Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Human Genetic Engineering –

 Human Genetic Engineering  Comments Off on Human Genetic Engineering –
Jul 282015

What forms of genetic engineering can be done in human beings? Genetic technology harbors the potential to change the human species forever. The soon to be completed Human Genome Project will empower genetic scientists with a human biological instruction book. The genes in all our cells contain the code for proteins that provide the structure and function to all our tissues and organs. Knowing this complete code will open new horizons for treating and perhaps curing diseases that have remained mysteries for millennia. But along with the commendable and compassionate use of genetic technology comes the specter of both shadowy purposes and malevolent aims.

For some, the potential for misuse is reason enough for closing the door completely–the benefits just aren’t worth the risks. In this article, I’d like to explore the application of genetic technology to human beings and apply biblical wisdom to the eventual ethical quagmires that are not very far away. In this section we’ll investigate the various ways humans can be engineered.

Since we have introduced foreign genes into the embryos of mice, cows, sheep, and pigs for years, there’s no technological reason to suggest that it can’t be done in humans too. Currently, there are two ways of pursuing gene transfer. One is simply to attempt to alleviate the symptoms of a genetic disease. This entails gene therapy, attempting to transfer the normal gene into only those tissues most affected by the disease. For instance, bronchial infections are the major cause of early death for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The lungs of CF patients produce thick mucus that provides a great growth medium for bacteria and viruses. If the normal gene can be inserted in to the cells of the lungs, perhaps both the quality and quantity of their life can be enhanced. But this is not a complete cure and they will still pass the CF gene on to their children.

In order to cure a genetic illness, the defective gene must be replaced throughout the body. If the genetic defect is detected in an early embryo, it’s possible to add the gene at this stage, allowing the normal gene to be present in all tissues including reproductive tissues. This technique has been used to add foreign genes to mice, sheep, pigs, and cows.

However, at present, no laboratory is known to be attempting this well-developed technology in humans. Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver offers two reasons.{1} First, even in animals, it only works 50% of the time. Second, even when successful, about 5% of the time, the new gene gets placed in the middle of an existing gene, creating a new mutation. Currently these odds are not acceptable to scientists and especially potential clients hoping for genetic engineering of their offspring. But these are only problems of technique. It’s reasonable to assume that these difficulties can be overcome with further research.

The primary use for human genetic engineering concerns the curing of genetic disease. But even this should be approached cautiously. Certainly within a Christian worldview, relieving suffering wherever possible is to walk in Jesus’ footsteps. But what diseases? How far should our ability to interfere in life be allowed to go? So far gene therapy is primarily tested for debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

The first gene therapy trial in humans corrected a life-threatening immune disorder in a two-year-old girl who, now ten years later, is doing well. The gene therapy required dozens of applications but has saved the family from a $60,000 per year bill for necessary drug treatment without the gene therapy.{2} Recently, sixteen heart disease patients, who were literally waiting for death, received a solution containing copies of a gene that triggers blood vessel growth by injection straight into the heart. By growing new blood vessels around clogged arteries, all sixteen showed improvement and six were completely relieved of pain.

In each of these cases, gene therapy was performed as a last resort for a fatal condition. This seems to easily fall within the medical boundaries of seeking to cure while at the same time causing no harm. The problem will arise when gene therapy will be sought to alleviate a condition that is less than life-threatening and perhaps considered by some to simply be one of life’s inconveniences, such as a gene that may offer resistance to AIDS or may enhance memory. Such genes are known now and many are suggesting that these goals will and should be available for gene therapy.

The most troublesome aspect of gene therapy has been determining the best method of delivering the gene to the right cells and enticing them to incorporate the gene into the cell’s chromosomes. Most researchers have used crippled forms of viruses that naturally incorporate their genes into cells. The entire field of gene therapy was dealt a severe setback in September 1999 upon the death of Jesse Gelsinger who had undergone gene therapy for an inherited enzyme deficiency at the University of Pennsylvania.{3} Jesse apparently suffered a severe immune reaction and died four days after being injected with the engineered virus.

The same virus vector had been used safely in thousands of other trials, but in this case, after releasing stacks of clinical data and answering questions for two days, the researchers didn’t fully understand what had gone wrong.{4} Other institutions were also found to have failed to file immediate reports as required of serious adverse events in their trials, prompting a congressional review.{5} All this should indicate that the answers to the technical problems of gene therapy have not been answered and progress will be slowed as guidelines and reporting procedures are studied and reevaluated.

