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

Charlotte SEO Experts | #1 Experts in Digital Marketing

 SEO  Comments Off on Charlotte SEO Experts | #1 Experts in Digital Marketing
Oct 052015

Were an SEO company based in Charlotte, North Carolina (as if the name wasnt obvious enough, eh?)

We offer a range of services to our clients, including:

What is SEO?

We learned SEO from the Miami SEO gurus, Webris ( Yes, we like them so much that we even gave them a link on OUR HOMEPAGE!

Webris is owned by Ryan Stewart, a digital marketing whiz with over 10 years of experience working as one of the best SEO companies in Miami.

SEO is the process of improving your websites rankings in search engines. This is extremely important because of the amount of online traffic and searches that take place on a daily basis.

For example Charlotte SEO services gets typed into Google 1,000 times EACH MONTH! Imagine the power of ranking first for that search team because those are people that are seeking your exact services.

The process is difficult. We first need to do a thorough on page evaluation of your website. Then we need to check the HTML and coding to make sure that everything is OK.

After that we begin by creating social media signals on networks like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. These are extremely important and should NOT be overlooked because of the impact that social media has on our every day lives. Search engines are reading these signals with increasing importance and weight.

Next comes the most debated part link building. We offer white hat link building services that get the web taking note of your website. Some of these include Press releases, web 2.0s, directory submissions and a variety of other link building tactics. We also utilize partner websites to build high quality links on there as well.

After that we build up your website and make it look fancy so when actual visitors come to your website, they will convert from clicks to customers. At the end of the day, all we want is them to pick up the phone and call you and that is EXACTLY what we will do for you.

We like to keep our website short and to the point. If you have any questions, please browse our services page or contact us directly. Please give us up to 48 business hours to respond to your questions, as we are very busy.

Continued here:
Charlotte SEO Experts | #1 Experts in Digital Marketing

Fourth Amendment – National Constitution Center

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Fourth Amendment – National Constitution Center
Sep 302015

The Fourth Amendment

Imagine youre driving a car, and a police officer spots you and pulls you over for speeding. He orders you out of the car. Maybe he wants to place you under arrest. Or maybe he wants to search your car for evidence of a crime. Can the officer do that?

The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Constitution that gives the answer. According to the Fourth Amendment, the people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This right limits the power of the police to seize and search people, their property, and their homes.

The Fourth Amendment has been debated frequently during the last several years, as police and intelligence agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. The federal government has conducted bulk collection of Americans telephone and Internet connections as part of the War on Terror. Many municipal police forces have engaged in aggressive use of stop and frisk. There have been a number of highly-publicized police-citizen encounters in which the police ended up shooting a civilian. There is also concern about the use of aerial surveillance, whether by piloted aircraft or drones.

The application of the Fourth Amendment to all these activities would have surprised those who drafted it, and not only because they could not imagine the modern technologies like the Internet and drones. They also were not familiar with organized police forces like we have today. Policing in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a responsibility of the citizenry, which participated in night watches. Other than that, there was only a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today.

The primary concerns of the generation that ratified the Fourth Amendment were general warrants and writs of assistance. Famous incidents on both sides of the Atlantic gave rise to placing the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. In Britain, the Crown employed general warrants to go after political enemies, leading to the famous decisions in Wilkes v. Wood (1763) and Entick v. Carrington (1765). General warrants allowed the Crowns messengers to search without any cause to believe someone had committed an offense. In those cases the judges decided that such warrants violated English common law. In the colonies the Crown used the writs of assistancelike general warrants, but often unbounded by time restraintsto search for goods on which taxes had not been paid. James Otis challenged the writs in a Boston court; though he lost, some such as John Adams attribute this legal battle as the spark that led to the Revolution. Both controversies led to the famous notion that a persons home is their castle, not easily invaded by the government.

Today the Fourth Amendment is understood as placing restraints on the government any time it detains (seizes) or searches a person or property. The Fourth Amendment also provides that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The idea is that to avoid the evils of general warrants, each search or seizure should be cleared in advance by a judge, and that to get a warrant the government must show probable causea certain level of suspicion of criminal activityto justify the search or seizure.

To the extent that a warrant is required in theory before police can search, there are so many exceptions that in practice warrants rarely are obtained. Police can search automobiles without warrants, they can detain people on the street without them, and they can always search or seize in an emergency without going to a judge.

The way that the Fourth Amendment most commonly is put into practice is in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court decided in the mid-twentieth century that if the police seize evidence as part of an illegal search, the evidence cannot be admitted into court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It is controversial because in most cases evidence is being tossed out even though it shows the person is guilty and, as a result of the police conduct, they might avoid conviction. The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered, declared Benjamin Cardozo (a famous judge and ultimately Supreme Court justice). But, responded another Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law.

One of the difficult questions today is what constitutes a search? If the police standing in Times Square in New York watched a person planting a bomb in plain daylight, we would not think they needed a warrant or any cause. But what about installing closed circuit TV cameras on poles, or flying drones over backyards, or gathering evidence that you have given to a third party such as an Internet provider or a banker?

