYONE accesses digital data from now on, via touch.
oh and i think it will be called the iPad. Now i am on the record. enjoy.
some other interesting links
looks beautiful but seems confusing and obscure.http://gizmodo.com/5457472/how-the-apple-tablet-interface-could-and-should-work
Why the tablet needs the shape i recommend.
http://gizmodo.com/5455844/tablet-sutra-how-are-we-supposed-to-hold-this-thing?skyline=true&s=i
Saving print media is apples last interest, however it will be useful for them to sell more of their iPads
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/technology/26apple.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Related Posts
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Art, Observations and tagged with 2010, 30 pin, 30 pin connector, Art, bluetooth, concept, connecter, content, design, device, dock, input, ipad, itablet, keyboard, magazine, newspaper, pad, rotate, sports illustrated, tablet, times, wifi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Edit this entry.
via 27rayart.com
Monday, January 25, 2010
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: The almighty CHFF interception ladder
The almighty CHFF interception ladder
Cold, Hard Football Facts for January 21, 2010
The postgame reports said that the Jets sealed their upset win over the Chargers last week when Kerry Rhodes recovered an onside kick, allowing his team to run the final two minutes off the clock.
But the Cold, Hard Football Facts say that the game ended – statistically, anyway – when Philip Rivers threw his second pick of the game late in the third quarter. Darrelle Revis picked off the first earlier in the period. Jim Leonhard hauled in the second, on San Diego’s very next drive.
The game was effectively over, at least according to one of the most interesting gauges of success in all of sports: the Cold, Hard Football Facts Interception Ladder.
We’ve seen the impact of picks throughout the 2009 postseason: the team that’s thrown fewer INTs is a perfect 8-0 in the playoffs.
We've also seen the impact of picks throughout history, thanks to the interception ladder.
This indicator measures the impact of each and every interception thrown in the playoffs since the AFL-NFL merger of 1970. It tells us that no play in football, perhaps no play in all of sports, is more important than picks. Each interception thrown by a team decreases its chances of winning by, give or take, an astonishing 20 percentage points.
In fact, we're so amazed by the Interception Ladder that, when the Cold, Hard Football Facts watch games, we tick off in our heads the decreasing likelihood of a team's chances to win with each and every INT thrown by its quarterback.
It’s the second pick that’s absolutely murderous to a team’s chances, much like the one that Rivers through to Leonhard Sunday afternoon. Teams almost always win when they throw zero picks. They still have a likelihood of winning when they throw one pick. But the second pick is devastating. Throw it, and your chances of winning are extremely slim.
Here’s the CHFF Interception Ladder, a look at the record of teams in the playoffs (since 1970) based upon the number of interceptions that they throw (through the 2009 divisional playoffs):
We all know that the team that wins the turnover battle usually wins the game. But INTs are particularly important. Fumbles, for example, are often fluky plays that could happen any time and to any player.
But interceptions are more indicative of the ebb and flow of a game: they’re a function of superior or inferior schemes, talent on defense, and talent at the most important position on the field, quarterback.
Interceptions, in other words, tell us quite a bit about each team and about each team’s chances of success. In fact, we can’t imagine a single play in sports that makes such a profound impact on a team’s ability to win a game.
Even the lone four-INT victory on the Interception Ladder proves the importance of picks: Back in 1981, Buffalo’s Joe Ferguson became the first and only quarterback to win a playoff game after throwing four or more INTs in a game. But he had a little help that day: his opponent, Jets quarterback Richard Todd, also threw four INTs. The Bills won, 31-27.
Believe it or not, interceptions are even more important than TD passes. Teams that have thrown more TDs passes in the 2009 playoffs, for example, are 4-1 (three games ended with an equal number of TD passes), while teams with fewer picks are a perfect 8-0.
In fact, take a look at the record of teams that throw more touchdown passes and compare that with the record of teams that throw fewer interceptions (playoff games since 1970, through 2009 divisional playoffs):
- Teams that toss more touchdowns than their opponents are 216-65 (.769)
- Teams that toss fewer interceptions than their opponents are 271-56 (.829)
Consider the case of New England’s Tom Brady, who out-gunned Baltimore’s Joe Flacco in the wildcard round, with two TD passes to none. But Flacco tossed just one pick. Brady was intercepted three times. Given those numbers, it's no surprise that the Ravens romped, 33-14.
Three picks were an unusually high number for Brady, one of the most mistake-free passers in football history. In fact, Brady entered that game with a postseason interception rate of just 2.02 percent – it was the second lowest INT rate in NFL history. No surprise, then, that Brady entered the 2009 playoffs with a 14-3 record in postseason play, also the second best mark in NFL history.
One player holds the record in both categories: Green Bay Hall of Famer was the least intercepted passer in playoff history (1.41%). He's also the winningest quarterback in postseason history (9-1).