Read more here:

Human Genetic Engineering –

Fifth Amendment | United States Constitution |

 Fifth Amendment  Comments Off on Fifth Amendment | United States Constitution |
Jun 222015

Fifth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.

Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.

The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.

The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.

The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.

Read this article:
Fifth Amendment | United States Constitution |

Illuminati Essays

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Illuminati Essays
Jun 032015

Views 15

This article is about the secret society. For the film, see Illuminata (film). For the Muslim esoteric school, see Illuminationism. For other uses, see Illuminati (disambiguation).

Adam Weishaupt (17481830), founder of the Bavarian Illuminati

The Illuminati (plural of Latin illuminatus, enlightened) is a name given to several groups, both real and fictitious. Historically, the name refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, anEnlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776. The societys goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses ofstate power. The order of the day, they wrote in their general statutes, is to put an end to the machinations of the purveyors of injustice, to control them without dominating them.[1] The Illuminatialong with Freemasonry and other secret societieswere outlawed through Edict, by the Bavarian ruler, Charles Theodore, with the encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1784, 1785, 1787 and 1790.[2] In the several years following, the group was vilified by conservative and religious critics who claimed that they continued underground and were responsible for the French Revolution.

In subsequent use, Illuminati refers to various organisations which claim or are purported to have links to the original Bavarian Illuminati or similar secret societies, though these links are unsubstantiated. They are often alleged to conspire to control world affairs, by masterminding events and planting agents in government and corporations, in order to gain political power and influence and to establish a New World Order. Central to some of the most widely known and elaborate conspiracy theories, the Illuminati have been depicted as lurking in the shadows and pulling the strings and levers of power in dozens of novels, movies, television shows, comics, video games and music videos.

The Owl of Minerva perched on a book was an emblem used by the Bavarian Illuminati in their Minerval degree.

Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830) was a professor of Canon Law and Practical philosophy at the University of Ingolstadt. He was the only non-clerical professor at an institution run by Jesuits, whose order had been dissolved in 1773. The Jesuits of Ingolstadt, however, still retained the purse strings and some power at the University, which they continued to regard as their own. Constant attempts were made to frustrate and discredit non-clerical staff, especially when course material contained anything they regarded as liberal or Protestant. Weishaupt became deeply anti-clerical, resolving to spread the ideals of the Enlightenment (Aufklrung) through some sort of secret society of like-minded individuals.[3]

Finding Freemasonry to be expensive, and not open to his ideas, he founded his own society which was to have a gradal system based on Freemasonry, but his own agenda.[3] His original name for the new order was Bund der Perfektibilisten, or Covenant of Perfectibility, but quickly changed it because it sounded too strange.[4] On 1 May 1776 Weishaupt and four students formed the Illuminatenorden, or Order of Illuminati, taking the Owl of Minerva as their symbol.[5][6] The members were to use aliases within the society. Weishaupt became Spartacus. Law students Massenhausen, Bauhof, Merz and Sutor became respectively Ajax, Agathon, Tiberius and Erasmus Roterodamus. Weishaupt later expelled Sutor for indolence.[7][8]

Massenhausen was initially the most active in expanding the society. Significantly, while studying in Munich shortly after the formation of the order, he recruited Xavier von Zwack, a former pupil of Weishaupt at the beginning of a significant administrative career. (At the time, he was in charge of the Bavarian National Lottery). Massenhausens enthusiasm soon became a liability in the eyes of Weishaupt, often attempting to recruit unsuitable candidates. Later, his erratic love-life made him neglectful, and as Weishaupt passed control of the Munich group to Zwack, it became clear that Massenhausen had misappropriated subscriptions and intercepted correspondence between Weishaupt and Zwack. In 1778, Massenhausen graduated and took a post outside Bavaria, taking no further interest in the order. At this time, the order had a nominal membership of twelve.[7]

With the departure of Massenhausen, Zwack immediately applied himself to recruiting more mature and important recruits. Most prized by Weishaupt was Hertel, a childhood friend and a canon of the Munich Frauenkirche. By the end of summer 1778 the order had 27 members (still counting Massenhausen) in 5 commands; Munich (Athens), Ingolstadt (Eleusis), Ravensberg (Sparta), Freysingen (Thebes), and Eichstaedt (Erzurum).[7]

Go here to see the original:
Illuminati Essays

5 SEO Tactics You Can Stop Using

 SEO  Comments Off on 5 SEO Tactics You Can Stop Using
Apr 142015

Are you still using outdated, ineffective SEO strategies? Im not talking about black hat SEO strategies that will destroy your site; I hope by this point most business owners have left those behind. Im talking about strategies that used to be effective, and that many webmasters still do out of habit but that dont actually do anything to improve our rankings.

