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

A new Freedom Camping bylaw will be in place by Labour Weekend.

Council deliberated on submissions to its draft Freedom Camping Bylaw today, and will look to adopt a revised draft bylaw at its meeting on 22 October.

In the past few months we’ve had a draft Freedom Bylaw out for public consultation. We had over 120 submissions and submitters were given the opportunity to speak to Council at a hearing last month.

At today’s deliberations Council did decide on some changes to the proposed draft bylaw that included:

Removing the proposed restriction that would prohibit freedom camping in restricted areas during summer and holiday weekends.

Extending the proposed departure time from 8am to 9am.

Extending the number of nights freedom campers can stay in a restricted area to 2 consecutive nights.

Having designating areas for freedom camping within all restricted areas.

Some changes to proposed areas where freedom camping is prohibited or restricted Council agreed to keep the proposed district-wide restriction that all freedom campers must be certified self-contained.

To see all the summary of submissions and the decisions that council considered see the deliberations decisions report. Earlier this year we had a judicial review of our current Freedom Camping Bylaw sought by the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA). The High Court decision was released late last month and found that our Bylaw is legal, but two clauses in our Public Places Bylaw and Parking Control Bylaw should be revoked. Council formally revoked these today.

Read this article:
New freedom camping bylaw in time for Labour Weekend



Detroit Performs Clip: Pottery at Liberty Craftworks
Air date: 10/14/14. We visit the pottery shop at Liberty Craftworks to see the beautiful plates, pots, crocks, and more are churned out each day. Episode 205/Segment 2.

By: Detroit Public TV

Excerpt from:
Detroit Performs Clip: Pottery at Liberty Craftworks – Video

Wellington City Councils environment committee agreed at yesterdays meeting to welcome and allow campers visiting the Capital to freedom camp except in some parts of the city.

The Council has been permissive but at the same time protective of Wellingtons open green spaces, reserves, flora and fauna.

Changes have been made to part (12) of the Public Places by-law consistent with the Freedom Camping Act 2011. Parliament originally intended to prohibit freedom camping and now the permissive legislation allows it, except where it is prohibited. The recommendations from the committee will have further public consultation after the November Council meeting.

Councillor Helene Ritchie says, “Visitors and campers to Wellington will be able to enjoy the city and the natural environment we have so close to the heart of the CBD, the harbour and the Coast. However, camping will be prohibited in central city parks such as Frank Kitts or Waitangi Park; campervans will eventually have a new site on Port land, and camping on reserve land or inner city parks will still not be allowed”.

The Bylaw will regulate camping in specific public places to protect particular areas and the health and safety of visitors to these areas, with notices and friendly rangers who will have warrants but will only as a last resort exercise the power that they will have to fine people up to $200 who damage plants or leave litter behind.

49 submissions were received as part of the consultation on the draft bylaw and most were supportive of the proposed changes.

While freedom camping in most reserves is still restricted under reserve management plans, except for some coastal areas, freedom camping will be encouraged at the Te Kopahou Reserve entrance at Owhiro Bay, and campers in self-contained vehicles will be able to stay at the southern end of Evans Bay marina.

See the original post here:
Wellington welcomes freedom campers

Dr. Deepak Srivastava, a leading biomedical research policy expert, will discuss “Stem Cells, Regenerative Medicine and Policy Impediments to the New Future” at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy Oct. 21. The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required.

Who: Dr. Deepak Srivastava, the Baker Institute’s nonresident scholar for biomedical research policy and the Younger Family Director and senior investigator at the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease.

Neal Lane, the Malcolm Gillis University Professor, senior fellow in science and technology policy at Rice’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and a professor of physics and astronomy, will give introductory remarks.

What: A presentation titled “Stem Cells, Regenerative Medicine and Policy Impediments to the New Future.”

When: Tuesday, Oct. 21, 7:45-9:30 a.m. Breakfast will be served at 7:45.

Where: Rice University, James A. Baker III Hall, Kelly International Conference Facility, 6100 Main St.