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
YouTube - Steve Plater TT 2009 onboard cam
via youtube.com
Eight and a half min of terror. Man on man.
Map of the Day: Historic Districts in LA County - LAist
The Los Angeles Conservancy has just launched a "Neighborhoods" section of their website that integrates information about historic districts in LA County with a Google map. "With nearly 100 locally designated historic neighborhoods in sixteen cities across the county, these districts represent a range of architectural styles and are an important part of the historic fabric of Greater Los Angeles," explains a press release about the endeavor.
Information you can glean from exploring this section includes: General information about the process of creating local historic districts; The benefits of preserving these unique communities (including common myths); Basic criteria for designation, preservation protections, maintenance, and oversight; How to respond to code violations in City of Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zones; Resources including articles, brochures, websites, and FAQs.
Explore online, then go out and explore the many amazing and historic neighborhoods in Los Angeles.
via laist.com
YouTube - NASA Low Noise, Electric VTOL Personal Air Vehicle
via youtube.com
Finally a reason to not end it all. Sign me up.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Skulls found in Angeles National Forest are of a man and woman | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times
L.A. NOW
Southern California -- this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »
Skulls found in Angeles National Forest are of a man and woman
January 9, 2010 | 1:02 pmThe two skulls found two weeks ago in the Angeles National Forest were that of a man and a woman, but their identities and ages remained unknown, the Los Angeles County coroner's office said.
The female skull appeared to show signs of trauma, but her cause of death was deferred, coroner's officials said. The skull was discovered Dec. 26 by detectives and forensic archaeologists who were searching an area where two hikers had come across another skull, now determined to be that of a man, with a bullet hole in it.
The skulls were found along Angeles Forest Highway near Lucas Creek, an area that had been burned by the Station fire, which began in late August. Investigators believe the skulls were there before the wildfire.
-- Ruben Vives
More in: Crime & Courts, Homicide Report
"); } // Google Adsense Configurations google_ad_client = 'ca-tribune_news3_html'; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '2'; google_ad_channel = 'latimes_blog_article'; google_ad_type = 'text'; google_safe = 'high'; google_page_url = document.location; google_last_modified_time = Date.parse(parent.document.lastModified) / 1000; google_referrer_url = document.referrer; //]]> // -->'); if (google_info.feedback_url) { document.write(''); } document.write('Ads by Google'); if (google_info.feedback_url) { document.write(''); } document.write("
' + google_ads[i].line1 + ''); document.write(google_ads[i].line2); if (google_ads[i].line3 != null && google_ads[i].line3 != '') { document.write(' '); document.write(google_ads[i].line3); } document.write('
'); document.write('' + google_ads[i].visible_url + ''); document.write('
Electricity at less then $200. Elec co execs trying to outlaw its sale.
Lookup Free Public Criminal Records On Anyone!. Takes 5 Seconds.
Related stories
From other L.A. sources
- Skulls found in Angeles National Forest belonged to man, woman|insidesocal.com
- Skulls found in forest belonged to man, woman|pasadenastarnews.com
- Coroner Says 2nd Skull from Angeles Nat’l Forest was Woman’s|laist.com
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by: |
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another commentThe letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments (0)
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor - Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution
Chicago
Skip to next paragraphRelated
Times Topics: Filibusters and Debate Curbs
ABOUT the Senate, a college professor of mine used to say, “One day, the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.” He was joking, I think.
But the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional: as we saw during the recent health care debacle, a 60-vote majority is required to overcome a filibuster and pass any contested bill. The founders, though, were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended.
This change to the Constitution was not the result of, say, a formal amendment, but a procedural rule adopted in 1975: a revision of Senate Rule 22, which was the old cloture rule. Before 1975, it took two-thirds of the Senate to end a filibuster, but it was the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” filibuster: if senators wanted to stop a vote, they had to bring in the cots and the coffee and read from Grandma’s recipe for chicken soup until, unshaven, they keeled over from their own rhetorical exhaust.
For the record, nothing like Senate Rule 22 appears in the Constitution, nor was there unlimited debate until Vice President Aaron Burr presided over the Senate in the early 180os. In 1917, after a century of chaos, the Senate put in the old Rule 22 to stop unlimited filibusters. Because it was about stopping real, often distressing, floor debate, one might have been able to defend that rule under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which says, “Each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.”
As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don’t even have to start; they just say they will, and that’s enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.
As a result, the supermajority vote no longer deserves any protection under Article I, Section 5 — if it ever did at all. It is instead a revision of Article I itself: not used to cut off debate, but to decide in effect whether to enact a law. The filibuster votes, which once occurred perhaps seven or eight times a whole Congressional session, now happen more than 100 times a term. But this routine use of supermajority voting is, at worst, unconstitutional and, at best, at odds with the founders’ intent.