Stop wasting your time on strategies that are ineffective (at best) and harmful (at worst). This article will examine five strategies you can stop using immediately.

1.Targeting single keywords

Its long past time to stop chasing after highly-competitive, highly-generalized keywords. The mindset used to be that more search traffic was always better even if that traffic was largely irrelevant to your business or website. For instance, ranking for a keyword like dogs would send you hundreds of thousands of visitors, but if your goal was to sell your dog training services, most visitors would be unlikely to convert.

Today, were much more concerned with driving highly-relevant, highly-targeted traffic. Visitors who are actually looking for what we offer and who are likely to buy what were selling. This is why its so important to focus on long-tail keywords.

Long-tail phrases are less popular and thus easier to rank for; and the best part is that they more closely match the intent of the user. For instance, using the example above, it would be far more lucrative to rank highly for dog training Seattle than dogs, even though ranking for dogs would send much more traffic. In 2015, its better to focus on the quality of the search traffic youll receive rather than the quantity.

2.Using keyword-rich anchor text

Using diverse yet descriptive anchor text is good; using the same anchor text again and again isnt. Google needs to see a natural link profile, not one thats been carefully planned and built solely as a means of ranking for certain keywords.

View original post here:
5 SEO Tactics You Can Stop Using

Volokh Conspiracy: Religious freedom laws should not exempt antidiscrimination provisions

 Freedom  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Religious freedom laws should not exempt antidiscrimination provisions
Apr 032015

Below, co-blogger Dale celebrates the fact that Indiana is going to exempt civil rights (antidiscrimination) laws from its state religious freedom act.

I dont think antidiscrimination laws presumptively deserve special status, and I therefore dont think they should be exempted from state RFRAs, or should otherwise be exempted from civil liberties protections, statutory or constitutional. In other words, state RFRAs shouldnt exempt antidiscrimination laws, and when courts are enforcing constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, they should not find that antidiscrimination laws constitute compelling government interests sufficient to override those rights.

I argued this point in great detail in my 2003 book, You Cant Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws. The first twenty-six pages of the book can be found here. Some of the arguments from that book appear in this essay in the North Carolina Law Review. this essay in the Missouri Law Review, this article in the University of Chicago Legal Forum, this article in Social Philosophy and Policy, and this article in The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. A chapter dealing with the ACLUs abandonment of civil liberties in favor of antidiscrimination laws is excerpted here.

As a historical aside, the liberal lefts hostility to RFRA didnt start with gay rights, but with cases in the 1990s in which religious landlords who owned a few rental units declined to rent to unmarried, heterosexual individuals. This ran afoul in some states of laws banning discrimination on the basis of marital status.

At the time, liberal civil libertarian groups like the ACLU didnt claim that this was just bigotry disguised as religion, but rather that though it was the exercise of religion, (a) antidiscrimination concerns, even ones as trivial as heterosexual couples being denied an apartment in a huge metro area with many other willing landlords, should trump religious freedom; and (b) given that courts might not always agree that antidiscrimination concerns are a compelling interest sufficient to trump statutory religious freedom rights, they would no longer supports RFRAs that didnt exempt antidiscrimination laws.

Thus, liberal opposition to RFRA seems to have originated as a combination of treating antidiscrimination as a trump over almost any other right (the national ACLUbut not all state ACLUshas so far exempted pure speech), and hostility to assertions of rights by traditional Christians, as opposed to the peyote-smoking Native Americans, Sabbatarians, Amish, and other groups more traditionally associated with free exercise claims.

In any event, gay rights advocates do have a legitimate concern that religious conservatives are seeking to target laws protecting people on the basis of sexual orientation rather than protect religious freedom, as such.

I have heard a very prominent religious conservative argue that religious freedom should protect the right of someone to not photograph a gay marriage because of religious objections to such a marriage, but should not protect the right of someone to not photograph an interracial marriage because of religious objections. This individual may have a coherent reason for believing that, but if so it wasnt apparent from his remarks, beyond the possibility that he thinks it would be politically infeasible to defend the latter.