Stem cells and regenerative medicine are exciting and emerging fields of biomedical research, according to event organizers. Proposed applications include treating conditions such as blindness, diabetes and heart disease. Regenerative medicine could also help heal failing organ systems and replace damaged tissue. While these fields hold great promise for medicine, external factors limit and, in some cases, stall research, organizers said. Ethical controversies surrounding human embryonic stem cells, policy issues affecting federal and state funding and regulation, and economic pressures all play a role in determining the future of research.

In his presentation, Srivastava will explore the current and future potential of stem cells and regenerative medicine. Following the presentation, he will discuss policy challenges and opportunities with Lane.

The event is sponsored by the Baker Institute’s Science and Technology Policy Program and the Health Policy Forum.

Read the original post:
Policy impediments to using stem cells and regenerative medicine to be discussed at Rice's Baker Institute Oct. 21



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip40

By: HANG PICTURE

Read more:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip40 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip39

By: HANG PICTURE

Original post:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip39 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip30

By: HANG FASHION

Excerpt from:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip30 – Video

Longtime reporters who cover the NSA know that any time we ask the obstinate spy agency for information, were probably going to hit a brick wall. But who would have thought that trying to obtain information about information the agency has already given us would lead to the same wall?

Thats what happened when the Federation of American Scientists filed a FOIA request with the Defense Department (of which the NSA is a part) earlier this year seeking information about any authorized leaks of intelligence made to the media during the previous 12 months.

The response they got (.pdf) from the National Security Agency might well have come from Winston Smiths Ministry of Truth.

The document responsive to your request has been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and has been found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526, the letter read. The document is classified because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

Last year, Congress amended the Intelligence Authorization Act to require government officials to notify lawmakers whenever they disclose national security secrets to the media as part of an authorized leak. Under Section 504 of the statute (.pdf), the government official responsible for authorizing the disclosure has to submit to congressional intelligence committees a timely report about the disclosure, if the information is classified at the time of the leak or was declassified for the purpose of making the leak, and if the information being disclosed was made with the intent or knowledge that such information will be made publicly available.

There have been numerous authorized leaks over the years, including the controversial White House leaks about the killing of Osama bin Laden. There have been even more unauthorized leaks, howeverby government officials and workers. It makes sense for Congress to want to know when classified information has been leaked or declassified in order to distinguish official leaks from unauthorized ones. Lawmakers on the intelligence committees look silly when they tell reporters they cant talk about something, while government officials are freely yapping about the same topic behind their backs. They also look silly when they publicly call for a criminal investigation into a leak that turns out to have been authorized. And, of course, members of both parties in Congress want to know when the party in power in the White House might be authorizing leaks for political gain.

But once those leaks are made to the media and published, why shouldnt the public also be able to know when the information came from an authorized source or an unauthorized one?

Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, noted in his letter to the NSA appealing its response (.pdf) that It is well established that information, including classified information, that has been publicly disclosed on an authorized basis loses its exemption from disclosure under FOIA.

He has a theory, however, about why the NSA might not want to disclose what it has disclosed. He says that even though the statute refers to information that the leaker expects will be made public, the NSA might not want the public to know which information was part of an authorized leak because some might have been provided off the record.

I think its more likely that these disclosures were part of a negotiation with news organizations, he told WIRED. In that case, the disclosures in question were not actually published, rather they were part of a dialogue with a reporter perhaps in an effort to dissuade her or him from publication.

More here:
NSA Mind-Bender: We Wont Tell You What Info We Already Leaked to the Media



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip32

By: HANG FASHION

Read the original here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip32 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip21

By: HANG MUSIC

Read more:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip21 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip28

By: HANG COLOR

Read the rest here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip28 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip27

By: HANG COLOR

Excerpt from:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip27 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip24

By: HANG MUSIC

View original post here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip24 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip38

By: Le Hang 10

Read the rest here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip38 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip13

By: HANG LIFE

View post:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip13 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip23

By: HANG MUSIC

More:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip23 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip34

By: Le Hang 09

The rest is here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip34 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip5

By: HANG ECONOMIC

Continued here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip5 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip7

By: HANG ECONOMIC

See the rest here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip7 – Video



Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip9

By: HANG LAW

Originally posted here:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip9 – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com