Here’s why. First, the Constitution explicitly requires supermajorities only in a few special cases: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments. With so many lawyers among them, the founders knew and operated under the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — the express mention of one thing excludes all others. But one need not leave it at a maxim. In the Federalist Papers, every time Alexander Hamilton or John Jay defends a particular supermajority rule, he does so at length and with an obvious sense of guilt over his departure from majority rule.
Second, Article I, Section 3, expressly says that the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate should cast the deciding vote when senators are “equally divided.” The procedural filibuster does an end run around this constitutional requirement, which presumed that on the truly contested bills there would be ties. With supermajority voting, the Senate is never “equally divided” on the big, contested issues of our day, so that it is a rogue senator, and not the vice president, who casts the deciding vote.
The procedural filibuster effectively disenfranchises the vice president, eliminating as it does one of the office’s only two constitutional functions. Yet the founders very consciously intended for the vice president, as part of the checks and balances system, to play this tie-breaking role — that is why Federalist No. 68 so specifically argued against a sitting member of the Senate being the presiding officer in place of the vice president.
Third, Article I pointedly mandates at least one rule of proceeding, namely, that a majority of senators (and House members, for that matter) will constitute a quorum. Article I, Section 5 states in part that “a majority of each shall constitute a majority to do business.” Of course, in requiring a simple majority for a quorum, the founders were concerned about no-shows for a host of reasons — not least of all because the first legislators had to travel great distances by stagecoach.
But the bigger reason for the rule was to keep a minority from walking out and thereby blocking a majority vote. In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton dismissed a supermajority rule for a quorum thus: “All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority.”
It would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. Yet that is essentially what Senate Rule 22 achieves on any bill that used to require a majority vote.
So on the health care bill, as on so many other things, we now have to take what a minority of an inherently unrepresentative body will give us. Forty-one senators from our 21 smallest states — just over 10 percent of our population — can block bills dealing not just with health care but with global warming and hazards that threaten the whole planet. Individual senators now use the filibuster, or the threat of it, as a kind of personal veto, and that power seems to have warped their behavior, encouraging grandstanding and worse.
What can be done about the procedural filibuster? There are several promising lines of attack.
If the House passed a resolution condemning the use of the procedural filibuster, it might begin to strip the supermajority of its spurious legitimacy. It’s the House that has been the great victim of the filibuster, and at least with such a resolution that chamber could express the grievance of the people as a whole against this usurpation by a minority in the Senate.
The president of the Senate, the vice president himself, could issue an opinion from the chair that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Our first vice presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, felt a serious obligation to resolve the ties and tangles of an evenly divided Senate, and they would not have shrunk from such a challenge.
We citizens could also demand that our parties stop financially supporting senators who are committed to the filibuster, and we ourselves could deprive them of fund-raising dollars.
And we needn’t rule out the possibility of a Supreme Court case. Surely, the court would not allow the Senate to ignore either the obvious intent of the Constitution.
Whether any such approach works, the founders would have expected us to do something about this unconstitutional filibuster. In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton denounced the use of supermajority rule in these prophetic words: “The history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” That is a suitable epitaph for what has happened to the Senate.
Thomas Geoghegan, a lawyer, is the author of “See You in Court: How the Right Made America a Lawsuit Nation.”
Recommend More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on January 11, 2010, on page A17 of the New York edition.
via nytimes.com
Monday, January 11, 2010
Move Your Money Project
This "Move Your Money" project webpage is a social responsibility contribution of IRABankRatings.com, A UNIT OF LORD, WHALEN LLC (“LW”). This material does not constitute a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any securities or investments. The opinions expressed herein are based on publicly available information and are considered reliable. However, LW makes NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY SORT with respect to this report. Any person using this material does so solely at their own risk and LW and/or its employees shall be under no liability whatsoever in any respect thereof.IRA has donated the list of banks and the screening tool used to search by zip code to the www.moveyourmoney.info web site project. Users can search the list via zip code free of charge. IRA has a long standing policy of encouraging putting "good money in good banks" that is discussed on our web site at some length, so this is really more of the same for us. Responding to specific media inquiries, we do not pay commissions on any sales that may occur as a result of persons seeking information separately from us. We highly encourage consumers to avail themselves of information on the banking and finance system beyond just us.
Search notes:
1. This list presents small banks with IRA Bank Stress Index scores with a grade of B or better.
2. We try to localize the zip search as close to you as possible. This initially resulted in some empty lists. For areas with sparse populations of qualifying banks we have added an automatic broader area search.Bankers please read the Banker Notes then contactIRA directly regarding information about your institution.
Government agencies and professional finance organizations please read the Government and Professional Notes then contactIRA directly regarding information about your institution.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