So heres my suggestion: instead of exempting antidiscrimination laws from state RFRAs, instead write into the laws a provision that the compelling interest test should be applied with the same rigor regardless of which group an antidiscrimination law protects. Therefore, a photographer should have the same right, but only the same right, to refuse on religious grounds to photograph a gay wedding as an interracial wedding, or a wedding between a Jew and a Gentile, or whatever.

If RFRA advocates arent willing to defend the right of someone who believes that interracial or interreligious marriages are against Gods will to refuse to participate in such weddings, then they dont have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to gay marriage. But the better position is to allow exemptions in all those situations.

See original here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Religious freedom laws should not exempt antidiscrimination provisions

Volokh Conspiracy: Affixing ankle bracelet to monitor suspect is a search, Supreme Court holds

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Affixing ankle bracelet to monitor suspect is a search, Supreme Court holds
Mar 312015

The case is Grady v. North Carolina. Held: Forcing someone to wear an ankle bracelet to monitor location is a Fourth Amendment search. The new decision extends the Jones search doctrine to searches of persons, and it provides more opportunity to ponder what the Jones test means. Ill start with the history, then discuss the new decision, and then offer some thoughts on the new case.

I. A Brief History of Fourth Amendment Searches

First, some Fourth Amendment history. As I explained in this article, the Supreme Court had not identified a clear test for what counts as a Fourth Amendment search until Katz v. United States (1967). In Silverman v. United States (1961), the Court had indicated that a physical intrusion was enough to be a search but left open what beyond physical intrusion counted. In Katz, the government had taped a microphone to the top of a public phone booth and listened to the microphone feed from a listening station nearby when Katz placed a call. The Court in Katz announced that it could no longer follow earlier caselaw, which it claimed had imposed a trespass test. The Court held that the governments conduct triggered the Fourth Amendment:

The Governments activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioners words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance.

Justice Harlan concurred. According to Harlan, the key was that Katzs expectation of privacy in the phone booth was one society was prepared to recognize as reasonable. When Katz went into the phone booth, closed the door, and put a coin in the coin slot, the phone booth became a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable. The full Court later adopted Justice Harlans concurring opinion, usually known as the reasonable expectation of privacy test, or just as short hand, the Katz test. (Im ignoring subjective expectations of privacy for reasons explained here.)

In United States v. Jones (2012) the Supreme Court held that the government conducted a search when it installed a GPS device to the underbody of a suspects car to monitor his location over time with intent to get information. The Court reasoned that the trespass test that Katz said existed before Katz still existed, and that because installing a GPS device on a car is trespassory, installing the GPS device was a trespass search without having to reach the issue of whether it violated a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Katz test. Because the trespass occurred with the intent to get information, it was a Fourth Amendment search.

As I detailed in this article and I have blogged about occasionally since then, this history leaves us unsure of what the Court thinks the Jones test is. Is the test physical intrusion as in Silverman, or is it trespass? If its trespass, which kind of trespass, given that trespass is an accordian-like term that has both broad and narrow meanings? And if attaching a GPS device to the underbody of a car was trespassory in Jones, why wasnt taping a microphone to the top of a phone booth trespassory in Katz?

II. Grady v. North Carolina

That brings us to the new case. In Grady, the defendant is a recidivist sex offender who was ordered to wear an ankle bracelet that determines his location using GPS. The bracelet was installed against his consent, and he was ordered to wear it for life.

The defendant argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights under the Jones case, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals disagreed. First, it relied on its own precedent that had earlier rejected the analogy to Jones for a bizarre reason: Because Jones arose in a motion to suppress rather than a civil case, it was inapplicable and using the ankle bracelet was not a search. Second, the earlier precedent had relied post-Jones on dicta in a pre-Jones North Carolina Supreme Court case, Bowditch, that had suggested that sex offenders have a lesser expectation of privacy against monitoring.

Originally posted here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Affixing ankle bracelet to monitor suspect is a search, Supreme Court holds

Best Free Speech Recognition Program for Article Writing – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Best Free Speech Recognition Program for Article Writing – Video
Mar 292015

Best Free Speech Recognition Program for Article Writing
Today we are talked about what is the best free Speech Recognition Program for any article writing or Dictation. There are lots of Speech Recognition Programs you can find on the Market. Like…

By: Abu Hasnat Md Ruhu

Read more here:
Best Free Speech Recognition Program for Article Writing – Video


 Free Speech  Comments Off on THROWDOWN THURSDAY: Trigger Warning!
Mar 272015


Warning: Article may contain principled defenses of free speech as well as ideas and language that may be considered offensive to some readers. Read at your own risk.