Another hard question is when a search is acceptable when the government has no suspicion that a person has done something wrong. Lest the answer seem to be never, think of airport security. Surely it is okay for the government to screen people getting on airplanes, yet the idea is as much to deter people from bringing weapons as it is to catch themthere is no cause, probable or otherwise, to think anyone has done anything wrong. This is the same sort of issue with bulk data collection, and possibly with gathering biometric information.

What should be clear by now is that advancing technology and the many threats that face society add up to a brew in which the Fourth Amendment will continue to play a central role.

In the Supreme Courts decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment, there are a lot of cross-cutting arguments.

The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.

What the Fourth Amendment Fundamentally Requires by Barry Friedman

In the Supreme Courts decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment, there are a lot of cross-cutting arguments.

For example, sometimes the Justices say that there is a strong preference for government agents to obtain warrants, and that searches without warrants are presumptively invalid. At other times they say warrants are unnecessary, and the only requirement is that searches be reasonable. At times the Justices say probable cause is required to support a search; at others they say probable cause is not an irreducible minimum.

This is your Fourth Amendment. It describes [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is important for each American to focus on some basics and decideseparate and apart from what the Justices saywhat this vital amendment means.

People say that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, but that trivializes it. In this world you give up a lot of privacy, whether you wish to or not. Internet cookies, or data stored in web browsers, are just one example. But the Internet companies are not going to come take you away. The government might. What the Fourth Amendment protects is the right of the people to be secure. The Fourth Amendment is the means of keeping the government out of our lives and our property unless it has good justification.

In evaluating how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, it is essential to bear in mind the vast changes in policing since the time it was ratified. Whereas policing once was reactive, tasked with identifying and catching criminals, today it has become proactive and is based in deterrence. Before, policing was mostly based on suspicion, it was aimed at people for whom there was cause to believe they had violated or were about to violate the law. Today, policing is aimed at all of usfrom red light cameras to bulk data collection by intelligence agencies to airport security.

There are some basic principles that should govern searches and seizures.

First, no member of the Executive branch should be permitted to intervene in our lives without the say-so of at least one other branch. This is fundamental, and all the more important when that Executive actor engages in surveillance of the citizenry and can use force and coercion against them.

Second, a central purpose of the Fourth Amendment is preventing arbitrary or unjustified intrusions into the lives and property of citizens.

In light of these basic principles, certain interpretations of the Fourth Amendment follow:

No search or seizure is reasonable if it is not based on either legislative authorization or pursuant to rules that have some form of democratic say in their making. The police can write rulesall other agencies of executive government dobut absent a critical need for secrecy those rules should be public and responsive to public wishes.

Second, warrants are to be preferred. Policing agencies are mission-oriented. We want them to bethey have a vital role protecting public safety. But because they are mission-oriented, warrants should be obtained in advance of searching whenever possible so that a neutral judge can assess the need to intrude on peoples lives.

Third, we should distinguish between searches aimed at suspects and those aimed at society in general. When there is a particular suspect, the protections of a warrant and probable cause apply. But those protections make no sense when we are all the target of policing. In the latter instance the most important protection is that policing not discriminate among us. For example, at airport security all must be screened the same unless and until there is suspicioncause to single someone out.

Finally, often todays policing singles out a particular group. Examples include profiling (based on race, religion, or something else) or subjecting only workers in some agencies to drug tests. When policing is group-based, the proper clause of the Constitution to govern is the Equal Protection Clause. When discriminatory searching or seizing occurs, the government should have to prove two things: that the group it is selecting for unfavorable treatment truly is more likely to contain people worthy of the governments attention, and that the incidence of problematic behavior is sufficiently great in that group to justify burdening everyone. Otherwise, the government should go back to either searching individuals based on suspicion, or search us all.

The Future of the Fourth Amendment by Orin Kerr

The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.

The Fourth Amendment was written over two hundred years ago. But todays crimes often involve computers and the Internet, requiring the police to collect digital evidence and analyze it to solve crimes.

The major question is, how much power should the police have to collect this data? What is an unreasonable search and seizure on the Internet?

Consider the example of a Facebook account. If you log in to Facebook, your use of the account sends a tremendous amount of information to Facebook. Facebook keeps records of everything. What you post, what messages you send, what pictures you like, even what pages you view. Facebook gets it all, and it keeps records of everything you do. Now imagine that the police come to Facebook and want records of a particular user. The police think the suspect used Facebook to commit the crime or shared evidence of the crime using the site. Maybe the suspect was cyberstalking and harassing a victim on Facebook. Or maybe the suspect is a drug dealer who was exchanging messages with another drug dealer planning a future crime. Or perhaps the suspect committed a burglary, and he posted pictures of the burglary for all of his Facebook friends to see.

Heres the hard question: What limits does the Fourth Amendment impose on the government getting access to the account records? For example, is it a Fourth Amendment search or seizure for the government to get what a person posted on his Facebook wall for all of his friends to see? Is it a search or seizure to get the messages that the suspect sent? How about records of what page the suspect viewed? And if it is a search or seizure, how much can the government seize with a warrant? Can the government get access to all of the account records? Only some of the account records?

The courts have only begun to answer these questions, and it will be up to future courts to figure out what the Fourth Amendment requires. As more people spend much of their lives online, the stakes of answering these questions correctly becomes higher and higher.

In my view, courts should try to answer these questions by translating the traditional protections of the Fourth Amendment from the physical world to the networked world. In the physical world, the Fourth Amendment strikes a balance. The government is free to do many things without constitutional oversight. The police can watch people in the public street or watch a suspect in a public place. They can follow a car as it drives down the street. On the other hand, the police need cause to stop people, and they need a warrant to enter private places like private homes.

The goal for interpreting the Fourth Amendment should be to strike that same balance in the online setting. Just like in the physical world, the police should be able to collect some evidence without restriction to ensure that they can investigate crimes. And just like in the physical world, there should be limits on what the government can do to ensure that the police do not infringe upon important civil liberties.

A second important area is the future of the exclusionary rule, the rule that evidence unconstitutionally obtained cannot be used in court. The history of the exclusionary rule is a history of change. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the exclusionary rule. Since the 1980s, however, the Supreme Court has cut back on when the exclusionary rule applies.

The major disagreement is over whether and how the exclusionary rule should apply when the police violate the Fourth Amendment, but do so in good faith, such as when the law is unclear or the violation is only technical. In the last decade, a majority of the Justices have expanded the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. A central question is whether the good faith exception will continue to expand, and if so, how far.

In the Supreme Courts decisions interpreting the Fourth Amendment, there are a lot of cross-cutting arguments.

The biggest challenge ahead for the Fourth Amendment is how it should apply to computers and the Internet.

Fourth Amendment – National Constitution Center

2nd Amendment Archives – Bearing Arms

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on 2nd Amendment Archives – Bearing Arms
Sep 262015

on September 23, 2015 at 3:04 pm

A new Rasmussen Report from a national telephone survey conducted this week shows most voters dont want the federal government in control of Americas guns. The report found that only 34% of likely voters polled []

on September 23, 2015 at 3:03 pm

The Los Angeles Times editorial board is upset. They dont like the U.S. Supreme Courts 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, and are furious that an appellate courts mixed response in what has []

on September 21, 2015 at 8:51 pm

This morning, thanks to a Facebook post by TWANGnBANG, I discovered that the AK Operators Union Local 4774 had their Facebook page unceremoniously deleted without comment or warning by the social media giant, a fact []

on September 17, 2015 at 10:36 am

Weve all heard it. The anti-gun speech condemning guns, pleading to stop the killing, insisting we come together to do Whatever It Takes to save just one more life. Weve all made our counterpoints:That someone []

on September 16, 2015 at 11:18 am

Despite a mainstream media which slants coverage in order to drum up the illusion of widespread gun violence, 59-percent of Americans feel that the nations gun laws are either about right or too strict. Only []

on September 15, 2015 at 11:40 am

As some of you who follow me on Twitter or read my personal blog may know, I took up running last year. While I do have to use the treadmill for the better part of []

on September 9, 2015 at 11:24 am

House Democrats pushing what they call the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2015 are stooping to outright lies in order to fabricate a need for their legislation. The bill is ironically offered by Rep.Elijah E. []

on September 9, 2015 at 7:53 am

Shannon Watts is clutching her pearls. The University of Chicago Preventative Medicine performed a gun study bysurveying99 Cook County Illinois inmatesand the results are staggering. According to their findings, the majority of guns used by []

on September 8, 2015 at 10:28 am

The U.K. Telegraph is doing the job American journalists wont do, and has set out to get a rough idea of where Republican candidates stand on the issue of Second Amendment rights. They asked whether []

on August 18, 2015 at 6:31 am

Well, its almost here folks! Can you tell? Parents are smiling, kids are grumbling, teachers are well, yeah with the kids, so teachers are grumbling too. The 2015-16 school year is almost upon us! Anyone []

Read the rest here:
2nd Amendment Archives – Bearing Arms

Its Hip! Its Cool! Its Libertarianism! – By Connor …

 Misc  Comments Off on Its Hip! Its Cool! Its Libertarianism! – By Connor …
Sep 232015

Calling yourself a libertarian today is a lot like wearing a mullet back in the nineteen eighties. It sends a clear signal: business up front, party in the back.

You know, those guys who call themselves socially liberal but fiscally conservative? Yeah. Its for them.

Today, the ruling class knows that theyve lost the culture wars. And unlike with our parents, they cant count on weeping eagles and the stars n bars to get us to fall in line. So libertarianism is their last ditch effort to ensure a succession to the throne.

Republicans freak you out but think the Democrats are wimps? You must be a libertarian! Want to sound smart and thoughtful in front of your boss without alienating your socially liberal buds? Just say the L-word, pass the coke and everyones happy!

Just look at how they play it up as the cool alternative to traditional conservatism. Its pathetic. George Will wore the bowtie. But Reason magazines Nick Gillespie wears an ironic D.A.R.E. t-shirt. And dont forget the rest of his all-black wardrobe, complete with leather jacket. What a totally with-it badass.


With such a bleak economic forecast for the Millennials, it shouldnt surprise anyone that our elites want to make libertarianism shorthand for political disaffection. Now theres a demographic with some growth potential. And its inspired a lot of poorly-sourced, speculative babble about how the kids have all gone Galt, almost always through the personal anecdotes of young white men.

A couple of months ago, after Harvard released a poll on the political views of Millennials, libertarians took to the internet to tell the world how the youth of America was little more than a giant anarcho-capitalist sleeper cellready to overthrow the state and privatize the air supply at a moments notice. So I took a look at the poll numbers. And you know what? Its utter horseshit.

Right off the bat, were told that 79% of Millennials dont consider themselves politically-engaged at all so, uh, keep that in mind.

Much is made of the fact that less than half of the survey respondents thought the government should provide free health care to those who cant afford it. What they dont mention is that that number (44 percent) is twice the percentage who say they stand against (22 percent) such hand outs. Nearly a third didnt think one way or the other.

Then we hear that the poll proves kids dont care about climate change. But they dont mention that slightly more Millennials wanted the government to do more on that front than theyre doing noweven if it hurt economic growth. Nearly half, you guessed it, neither agree nor disagree. (Come on kids, Rock the Vote!)

More Millennials identify as liberals than conservatives. Hardly any of them (10 percent) support the libertarian-embraced Tea Party. About three-quarters say they despise congressional Republicans.

Nearly two-thirds voted for Obama in 2008. Slightly over half approve of him now. Nearly three-quarters of Millennials hate congressional Republicans. 55% trust in the U.S. military, one of the largest state-socialist programs in the entire world, also responsible for, you know, those wars that libertarians supposedly hate.

Over a quarter put their faith in the federal government all or most of the time, and 55% some of the time. Only 17% answered never. And despite all their supposed Ron Paul love, they trust the globalist United Nations even more than they do the feds.

A little nibble here with only 36% approving of Obamas handling of the budget deficit, but then again, thats actually better than his rating on the deficit with Americans of all ages. Plus, worrying about the budget deficit is how dumb people have tried to sound smart since the days of FDR. And most people are dumb.

And when we finally get down to a hypothetical libertarian match-up between Obama and Ron Paul41 percent pick Obama and only 27 percent pick Paul.

Oh, but the kiddies are cool with gay marriage and tired of bombing brown people overseas? No shit. That just makes them normal people living in the 21st century. Im for single-payer health care and cant stand Barney Frank. Does that mean I sip the Kool-Aid at the Lyndon LaRouche compound?

None of this should be too surprising. For almost two decades, roughly two-thirds of the American public have supported what wed call a moderate European welfare stateputting the average U.S. citizen significantly to the left of the Democratic party, a center/center-right organization saddled, much to their dismay, with a perpetually-disappointed center-left constituency.

But hey, our ruling class would shit a brick if any of that wealth redistribution stuff happened over here. Which is why this is a center-right nation has been a favorite Fox News talking point for over ten years. Its only nowafter Occupy Wall Street forced their handthat the media is finally willing to admit that it might be bullshit.

But libertarianism? Our ruling class is totally fine with that. Smoke your reefer and sodomize whomever you please, just keep your mouth shut and hand over your Social Security account.


Never trust a hippietarian

I get the appeal. The states been sticking it to working folks for decades. It seems almost unimaginable that Big Government could ever be run by us and not the One Percent.

But child labor laws, the Civil Rights act, federal income tax, minimum wage laws, Social Security, Medicare, food safetylibertarians have accused all of them as infringements upon the free market that would lead to economic ruin. And over and over again, theyve been proven wrong. Life goes ona little less gruesomelyand society prospers.

There is no such thing as a free-market, economist Ha-Joon Chang has said repeatedly. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them.

In other words, markets are social institutions, just as much under the thumb of politics and government as everything else. Which means theyre subject to democratic pressures, as they should be.

And what you earn from said markets? Chang: All our wages are, at root, politically determined. Despite what Ron Pauls trolls might have you believe, gold Krugerrands dont spray out your asshole every time you type up a spreadsheet or pour a Grande mochachino for your next customer.

Capitalism has always been a product of Big Government. Ever since the railroads of the nineteenth century, to Silicon Valley, Big Pharma and the banks, the Nanny State has been there all along, passing subsidies and tax breaks, and eating the costs the private sector doesnt want.

So whenever a libertarian says that capitalism is at odds with the state, laugh at him. Its like saying that the NFL is at war with football fields. To be a libertarian is to say that God or the universe marked up that field, squirted out the pigskins from the bowels of the earth and handed down the playbooks from Mt. Sinai.


When a Red like me wants to argue for something like universal health care or free college tuition, we can point to dozens of wealthy democratic societies doing just that. The Stalinist left is nothing more than a faint memory. But where are the libertarian Utopias?

General Pinochets Chile was a longtime favorite. But seeing as how it relied on a fascist coupwith a big assist from Nixon and KissingerChiles lost a bit of that Cold War luster. So these days, for the slightly more with-it libertarian, we get Singapore as the model of choice.

Hey, isnt that where the Facebook guy lives these days? Thats pretty hip!

Ah, Singapore: a city-state near the very top in the world when it comes to number of police and execution rate per capita. Its a charming little one-party state where soft-core pornography is outlawed, labor rights are almost nonexistent and gay sex is banned. Expect a caning if you break a window. And death for a baggie of cocaine.

But hey: no capital gains tax! (Freedom!)

Singapore: Libertarian Paradise

Its not like any of this will make it through the glassy eyes of the true-believers. Ludwig von Mises, another libertarian pin-up boy, wrote in 1927 that, Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization.

Lately, Ron Pauls economic advisor has been claiming that Communist Party-ruled China has a freer market than the U.S.s.


So lets talk a little about this freedom theyre always going on about. Or, to paraphrase Lenin, the libertarians ultimate nemesis: freedom for who to do what?

Most American adults spend about half their waking hours at a job. And during that time, libertarians do not give a flying fuck about your liberty. Instead, they condone the most brutal of tyrannies all in the name of a private employers freedom.

Racial discrimination, verbal abuse, random drug testing, body-searches, sexual harassment, illegal termination, email monitoring, union busting, even withholding piss-breaksask any libertarian how they feel about workplace unfreedom and theyll tell you: Hey man, if you dont like it, you have the freedom to get another job. If folks are hiring. But with four-and-a-half applicants for every job, theyre probably not.

Heres another thing libertarians always forget to mention: a free-market capitalist society has never and by definition can never lead to full-employment. It has to be made to byyou guessed itthe Nanny State. Free market capitalism actually requires a huge mass of the unemployedits not just a side effect.

And make no mistake: corporate America loves a high unemployment rate.

When most everyone has a job, workers are less likely to take shit. They do nutty things like join unions, demand better wages and refuse to work off-the-clock. They start to stand up to real power: not to the EPA, and not the King of England, but to their bosses.

But with a real unemployment rate close to 20 percent, that aint happening. Well, fuck. Better sign up for that Big Government welfare state theyre always whining about. Hey, dont worry. You could always sell a little crack and turn a few tricks. Libertarians totally support that.

After all, thats your freedom, dude!


Libertarianism isnt some cutting-edge political philosophy that somehow transcends the traditional left to right spectrum. Its a radical, hard-right economic doctrine promoted by wealthy people who always end up backing Republican candidates, no matter how often they talk about civil liberties, ending the wars and legalizing pot. Funny how that works.

Its the third way for a society in which turning against capitalism or even taking your foot off the pedal is not an option. Thanks to our shitty constitution and the most violent labor history in the West, we never even got a social-democratic party like the rest of the developed world.

So what do we get? The libertarian line: No, no: the problem isnt that were too capitalist. Its that were not capitalist enough!


At a time in which our society has never been more interdependent in every possible way, libertarians think theyre John fucking Wayne looking out over his ranch with an Apache scalp in his belt, or John fucking Galt doingwhatever it is he does. (Collect vintage desk toys from the Sharper Image?)

Their whole ideology is like a big game of Dungeons & Dragons. Its all make-believe, except for the chain-mailthey brought that from home. Elves, dwarves and fair maidens for capital. Even with the supposedly good onesanti-war libertarianswere still talking about people who think Medicares going to lead to Stalinism.

So my advice is to call them out.

Ask them what their beef really is with the welfare state. First, theyll talk about the deficit and say we just cant afford entitlement programs. Well, thats obviously a joke, so move on. Then theyll say that it gives the government tyrannical power. Okay. Let me know when the Danes open a Guantnamo Bay in Greenland.

Heres the real reason libertarians hate the idea. The welfare state is a check against servility towards the rich. A strong welfare state would give us the power to say Fuck You to our bossesthis is the power to say Im gonna work odd jobs for twenty hours a week while I work on my driftwood sculptures and play keyboards in my chillwave band. And Ill still be able to go to the doctor and make rent.

Sounds like freedom to me.

Connor Kilpatrick is the managing editor of Jacobin magazine.

Would you like to know more? Read Thirty More Years of Hell and Silent Majority Millennials by Connor Kilpatrick.

Read more: child labor laws, deficit, democratic party, fascism, fdr, george will, ha-joon chang, libertarian, ludwig von mises, lyndon larouche, medicare, millennials, nick gillespie, pinochet, reason, ron paul, Singapore, social security, socialism, Tea Party, Connor Kilpatrick, Class War For Idiots, Libertards

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at

Read the original:
Its Hip! Its Cool! Its Libertarianism! – By Connor …

Jitsi SIP Softphone Review – Tech

 Jitsi  Comments Off on Jitsi SIP Softphone Review – Tech
Aug 302015 Commons Rating

Visit Their Website

Jitsi is a Java-based communication tool that offers a lot of features and allows SIP-based calls. Jitsi supports voice and video calls and gives all the functionalities of an Instant Messaging software. It offers a nice interface and runs on many platforms. It also offers conference calls over SIP and allows you to connect to many other networks including Facebook, Google Talk, Windows Live, Yahoo!, AIM and ICQ.

Jitsi is a nice tool for integrating all your communication needs into one application. Jitsi is open source and is therefore free.



Jitsi offers a very simple but nice-looking interface, with basic features and easy controls for configuring the tool and communication. Download and installation are straightforward and easy, and it is also easy to configure your SIP settings. You can use Jitsi with any SIP account.

Jitsi supports many IM protocols and works with many other networks, including Facebook, Google Talk, Windows Live, Yahoo!, AIM and ICQ. This makes it possible to call and contact your friends without having to change tool.

Jitsi is free and open source. Having a look the source code of tools like this is an interesting adventure for programmers who want to work on VoIP applications. Being Java-based, the application works on most operating systems.

Jitsi offers privacy and encryption for calls. It uses the ZRTP encryption, and is one of the rare SIP clients to offer something for security.

With Jitsi, you can use your computer and Internet connection to make free voice and video calls through SIP. Just get a SIP address and register with Jitsi. You can then communicate with your other friends using SIP or with people on the other networks mentioned above. You can also use Jitsi with Google Voice to call regular landline and mobile numbers.

Jitsi supports voice communication, video conferencing, chat, IM network, file transfer and desktop sharing.

The application is a little bit slow compared to others of the kind, due to it being Java-based and therefore interpreted. But if you have a powerful computer, you wont notice it. Also, you dont get to more detailed options where you can select codecs and other technical things. But you will be happy if you are not geeky enough for that.

Visit Their Website

Go here to see the original:
Jitsi SIP Softphone Review – Tech

Cosmic Heaven & Marcprest – Love Will Find A Way (Original Mix) [TFB Records] [HD]

 Cosmic  Comments Off on Cosmic Heaven & Marcprest – Love Will Find A Way (Original Mix) [TFB Records] [HD]
May 282015

Hey again everyone!! 😀 This is the paradise and once again an amazing melody for you all. This melody is really a wonderful piece of uplifting and emotional trance with plenty of heavenly melodies. With a very dreamy and emotional breakdown! Cosmic Heaven and Marcprest, you two have an amazing talent, many thanks for creating this amazing tune, is clearly one of my favorite tunes that I have heard so far this year. My friends, I hope you like it! 😀

And please let me know what you think in the comments and press “like” if you liked the upload and share this video in Facebook and Google+ with your friends, and please support Cosmic Heaven, Marcprest & TFB Records and follow the buying link below! Enjoy d(^_^)b You can buy it here: Beatport:… Picture link:… Cosmic Heaven’s Facebook Fan Page: Cosmic Heaven’s Soundcloud:

Marcprest’s Facebook Fan Page: Marcprest’s Soundcloud:

TFB Records’ Facebook Fan Page:… TFB Records’ Twitter: TFB Records’ Soundcloud: TFB Records’ YT channel: Release Date: [11/ April /2015] Record Label: TFB Records Artists: State of Sunrise, Syntouch, Zahir, Cosmic Heaven, Marcprest Title: Love Will Find A Way (Original Mix) Album: Love Will Find A Way Catalog Number: TFB122

Release’s Tracklist: 01. Cosmic Heaven & Marcprest – Love Will Find A Way (Original Mix) 7:53 02. Cosmic Heaven & Marcprest – Love Will Find A Way (Marcprest Remix) 8:34 03. Cosmic Heaven & Marcprest – Love Will Find A Way (State Of Sunrise pres. Syntouch Remix) 8:07 04. Cosmic Heaven & Marcprest – Love Will Find A Way (Zahir Remix) 9:38

Genre: Uplifting Trance NOTE: Please watch In [HD 720p] To Have A Better Quality Of [Image] and [Sound] This upload is for promotional purposes only. If the artist or label behind this song and do not want it on YouTube, please send me a PM instead of contacting Youtube, and I will remove this video as soon as possible thanks. All rights reserved to. Cosmic Heaven, Marcprest & TFB Records!

See original here:
Cosmic Heaven & Marcprest – Love Will Find A Way (Original Mix) [TFB Records] [HD]

BTCnews – Bitcoin & CryptoCurrency News

 Cryptocurrency  Comments Off on BTCnews – Bitcoin & CryptoCurrency News
Apr 142015

BTCnews brings you all the very latest news, analysis, and opinions about the world of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, from all the very best sources, updated throughout the day. Stay on top of this exciting new world with BTCnews, the very best virtual currency news application!Features Include:- Coverage of dozens of distinct, top quality news sources with fresh daily content. New sources constantly added- News updated throughout the day – if it’s out there, you’ll be the first to know!- Tag any item of interest for later reading- Listen to podcasts from within the app- Search for stories about topics that interest you- Share with others via Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, email, and more…- Get notified of breaking news and stories of interest- View more articles from a selected source- View Bitcoin-to-$ current exchange rate displayed directly in the navigation bar- Extremely fast, easy to use interface developed for iOS8+ as a Universal application, customised for the latest iPhone 6 as well as other iPhones and iPadMany more exciting features already in the pipeline!We love feedback, suggestions, requests for desirable features!If you enjoy using BTCnews and find it useful, would you please rate or review us? It really helps! For updates and news follow us on twitter: @btcnewsapp

Original post:
BTCnews – Bitcoin & CryptoCurrency News

FIGURA4 – [Il Paese Delle Scimmie] – 01 Non Sono Nato a Marzi – Video

 NATO  Comments Off on FIGURA4 – [Il Paese Delle Scimmie] – 01 Non Sono Nato a Marzi – Video
Apr 122015

FIGURA4 – [Il Paese Delle Scimmie] – 01 Non Sono Nato a Marzi
Seguiteci sulla nostra pagina Facebook:

By: Figura4 Band

More here:
FIGURA4 – [Il Paese Delle Scimmie] – 01 Non Sono Nato a Marzi – Video

TC Liberty nab 4-0 win over Boyne City in soccer – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on TC Liberty nab 4-0 win over Boyne City in soccer – Video
Apr 122015

TC Liberty nab 4-0 win over Boyne City in soccer
For all of your news, weather and sports needs: Like us on Facebook: Follow us on twitter: Download our app,…

By: UpNorthLive

TC Liberty nab 4-0 win over Boyne City in soccer – Video

Liberty Klaud – Fr V – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty Klaud – Fr V – Video
Apr 122015

Liberty Klaud – Fr V
Label: Cold Busted Website: Facebook: Soundcloud: Bandcamp: Artist:…

By: Liberty Klaud

Original post:
Liberty Klaud – Fr V – Video

900bhp Tron Aventador LP700-4 with Armytrix Exhaust / Liberty Walk / Airrex / Forgiato mods – Video

 Liberty  Comments Off on 900bhp Tron Aventador LP700-4 with Armytrix Exhaust / Liberty Walk / Airrex / Forgiato mods – Video
Apr 122015

900bhp Tron Aventador LP700-4 with Armytrix Exhaust / Liberty Walk / Airrex / Forgiato mods
Official website: Facebook: Youtube: Inquiry:


900bhp Tron Aventador LP700-4 with Armytrix Exhaust / Liberty Walk / Airrex / Forgiato mods – Video

Seo // Beatzunami Rap Contest – Video

 SEO  Comments Off on Seo // Beatzunami Rap Contest – Video
Apr 122015

Seo // Beatzunami Rap Contest Follow Seo on: – Youtube: – Facebook: Iride Records: – Facebook: …

By: Seo Chan

Read more from the original source:
Seo // Beatzunami Rap Contest – Video

15 Weirdest Beaches on Earth – Video

 Beaches  Comments Off on 15 Weirdest Beaches on Earth – Video
Apr 122015

15 Weirdest Beaches on Earth
From unnaturally coloured sand to a spot where cows and humans frolic in harmony, we count fifteen of the world's weirdest beaches Facebook: Twitter:…

By: Danger Dolan

Read more:
15 Weirdest Beaches on Earth – Video

(LP) Freedom Planet (Carol) Part 12: Ninja Hideout (Hard Mode) – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on (LP) Freedom Planet (Carol) Part 12: Ninja Hideout (Hard Mode) – Video
Apr 112015

(LP) Freedom Planet (Carol) Part 12: Ninja Hideout (Hard Mode)
Well this is different, I thought going in order level like lilac story mode they mechanized it. Please like, comment and subscribe! and support my channel Facebook –…

By: MemoriesGamer612

Read the rest here:
(LP) Freedom Planet (Carol) Part 12: Ninja Hideout (Hard Mode) – Video

NASA is Illuminati – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on NASA is Illuminati – Video
Apr 112015

NASA is Illuminati
Make sure you've got all of your belongings with you while watching this! Get Connected: Twitter: Twitch: Facebook: https://www…

By: Peladophobian

See more here:
NASA is Illuminati – Video

Yarycho Beats – Transhuman Ambient Horrcore (Beat #1) – Video

 Transhuman  Comments Off on Yarycho Beats – Transhuman Ambient Horrcore (Beat #1) – Video
Apr 112015

Yarycho Beats – Transhuman Ambient Horrcore (Beat #1)
Beat Name: Transhuman Made In Fl Studio 11 ( Beat #1) Facebook: ? Email: ?

By: YarychoBeats

Read the original:
Yarycho Beats – Transhuman Ambient Horrcore (Beat #1) – Video

Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech – Video
Apr 112015

Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech
The President of the Virginia Fraternal Order of Police said, “Free speech doesn't say you have the right to insult somebody,” and that using bad language online should also be considered a…


Read the original:
Virginia Cop-Insulting Someone on Facebook Is Not Free Speech – Video

Free speech or hate speech? Lisitsa and the TSO

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Free speech or hate speech? Lisitsa and the TSO
Apr 112015

On April 8 and 9, the pianist Valentina Lisitsa was to perform the Rachmaninoff 2nd concerto with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. This week, the orchestra paid out her contract, citing deeply offensive comments she was alleged to have made on her Twitter feed about the ongoing conflict in her native Ukraine.

Lisitsa, 41, who came to prominence through her YouTube videos and who has a huge social-media following, fired back promptly and at some length in a Facebook post (despite, she averred, pressure from the symphony not to go public about the incident). She makes no bones about having taken sides in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine; she is on the side of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who represent the majority in the Crimea, and vehemently opposed to the current Ukrainian leadership. Her posts on Twitter repeatedly call Ukrainians Nazis and depicts them as a population of idiots and the insane; one purports to illustrate the leaderships faces with a photograph of pigs testicles. The feed also has some racism and overtones of anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure. But, Lisitsa says, she was exercising her right to free speech. The orchestras position is that she went too far.

This is not about political persuasion, says Jeff Melanson, the Toronto Symphonys president and CEO, in a telephone interview on Wednesday morning. He adds, Thats no issue for us. [But] artists using their Twitter or public profile to regularly speak in an intolerant or offensive way about other human beings that, you have to think about. The orchestra invoked a clause in her contract that enabled them to dismiss her.

Theres food here for legitimate debate. But legitimate debate is not necessarily whats fostered in the kangaroo court of Twitter and Facebook. The Toronto Symphony has been besieged by an outcry about free speech, and ultimately had to cancel the concerto altogether (Stewart Goodyear, who was to have replaced Lisitsa, says her supporters bullied him out). Some of the orchestras critics include people who have their own political axes to grind; some appear to believe that Lisitsa is supporting the Ukrainian rather than the Russian side in the conflict; and some include members of prominent newspapers editorial boards: the Toronto Star, for one, has weighed in with a strong indictment.

Few, if any, have mentioned an obvious recent parallel, when Opera Australia dismissed the Georgian soprano Tamar Iveri in 2014 after a lengthy Facebook post was found in which she supported attacks on a gay-pride parade in her native Georgia and referred to gay people as fecal masses. Free speech? Sure, but Iveri found precious few defenders and certainly there were no editorials defending her right to speak out.

The case against Lisitsa is arguably not quite as clear-cut. The Toronto Symphony has amassed a seven-page collection of some of her ripest Tweets, including one that mocks Ukranians in traditional folk costume by comparing them to Africans in tribal dress. There are evocations of Nazi concentration camps and the Ku Klux Klan. Theres no question that its pretty distasteful stuff; digging around in it left this reader, at least, feeling soiled.

But where do you draw the line? You could argue that Lisitsa is writing, clumsily, in the tradition of offensive satire propagated by the magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose right to free speech many in the West passionately defended in the wake of the brutal attack on their offices earlier this year, which left 12 people dead. One of Lisitsas tweets that some found objectionable This is what happens when media gets their news out of a..uh..sphincter, she wrote about a New York Times piece on Russian leaders abandoning Ukrainian separatists included a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, depicting news outlets drinking out of each others rear ends. (In a Twitter exchange, Lisitsa confirmed that she had swapped out the names of the media outlets to make the cartoon relevant to the Ukrainian situation.)

Conversely, you could argue that a musician who uses her podium for this kind of material is not someone you want associating with your orchestra. You could also argue that Lisitsa is propagating hate speech, and that hate speech is illegal in Canada and many other countries.

Theres no doubt its a gray zone, said Melanson in a telephone interview on Wednesday morning.

Whether or not you agree with the symphonys position, they have gotten the worst of it in the social-media war in part through not being more explicit right from the start about the nature of the Tweets they were protesting. In 2014, Opera Australia made it perfectly clear why they were letting Iveri go; by contrast, Melansons initial statement about ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets made it sound as if the symphony were responding to someone elses claims which has fueled a lot of speculation about who it was that pressured them to act. Melanson, however, avers that no political pressure, no pressure from donors, no messages from foreign or local governments was responsible for the orchestras decision.

Go here to see the original:
Free speech or hate speech? Lisitsa and the TSO

The Costs and Benefits of Accepting Libertarianism – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on The Costs and Benefits of Accepting Libertarianism – Video
Apr 112015

The Costs and Benefits of Accepting Libertarianism
Subscribe: Like us on Facebook: Follow us on Twitter: Some childrenthankfully feware born without a conscience or the ability to feel compassion. Question: What makes good people do…

By: Erma Nort

More here:
The Costs and Benefits of Accepting Libertarianism – Video

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