One symptom of the hypersensitivity slowly rotting away at liberal education in America is the recent push for trigger warnings. If some students get their way, objectionable material in classroom lectures, discussions and presentations would include warning messages. Giving in to such demands, schools like Oberlin College have instructed faculty to scrub their syllabuses of offensive material that does not contribute directly to the course learning goals. Like proponents of the closely-linked speech code movement, trigger warning advocates equate controversial speech with violence in order to make it seem more regulable. This is a natural extension of a worldview that instructs students to prefer intellectual safety and security over a rigorous educational experience. In this paradigm, the quest for truth is deemed less important than making sure the wrong views are not heard.

When listening to the advocates of trigger warnings attempting to make their case, the careful listener is immediately struck by their boundless capacity for self-pity. They incessantly demand that society recognize their pain and acknowledge their status as a victim. Underlying this mindset is a paranoid fear that certain privileged societal groups are out to get them. Consequently, they cry oppression while censoring the speech of others and some universities are letting them get away with it. The same organizations that once wanted to keep administrators out of the business of regulating speech are now begging, even demanding, that they intervene. To give just one example, hundreds of students and faculty at Miami University last year demanded the university cancel a scheduled speech by syndicated columnist George Will.

A safe campus is a sterile one where we would lose what makes our universities great: innovative thinking, creativity, and a willingness to boldly reach for the next frontier.

The irony of this movement is that it bases its claims on the need to protect certain minorities from discrimination. They most aggressively target speech (and speakers) deemed racist or sexist, supposedly to protect groups they consider particularly vulnerable. Yet, there is a certain bigotry inherent in their line of reasoning. Trigger warning proponents unjustly portray minorities as uniquely fragile and incapable of dealing with controversial and hotly contested issues. They are rarely asked why their own degraded perception of minorities is not tantamount to the racism they so eagerly denounce.

It should hardly be surprising that such policies end up encouraging students to frequently claim offense. The taking of offense is an entirely subjective and utterly manipulable standard, such that a student cannot be made to prove that he really is offended by something he sees or hears. By enabling students to change the behavior of others by demanding to feel safe, students are encouraged to avoid the tough issues raised in class and retreat to the comforts of identity politics and victimization theory. Students must prove themselves capable of an education that prepares them for reality.

Professors have particular cause for concern with the rising popularity of this movement. The burden will naturally fall on them to ensure that students are not triggered from the contents of their lectures and assigned readings. This is an impossible task. Faculty members cannot possibly know the varied personal experiences of each student that could cause them to find material particularly objectionable. Should they refrain from giving a hypothetical involving a house fire for fear that a student might have experienced one? How about teaching law regarding violent assault or rape? It will become increasingly difficult for professors to teach and for students to learn in a context that puts student sensibilities above a free academic environment.

It is not entirely true that trigger warning proponents want the university to closely regulate all speech. Their speech is exempted. The right not to be censored is only conferred on those with the correct ideas. It is precisely the politicization and selective application of hypersensitivity that threatens to make our universities closed to those with unpopular ideas.

Imagine the Bible with warnings like may include homophobia and novels like Huckleberry Finn with the declaration may include racism. And why not make our campus an even safer space by removing such books entirely? After all, who knows if an impressionable young freshman might one day wander into the library, only to be traumatized by these books while innocently browsing the catalog? Do his sensibilities not deserve to be protected?

Follow this link:

SEO Tips for Financial Advisers

 SEO  Comments Off on SEO Tips for Financial Advisers
Mar 242015

The Internet has made it easier for financial advisors to reach a large and targeted demographic with messages designed to generate actionable leads. At their core, these online marketing efforts rely on an effective web that attracts visitors, provides them with useful resources, and then encourages them to reach out to the financial advisor. The idea is that a certain percentage of these online leads will then convert to paying clients.

In this article, well take a look at how to attract a growing number of visitors over time using so-called SEO techniques that take advantage of search engine dynamics. (For related reading, see: A Guide to Corporate Social Media.)

Most businesses generate online visitors through either search engine marketing (SEM) or search engine optimization (SEO). Search engine marketing is the science of placing ads alongside certain search results that cost a certain amount per click or impression, while search engine optimization is the art of fine-tuning a website to naturally appear near the top of search results for a certain keyword or phrase to generate traffic for free.

In general, the best way to increase search engine rankings and attract visitors is to produce high-quality resources for them. High quality resources such as content or tools not only helps attract visitors, but also encourages them to stay and eventually become a lead. Search engine algorithms are constantly changing, but the goals of search engines have always been the same direct searchers to the best available information. (For related reading, see: How Financial Advisors Are Leveraging Social Media.)

Tricking search engines into a high ranking may have worked in the past, but using techniques like keyword stuffing or invisible links will now quickly result in a ban from many search engines. While newer black hat techniques will always exist, the risks associated with using these techniques always outweighs the benefits. Financial advisors should try to avoid the hype when it comes to SEO and instead focus on high-quality content.

The best way to optimize a website for search engines is to produce high-quality resources, but there are many technical factors that make it easier for search engines to discover a website and understand the topics being discussed they are machines after all! (For related reading, see: Financial Advisors are Feeling Cyber-insecure.)

Here are some common technical factors to keep in mind:

Search engine optimization is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to creating an effective online presence. With strong SEO in place, a website will attract targeted visitors, but retaining them and converting them into a lead is another matter. High quality content helps improve SEO and these other elements, by ensuring that a website is genuinely useful to visitors searching for advice via search engines. (For related reading, see: Educating Your Clients About Cybersecurity.)

View original post here:
SEO Tips for Financial Advisers

illuminati 666 School Bus Exposed – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on illuminati 666 School Bus Exposed – Video
Mar 222015

illuminati 666 School Bus Exposed
SUBSCRIBE TO MY MAIN CHANNEL Would you be outraged? parent or not, leave comments Article + News video (in one) below …

By: ThisIsGodsSon

Read more:
illuminati 666 School Bus Exposed – Video

Doing SEO By Writing Articles – Video

 SEO  Comments Off on Doing SEO By Writing Articles – Video
Mar 182015

Doing SEO By Writing Articles
In this article you will discover some problems business owners are facing when they are marketing their website using articles. Also we will also discuss some key ideas that have to be considered…

By: Arts Entertainment

Doing SEO By Writing Articles – Video

Things to Know about California's sea lion crisis

 Beaches  Comments Off on Things to Know about California's sea lion crisis
Mar 182015

LONG BEACH, Calif. (AP) More than 1,800 starving sea lion pups have washed up on California beaches since Jan. 1 and 750 are being treated in rescue centers across the state, according to updated numbers released Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Scientists with the federal agency believe the crisis hasn’t reached its peak and sea lions could continue to arrive on beaches sick and starving for at least two more months.

Here are a few things to know about the sea lion crisis unfolding in California:

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Best Value

Get home delivery of the newspaper Wednesday, Friday & Sunday – Friday. Plus digital access which includes unlimited web and mobile web access to and our electronic replica edition every day for one low monthly fee All prices listed are subject to North Carolina Sales tax.

Get digital access with unlimited web and mobile web access to and our electronic replica edition every day for one low monthly fee. All prices listed are subject to North Carolina Sales tax.Only $8.95 after three month intro period.

(Per 30 days)

Get home delivery of the newspaper Wednesday, Friday & Sunday for one low monthly fee. All prices listed are subject to North Carolina Sales tax

Need an account? Create one now.

kAm(w* p#t %wt* $%p#’x}vnk^Am

The rest is here:
Things to Know about California's sea lion crisis

Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading – Video
Mar 152015

Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading
The things people are saying about bitcoin are hilarious! This video includes some funny quotes and the response of the reader; That would be me Alan Greenspan is portrayed as Mr. Magoo and…

By: BackToConstitution

Read more:
Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading – Video

Lawsuit Challenges NSA Internet Dragnets

 NSA  Comments Off on Lawsuit Challenges NSA Internet Dragnets
Mar 132015

By John P. Mello Jr. 03/13/15 11:02 AM PT

The American Civil Liberties Union earlier this week filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the National Security Agency from indiscriminately snooping on United States Internet traffic.

Using a technique called “upstream” surveillance, the NSA does a spinal tap of the Internet’s U.S. backbone, which carries the communications of millions of Americans, the ACLU explained in its complaint filed with a federal district court in Maryland.

“In the course of this surveillance, the NSA is seizing Americans’ communications en masse while they are in transit,” the complaint alleges, “and it is searching the contents of substantially all international text-based communications — and many domestic communications as well — for tens of thousands of search terms.”

That kind of surveillance violates federal law, the First and Fourth Amendments and Article III of the Constitution, maintained the ACLU, which is representing in the lawsuit the Wikimedia Foundation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, the Global Fund for Women, The Nation magazine, The Rutherford Institute and the Washington Office on Latin America.

This lawsuit is similar to one filed in the past involving NSA Director James R. Clapper and Amnesty International. That case was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Backers of the latest lawsuit, however, believe their case has stronger legs than the previous litigation.

“Thanks to the Snowden disclosures and government acknowledgments over the last 18 months, we now know more about government surveillance than we did in Clapper v. Amnesty,” explained Ashley Gorski, an attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.

“That, for us, makes all the difference,” she told the E-Commerce Times, “and we think that will make a difference in court as well.”

In the Amnesty case, the Supreme Court ruled that the parties bringing the lawsuit lacked standing — that is, they couldn’t prove they were harmed by the behavior alleged in their complaint. The reason they couldn’t prove harm was that they didn’t know enough about what the NSA was doing to make the connection between harm and behavior.

“Prior to the Snowden revelations and the government acknowledgments, the public did not know anything at all about upstream surveillance — least of all that the NSA was copying entire streams of Internet traffic and searching through them for information about its targets,” Gorski said.

See original here:
Lawsuit Challenges NSA Internet Dragnets

Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading [Series 05] – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading [Series 05] – Video
Mar 132015

Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading [Series 05]
Expensive Keywords is a video and website project looking to explain Bitcoin,OneCoin and other most importance to a wider audience. We are operating with donations (of time and money) from…

By: Expensive Keywords

Go here to see the original:
Why Bitcoin is Changing How Banks Do Business, An Article Reading [Series 05] – Video

Pete Santilli Episode #929 – Dr. Katherine Albrecht; No Privacy – No Freedom – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on Pete Santilli Episode #929 – Dr. Katherine Albrecht; No Privacy – No Freedom – Video
Mar 132015

Pete Santilli Episode #929 – Dr. Katherine Albrecht; No Privacy – No Freedom
Full Article Audio Link – The Pete Santilli Show: Friday , March 12, 2015 Episode #929 In this episode of The Pete Santilli Show: Pete welcomes back Dr. Katherine…

By: GMN Telestream

Read the original:
Pete Santilli Episode #929 – Dr. Katherine Albrecht; No Privacy – No Freedom – Video

Badass Article Submissions SEO Software Testimonial 512×384 – Video

 SEO  Comments Off on Badass Article Submissions SEO Software Testimonial 512×384 – Video
Mar 102015

Badass Article Submissions SEO Software Testimonial 512×384
Badass Article Submissions SEO Software Testimonial is a outsourcing related topic.

By: OutSourcing In Bangladesh

Excerpt from:
Badass Article Submissions SEO Software Testimonial 512×384 – Video

Libertarianism is for petulant children: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and the movements sad rebellion

 Misc  Comments Off on Libertarianism is for petulant children: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and the movements sad rebellion
Mar 102015

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. Theyre desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity. Their irreverence and their opposition to political correctness is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience tofor all their protests against the political elitethe real elite.

Ayn Rand is the rebel queen of their icy kingdom, villifying empathy and solidarity. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.

Libertarians believe they are real rebels, because theyve politicized the protest of children who scream through tears, Youre not the boss of me. The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile navet.

As much as libertarians boast of having a political movement gaining in popularity, youre not the boss of me does not even rise to the most elementary level of politics. Aristotle translated politics into meaning the things concerning the polis, referring to the city, or in other words, the community. Confucius connected politics with ethics, and his ethics are attached to communal service with a moral system based on empathy. A political program, like that from the right, that eliminates empathy, and denies the collective, is anti-political.

Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of Americas most dominant and harmful dogmas.In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style. The founding fathers, for all the hagiographic praise and worship they receive as ritual in America, had no significant interest in freedom beyond their own social station, regardless of the poetry they put on paper. Native Americans, women, black Americans, and anyone who did not own property could not vote, but taxation without representation was the rallying cry of the revolution. The founders reacted with righteous rage to an injustice to their class, but demonstrated no passion or prioritization of expanding their victory for liberty to anyone who did not look, think, or spend money like them.

Many years after the nations establishment as an independent republic, President Calvin Coolidge quipped, The chief business of the American people is business. It is easy to extrapolate from that unintentional indictment how, in a rejection of alternative conceptions of philosophy and morality, America continually reinforced Alexis De Tocquevilles prescient 1831 observation, As one digs deeper into the national character of Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: How much money will it bring in?

The disasters of reducing life, the governance of affairs, and the distribution of resources to such a shallow standard leaves wreckage where among the debris one can find human bodies. Studies indicate that nearly 18,000 Americans die every year because they lack comprehensive health insurance. Designing a healthcare system with the question, How much money will it bring in? at the center, kills instead of cures.

The denial of the collective interest and communal bond, as much as libertarians like to pose as trailblazers, is not the road less traveled, but the highway in gridlock. Competitive individualism, and the perversion of personal responsibility to mean social irresponsibility, is what allows for America to limp behind the rest of the developed world in providing for the poor and creating social services for the general population.

It also leads to the elevation of crude utility as a measurement of anythings purpose or value. Richard Hofstadter, observed in his classicAnti-Intellectualism in American Life, that many Americans are highly intelligent, but their intelligence is functional, not intellectual. They excel at their occupational tasks, but do not invest the intellect or imagination in abstract, critical, or philosophical inquiries and ideas. If society is reducible to the individual, and the individual is reducible to consumer capacity, the duties of democracy and the pleasures of creativity stand little chance of competing with the call of the cash register.

The rest is here:
Libertarianism is for petulant children: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and the movements sad rebellion

Hubble telescope finds a smile in space

 Hubble Telescope  Comments Off on Hubble telescope finds a smile in space
Mar 092015

By Kate Seamons


The universe is smiling down on usalmost literally. The Hubble Telescope has captured a “smiley face” in space: two bright yellow eyes (a cluster of galaxies called SDSS J1038+4849), a white nose, and a faint smile and incomplete circle around the entire face.

But those curving lines “don’t existor at least not in the form that we see them in the photo,” writes Michelle Starr at CNET. As reports, galaxy clusters have a mammoth gravitational pull, and at Slate, astronomer Phil Plait explains why in pretty easy-to-understand terms: The cluster holds trillions of stars, which is “a lot of mass, and a lot of gravity.” J1038 is roughly 4.5 billion light-years away, and past it, at a distance of 7.5 billion light-years, are additional galaxies.

When those galaxies’ light passes through the area that’s been altered by the cluster’s gravity, the light is bent. The phenomenon is called gravitational lensing, and the “strongest” example of it is called an Einstein ring, as in the Hubble image.

As Starr writes, such rings “only occur when the source of the original light, gravitational lens, and observer are in exact alignment in a straight line.” Though the observer in this case was Hubble, the image surfaced thanks to Judy Schmidt, who submitted the image via the “Hubble’s Hidden Treasures” effort, which invites armchair astronomers to search the massive Hubble archive for “iconic” photos the public has never seen.

This image was released by NASA yesterday. The phenomenon of seeing non-existent faces in thingsit’s known as face pareidoliahas been known for centuries, and last year, researchers confirmed that it’s perfectly normal and relates to how our brains are wired.

Among the better-known instances of this occurring: the “Virgin Mary tree,” “Google Earth Jesus,” and “Griddle Virgin.”

This article originally appeared on Newser: The Hubble Spots ‘Smiley Face’ in Space

Hubble telescope finds a smile in space

Nato Wikipedia | About Nato

 NATO  Comments Off on Nato Wikipedia | About Nato
Mar 092015

(Redirected from Nato)

This article is about the military alliance. For other uses, see NATO (disambiguation).

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Organisation du Trait de l’Atlantique Nord


NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the organization’s member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, which formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasiondoubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO’s military structure in 1966 for 30 years. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization was drawn into the breakup of Yugoslavia, and conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Warsaw Pact countries, several of which joined the alliance in 1999 and 2004.

Article5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks, after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked four times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War, twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria and in 2014 by Poland following the Russian intervention in Crimea.

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., on 4April 1949 and was ratified by the United States that August.

The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so. This differs from ArticleIV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member’s territory and their “vessels, forces or aircraft” above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France.

The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1300Standardization Agreements (STANAG) codified many of the common practices that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.6251 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale de Herstal’s FAL, which used 7.62 NATO cartridge, was adopted by 75 countries, including many outside of NATO. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.

Read the original here:
Nato Wikipedia | About Nato

Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism