text:
Multisport synthetic MUGA surfacing in Barbican PL4 0 can be installed in organisations like schools, colleges and leisure centres often look to have versatile, all-purpose sports facilities; this is why MUGA surfacing is commonly used for these areas.
As professional sports flooring installers in surrounding areas we can design and build multi use courts in Barbican with this specialist surfacing to suit different budgets and playing requirements for football, hockey, tennis and lots of other games.
we offer free no obligation quotations
GET A QUOTE NOWIf you would like to find out more information regarding multisport synthetic MUGA's, speak to our specialists today. We are able to provide you with everything you need to know, as well as provide you with a quote. Simply fill out the enquiry form provided and a member of our team will get back to you as quickly as possible.
A MUGA facility is an area which is used for a range of activities. For facilities that get a lot of use with a variety of different sports, the Multi sport synthetic surfacing is extremely durable and long lasting. Many organisations are choosing to replace macadam play areas and waterlogged grass fields with this artificial carpet to create better playing qualities with a much more attractive design. The specification of this turf flooring is a needlepunch design which creates much more porosity in the surface and therefore enhances water drainage compared with other synthetic grass types. During the installation process, our specialist installers will lay the 2G artificial carpet onto a macadam sub base, and often a shockpad will be put down first. The shockpad is used to provide added comfort and shock absorption for facilities which are going to be used with lots of different sports.
We offer a range of Multi Sport design specifications in Barbican PL4 0 including different dimensions and colours. You could even choose to have a multi-coloured design with individual sections for different activities. We are able to alter our designs and specifications in order to meet your needs and requirements. Our main goal as a top rated local sport MUGA surfacing installation company is to ensure that our clients are happy with our services, so please do not hesitate to let us know if there is anything that we may do that will make you more happy with the overall construction.
If you are interested in upgrading your sports facility or installing a brand new one with this type of artificial surface for outdoor sport, please get in touch with us through the contact form. One of our nearby experts will be able to talk you through the costs and each of the designs that we offer. If you would like to find out more about 2G surfaces and more about that surface, click on this page http://multiusegamesarea.co.uk/surfacing/sand-filled-dressed-2g-turf/devon/barbican/ as it is full of useful information.
As well as multi use and multisport games areas, needlepunch sports flooring can also be used for athletics facilities such as sprint tracks, long jump runways and high jump areas. Primary schools and recreational facilities often use this as an alternative to polymeric surfacing because it's a lot softer for younger users to run on and it absorbs impact if they fall. Another reason that primary schools choose the Multisport surfacing is that it comes in a choice of bright colours including red, blue, green and yellow. This means that schools can choose a design which suits any existing colour schemes they have, and create a fun and vibrant outdoor games space.
For maximum stability, the synthetic needlepunch sports carpet is infilled with a layer of specialist sand which helps to maintain natural playing qualities and keep the fibres upright. Due to the curly grass yarn, this type of carpet encapsulates the sand well, making for even performance characteristics throughout its use. In order to keep needlepunch sports flooring near me in top condition, the carpet should be brushed regularly and have chemical treatments applied to prevent moss and algae growth. We offer a range of professional MUGA pitch specification maintenance services at a great value price so we may help you with the process and the installation.
If you are wondering how to install needle punch carpet, make sure to have a look at these steps:
We can complete the installation process to a high standard and we aim to provide the best value for money. Our installers will only make use of premium materials and specialist tools which is why our multi use games area prices may not always be the cheapest, but we will not be beaten on a like for like quote.
We work with a number of facilities across the UK including schools, sports halls, leisure centres and nurseries. We are able to provide you with the results you are happy with, at a great price. Feel free to talk to our team today by filling out the enquiry form provided.
Please feel free to complete our contact box if you'd like some more information about the costs to install Multisport synthetic MUGA surfacing in Barbican PL4 0 one of our closest specialists will be in touch to talk through your budget and Multi Sport requirements so we can offer a quote which suits you. As well as installing this kind of needlepunch sports surface, we also can install polymeric, it just depends what you are wanting your facility to appear like and the budget which you have available http://multiusegamesarea.co.uk/surfacing/polymeric-sports-surfaces/devon/barbican/ please just ask our team if you need any more details.


text:
The votes are in, and President Obama — with 40 million followers on Twitter --is the Leader of the Tweet World, according to the Digital Policy Council's recent report on the use of social media by presidents, potentates and other pooh-bahs.
The Top 5 World Leaders With The Most Followers On Twitter:
1) President Barack Obama of the United States
2) President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia
3) President Abdullah Gul of Turkey
4) Queen Rania, the queen consort of the King of Jordan
5) Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of Russia
Below are 5 recent tweets. See if you can tell which Leader is the Tweeter.
a) It doesn't matter where you start, it matters where you end up.
b) President chaired a plenary cabinet session to discuss economic management, disaster relief, and election readiness.
c) I watched all the beauty of the city, from the army's famous Boz Tepesi. This may be the ideal place for paragliding
d) Out with the #family for #lunch, nothing like grills and a good plate of humus.
e) In any economic situation, the state has always found and will always find money for healthcare.
Answers: 1,a; 2,b; 3,c; 4,d; 5,e. (And TOH to Google and Bing translators.)
The Protojournalist is an experiment in reporting. Abstract. Concrete. @NPRtpj
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Class Central Tips
Welcome to Spanish for Successful Communication in Healthcare Settings! This course is structured in four modules, each one revolving on a topic related to the physician-patient interaction. Each module contains four lessons; on grammar, vocabulary, the dynamics of the spoken interaction, and aspects of sociocultural relevance. The video lessons are unlike regular "lectures" in which you are just listening. Instead, you should think of them as virtual classes where you are supposed to reflect, complete activities, and even get extra practice on your own time. The videos are a roadmap that will provide what you need to complete the activities on the student handout. Each module is followed by a 10-question quiz. It is important that you complete the lessons sequentially, as they build upon each other.


text:
It's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Audie Cornish.
And I'm Robert Siegel.
Heavy snow is falling across the Northeast, and when it's all over, winter storm Nemo could be a blizzard of historic proportions. The governor of Massachusetts has even ordered all cars off the roads.
CORNISH: The impact on transportation is widespread: thousands of flights cancelled, trains service disrupted. NPR's Jim Zarroli tells us more.
JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: From New Jersey to Maine today, public officials pleaded with residents not to go outside unless they absolutely needed to. Here was Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy.
GOVERNOR DAN MALLOY: The whole point of this is if you don't currently have a reason to be on the road, if you're not an emergency personnel that's required to report to work somewhere, stay home now. This is it.
ZARROLI: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island all declared a state of emergency. It wasn't just the heavy snow that posed a threat. In Massachusetts, where people still talk about the blizzard of 1978, forecasters say wind gusts could be 70 miles an hour. Yesterday, Governor Deval Patrick asked people not to drive unless necessary. Today, he ordered them off the roads altogether by 4 p.m.
GOVERNOR DEVAL PATRICK: This is going to be a very serious weather event. If we get the amount of snow forecast, the recovery will be slow. People should prepare for that.
ZARROLI: Perhaps because this blizzard comes so close on the heels of Hurricane Sandy, people were inclined to take the threat of a bad storm pretty seriously. In Boston, cab driver Jean de Mustaine(ph) heard about the order to get off the roads and didn't lose any time complying.
JEAN DE MUSTAINE: I'm going to go home. I'm not going to go out. I'm going to sleep. All cab drivers have to stop by 4 p.m. because the way it is now, it's going to be bad.
ZARROLI: With the roads closed, there was no way to get around. Air travel has pretty much ground to a halt. All public transportation in and around Boston was suspended. But a lot of people were trying to make the best of it. Carol Levitt(ph) caught one of the last commuter trains out of South Station. She was heading outside the city to go sledding.
CAROL LEVITT: I am going to the suburbs so that I can enjoy some adventures in the snow with friends and family, and it beats the heck out of staying holed up in my apartment in Boston.
ZARROLI: The snow is expected to be lighter in the New York area, but it could still amount to a foot or more by tomorrow afternoon. Long Island Railroad, Metro-North and New Jersey Transit scheduled extra trains throughout the afternoon to help commuters get out of the city faster.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Pleased be advised, there will be no more train service after 1 p.m.
ZARROLI: At Penn Station, a larger than normal crowd of people stood waiting to board the trains. Amtrak suspended all service north of the city by the early afternoon. Jasmine Castro(ph) came from Baltimore for the weekend for a long-planned trip. The bus she wanted to take was cancelled, so she came on the train, but the weekend was quickly unraveling anyway.
JASMINE CASTRO: I'm here for a Christmas present that my boyfriend bought me to see the "Sex and the City" tour and also to see "Chicago" for the Broadway show. And then as soon as we got on, he got a phone call saying the "Sex and the City" tour was cancelled. So hopefully "Chicago's" still on.
ZARROLI: But the subways are running, and life in the city is about as normal as it can be, given a storm of this magnitude. That's not the case in the suburbs. Parts of Long Island are still recovering from the impact of Hurricane Sandy a little more than three months ago, and the blizzard is expected to hit that area especially hard. Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Going Lightly Armored
34 comments:
Although I don't have any hard and fast rules on this in my games, now that I think of it as a player I would greatly appreciate a boon for going without plate or chain. It would be especially nice for Fighter/MU's who I don't allow to wear any better than light chain if they want to do spells on the spot.
Double damage seems to be kind of big to me, though. I think I usually give a non-theif a +4 to hit from a sneak-up behind but no damage bonus, and that seems to work out pretty well.
I think to give double damage for that might not only have the desired affect of making fighters go lightly armored, but even moreso you'll probably have fighters who try to hang back in shadows waiting for a back shot rather than diving into melee. that'll get old quick.I toyed with the idea of allowing fighters to train in defensive weapon techniques that would give them the equivalent of plate armor protection. This way it would be open to all fighters regardless of dex and it would be something the fighter could buy, like armor. Though I wouldn't allow the fighter to stack the bonus if wearing plate or chain so they could switch back and forth as the situation required.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nellisir, not wearing plate already has some good benifits in the dungeon enviroment; you can run faster and carry more, you don't sink straight to the bottom of the body of water you fall into, you don't make a loud clanking sound everytime you move, and you are not a lightning rod.
The whole everyone should be equal and if my charachter wants to not have plate he should be just as effective as the guy with plate smacks of rules to make bad ideas in real life good in the game world. There is a reason everyone who could wore plate and carried a shield on the battle field, it worked the best.
even Conan suited up in armour before going in a major battle.There are pros and cons in the armor issue, such as the comment already made about swimming and climbing. Tying knots with rope in gauntlets is another case as well. One advantage I see in armor, beyond the obvious, is that if a thief manages to backstab you [catch you with your pants down] all that stands before you and the dagger is the armor. Dex should not count if you are surprised before you can react...
ReplyDeleteYeah, the dungeon environment (classic, anyway) is for sure extra hostile to those plate guys. Any GM on the ball should make it a pain in the ass to be anywhere but a battlefield in the stuff. Maybe that's why not many characters wear plate in my games. The 80's seemed to be the hayday of that.
ReplyDelete*Real* combat styles do give you the equivalent of a defensive bonus - e.g. German Longsword (the one I do) is all about attacking behind your sword in such a manner as to intercept the incoming attack, while landing a cut.
Armour doesn't greatly reduce this ability, because it protects you more than it hampers you, (and you can use that protection to fight more aggresively.)
So, in game mechanics terms, the better the fighter, the harder they should be to hit, regardless.
However, light armour ought to be the default for other reasons.The main advantage of going lightly armoured is a higher movement rate. A character in plate mail has better survivability in combat, but cannot outrun most enemies: if the enemy flees (perhaps to alert the others) he will not be able to catch them; if the fight does go badly, and he decides to flee, he will be caught by his pursuers. Leather armour or lighter is a must for any sort of serious scouting or reconnaissance; heavier armour is only for those times when you are committed to standing and fighting. In open terrain, missile armed troops with light armour will be able to fire, retreat, and fire again at slower-moving armoured ones armed with melee or shorter-range weapons.
Mobility is a huge advantage, if you take use it properly. If anything, the benefits of wearing heavy armour in D&D are too few, especially at higher levels, where a low AC only marginally reduces the frequency with which characters will be hit.
The weapon vs. AC rules in AD&D substantially increase the value of plate mail: against most weapons, plate mail + shield has an effective AC of 0 or lower.For me, the only thing I add is that multi-classed wizards need chain or lighter to perform casting. Similarly, multi-classed thieves need leather or lighter for their skills. Thus, with fairly liberal multi-classing opportunities, there's a lot of somebodies whose optimal choice is one or the other.
And of course I stay away from Sup-I's weapon-vs-armor tables as way too complicated. Just give a single, averaged bonus and you get the same effect and can have it memorized. (Axes +1 vs. chain & plate, clubs +2 vs. plate.)I think this is one area that Rolemaster "got it right". In RM, the heavier armor made you easier to hit, but you took less damage. Lighter armors were tougher to hit, but when a hit was made, damage was greater than the heavier armors.
That doesn't sound like a good idea: it basically adds mechanical diversity (complexity) for the sake of novelty.
You can use this system to create two armours that are, on average, equally effective, but the heavier one will be more predictable and therefore better from the wearer's perspective. Consider, for example, a 20% chance of taking 4 damage versus an 80% chance of taking 1 damage: the fighter with the latter stats will have more warning that a potentially fatal blow could be coming next round. But you could just as easily roll all of the variance into one of the two variables for a mechanically simpler system: either armour reduces the chance of taking damge or reduces the amount of damage taken.
Mechanical differences do not automatically translate into different tactical or strategic options. Often, they just provide different rules for arriving at the same net result.
IMO, difference in equipment stats should either position one as unequivocally better, and more desirable, than the other (e.g. a sword +2 is just plain better than a sword +1, and therefore a more valuable prize) or allow for different tactical options (e.g. heavy armour that trades mobility for better protection). Otherwise, the equipment is just cosmetic and doesn't need differential stats or mechanics. You could, for example, just say that armour provides AC 5, and it is up to the player to imagine whether it is leather, chain, or plate mail.Bear in mind that wearing an inferior armor does bestow one great benefit; faster base speed. When you're fleeing down a corridor, it could well make a difference if you're running at 6" or 9".
Remember; I don't have to run faster than the dragon. I just have to run faster than *you*.
Plus, if one chooses to use the weapon vs. armor type table in the AD&D PH (as I do, and I know I am of an insignificant minority who share my choice), it does make the choice of which armor to wear (and, in reverse, which weapon to wield) much more significant."I have never understood the urge to make being unarmored somehow "equal in defense" or "more attractive" to wearing armor. Why is this necessary?"
So you can have swashbucklers.
"...smacks of rules to make bad ideas in real life good in the game world."
Yes, it's a way of having characters from the Princess Bride and characters from Ivanhoe in the same game. D&D does this anyway: plate armour and a horse would probably make you invincible against someone with a dagger and no armour, rather than merely having an advantage.
"even Conan suited up in armour before going in a major battle."
Let's face it, we get our idea of Conan primarily from the comics.James said: I agree. Do you know of such a class?
It's called the thief is it not?
I'm actually not 100% familiar with the Supplement 1 version of the Thief, but it does still have a backstab right?
Based mostly off the way things were handled in the Village of Hommlet, I always allowed Thieves to wear whatever armor they wanted, but then there was no Backstab or skills.
Assuming thieves get Hide in Shadows and Backstab, that seems an adequate reward for forgoing armor.UWS said: Give all fighting men the abilities of the 'thief acrobat'?
Why not just give thief-acrobats the abilities of thief-acrobats?
It's been my experience that Thief-Acrobats are explicitly better in combat than thieves, and I've often felt the class was designed that way on purpose, to account for the melee warrior who was "slippery" rather than a tank.As has been mentioned, one of the advantages of light armor is greater speed. If you use any sort of "Opportunity Attack" rules (such as AD&D's free strike against the rear AC for hastily breaking off melee, not to mention later editions...), then I would consider giving folks in light armor a significant bonus against such attacks. That really gives them actual mobility -- too often the lim fac is the pain for breaking off melee, not your speed.
I've actually come to the school of thought where all armors provide similar "AC" protection. Light armor provides less ENC, better speed, and breaking off from melee bonuses. Medium armor is easier to enchant with special properties. Heavy armor is heavy and slower but provides slightly better AC than the other types.The sword and sorcery trope of the unarmoured and/or lightly armoured warrior is based, in part at least upon the idea alluded to above by Zornhau, that if the warrior is highly skilled then he will be able to avoid being struck through by countering, parrying, or otherwise avoiding the blow. A warrior's trained ability to block and parry protects him from harm as much if not more than his armour (or native agility).
The warrior's choice of weapon is also a significant factor in that a pollaxe arguably offers better protection than a mace, which offers better protection than a dagger.
All this stuff would of course be difficult to model in D&D without recourse to major rules renovation so p'raps the hit point abstraction could cover this stuff,I went through similar considerations early this year and tried various initiative systems out to try and make lightly armoured fighters more viable in combat.
In the end, what I do is apply a base +4 to hit from behind and because I use the Heroscape hexes in combat, I have elevated battles. Moving upwards eats up more movement in my battles.
This equates to lightly armoured fighters being able to outflank and attack enemies from behind more easily than their slower moving, more tanklike counter parts. A +4 to hit from behind on an opponent in platemail negates his armour (in effect turning it to leather) and this works out well in practice.
So, it might be all you really need to do: put obstacles in the party's way that tie up heavily armoured fighters (such as slopes, hills, etc) and allow the lighter armoured ones to flank because of their faster movement rates.I favor rules that enable player decisions where high ability scores award a higher bonus to certain actions but they aren't "always on".
In my own house rules a High-dex AC bonus isn't automatic and only applies to AC when one is actively parrying (or dodging). It makes decissions in play a little more important then raw stats.Surely swashbucklers, for example, wear light armour for the perfectly good in-game reason that otherwise they'll sink like a stone if someone pushes them over the side of a boat or off a cliff-top balcony.
I don't think any other mechanism is needed other than a DM who is willing to say things like "It takes you three hours to climb the rope in your platemail; the princess was sacrificed to the dragon an hour ago".I think this is one area that Rolemaster "got it right". In RM, the heavier armor made you easier to hit, but you took less damage. Lighter armors were tougher to hit, but when a hit was made, damage was greater than the heavier armors.
So perhaps we could design a system like so (using old Labyrinth Lord ACs as an example):
Padded, AC 8
Leather, AC 7
Studded leather, AC 6
Scale, AC 8, -1 to damage
Chain, AC 7, - 1 to damage
Banded, AC 6, -1 to damage
Splint, AC 6, -1 to damage
Plate, AC 6, -2 to damage
Then, no armor is better than AC 6, but some provide some damage resistance. You still have your problems with movement and encumbrance, plus make thieves unable to use anything heavier than studded leather and they don't get advantages from damage reduction. You could add the shield for an armor class bonus and if you include Trollsmyth's "shields shall be splintered" rules, you get some damage reduction rules for shields, too.
I'm not sure what I think about this. While from a game point of view it's mechanically simple and makes someone think more about their armor choices, I don't know so much from a simulationist standpoint. There'd definitely be more hits, but I can see now that monsters or weapons that do very little damage would be nerfed. The dagger, specifically, seems like a sore spot to me. I thought a chief advantage of the dagger was that you could slip it between the plates and get a good strike in during close combat? This would largely negate that effect, when half the time your damage is reduced to zero by plate armor.Not quite that simple - better armour does make you harder to *hit* because either the blow has to be heavier, or else better aimed, or in the case of plate, both.
If you're in shirt sleeves, I can open your throat with an opportunistic schnit. In armour, I'll need to get you with a good blow, or hook inside your gauntlets, armpit or groin.
Conversely, you only need hit hard enough to kill the other person. I'm not going to use might swings if you're just in a loin cloth.
So, armour affecting the to hit roll is realistic, damage absorbtion, oddly, is not.
On another note, I once tried to get down a real countermine in 15th-century plate armour - couldn't be done!I don't like the idea that every fighter wears plate at all times because it is simply the best. I do like the idea of lightly armoured warriors, but do not feel comfortable making them equally viable to heavily armoured warriors just for the sake of game balance. That leads me to ask myself why someone would choose a lighter amour over a heavier armour given the choice. It seems to me that while plate may be the best choice for straight up combat, that it would hinder the wearer in other activities that may occur between or during combats.
I favor rolling under a character's relevant stat as a quick and easy resolution method. So why not subtract the AC from armour from the stat, the heavier the armour the bigger the penalty. Of course some common sense will still be required that penalties are only applied where appropriate, but I think it has some merit as a quick and dirty method.
EX: In severe heat you might call for constitution checks to avoid increasing penalities, being weighted down with heavy armour will of course affect you chance of passing and suddenly you have a good reason to avoid that plate.Actually, damage absorption is not necessarily wrong - this is kind of a complicated subject, as there are exceptions.
It is *mostly* correct, though. A war sword vs. full plate (esp. high quality harness, which was tempered sword-grade steel) was a futile gesture if one was attempting to cleave or hack through it - but as Zornhau points out, you did not do that but rather aimed for the visor slot, etc. So in a sense plate armour basically "voids" the places it covers, rendering them more or less invulnerable to most attacks.
And even if you could conceivably get through, one would still want to go for something less well protected. For example, it is (barely) possible to breach maille armour, but one is better served aiming for less well protected parts of the body. An account from some Viking Age battle (Clontarf, possibly) tells of how they wrestled a Viking to the ground and pulled his hauberk off in order to kill him.
Of course, if one is using, say, a mace, then such finness is not possible. Presumably the concussive force might be enough to injure or stun, but I don't know.
Actually, the AD&D combat system, using the full ruleset, is really not all that unrealistic, though it is putzy and not terribly user friendly.
A thought - one could model this sort of thing thusly: allow certain weapons such as maces, poll axes, etc. to hit even plate armoured foes fairly easily, but do limited damage (half or less). Swords have a very hard time hitting but do full damage when the do (representing a direct hit to a weak spot).
Don't know if it would be worth doing, but there it is.


text:
Tickets for events at Regent's Park Open Air Theatre, London
Venue Information
The theatre is located in Queen Mary's Gardens, on the Inner Circle of Regent's Park and consequently is surrounded entirely by parkland. It is completely uncovered; the only sheltered area being underneath the tiered auditorium, which houses one of the longest bars of any theatre in London - stretching the entire length of the seating. A selection of pre-theatre dining options are available throughout the season including a hot & cold buffet, barbecue and covered dining where you can pre-book to be served dinner before the performance, with coffee and dessert served in the interval. The theatre also boasts its own picnic lawn with tables for the audience to bring their own food. The theatre houses an extensive backstage area complete with green room for the company and technical team, a full wardrobe, makeup and wigs department, a workshop and paintshop for the creation and maintenance of stage sets and numerous offices for stage management, sound, LX and other crew. The theatre is a registered charity, run by an Artistic Director Timothy Sheader and Executive Director William Village. The charity's Board of Trustees is chaired by Stuart Griffiths OBE, and includes Sir Peter Rogers, Anna Fleischle, Tyrone Huntley, Toni Racklin, William Village and Dame Judi Dench.
By Tube
Baker Street is the closest tube station and is served by the Bakerloo, Circle, Hammersmith and City, Jubilee and Metropolitan lines. The venue is also close to Regent's Park Station (Bakerloo Line) and Great Portland Street Station (Hammersmith & City, Circle and Metropolitan lines.)
By Train
Marylebone station is a 15 minute walk to the west. Euston station is a 30 minute walk to the east.
By Car
Use the postcode NW1 4NU to plan your journey.
By Bus
Baker Street is served by bus numbers 13, 18, 27, 30, 74, 82, 113, 139, 189, 274. Marylebone Road is served by bus numbers 18, 205, 27, 30, 453 and N18.
Parking is free on the Inner Circle, Chester Road and Outer Circle after 6.30pm. Pay and Display at all other times.
Wheelchair Access
The theatre is fully accessible to people with reduced mobility. Spaces in the auditorium for wheelchair users and their companions can be booked in advance with the Open Air Theatre Box Office.
Hearing Systems
An FM assisted listening system is available for people with hearing impairments. Please request a handset from the venue.
Guide Dogs
Guide dogs are welcome and can be looked after if required.
General Access Info
To book a disabled space or for more information, please call 0333 320 2834.


text:
Gertie, The look is fabulous but I've got to say I'm uncomfortable about the return to 50s fashion. This was a terrible time for women and the wiggle skirt is a symbol of just how unemanicipated women were. Why do women want to wear a symbol of our oppression. Are you like my daughter - born in the post feminist era and thinking I should just "get over it!"I think this is an excellent point, and one that I wanted to address.
First of all, let me establish than I am a feminist. Not a "post feminist," but a regular old feminist. I'm proud to live in a time where I have certain choices and freedoms, and I know that I owe my current liberties to feminists past who paved the way. So. I am a modern feminist gal who likes fashions from the fifties, a time period which, as Gail pointed out, is not exactly known for being woman-friendly. How do I reconcile these contradictions?
Well, thinking this over brought up more questions than answers for me. For example:
- Is wearing a fashion from an oppressive time period indeed a symbol of that oppression?
- Is there such a thing as "reclaiming" these fashions so that they are symbols of power rather than domination?
- Should we only make patterns from the eras that were the least oppressive to women?
- If wiggle skirts and the like are offensive to those with feminist sensibilities, what is the alternative? I mean, what could we possibly wear that would establish us as feminists to those who view us?
- Are 50's wiggle skirts really that different from modern pencil skirts?
- What about current fashions that are restrictive? Stilettos, Spanx, etc? Skinny jeans? Are these symbols of oppression towards women?
But why do I like these looks? I hope it's not some sort of self-loathing that makes me want to wear a symbol of women's oppression. I simply prefer the silhouette of vintage fashions as opposed to the current styles offered by pattern companies. I think the design is better and the lines are more flattering. If you want to oppress me, try to make me wear a pair of skinny jeans!
I should also note that I like vintage patterns because I'm interested in the historical and archival aspect of it. I think that sewing my way through Vogue's New Book for Better Sewing is connecting me to women of the past. Doing this project, and researching the evolution of home sewing (women's work, no doubt), is a way for me to honor the lives of women past (however painful) rather than pretending they didn't exist.
So that's where I'm coming from on this topic. While I agree that the 50's were not our most liberated decade and that many of the fashions were oppressive and uncomfortable, I find that I am leaning towards respectfully disagreeing with Gail that bringing back 50's styles is in some way symbolizing the oppression of women. I think there are ways to incorporate 50's looks into your wardrobe as a feminist. There's something to be said for refashioning these styles to suit yourself, as opposed to refashioning yourself to suit a style, whatever decade it might be from.
Whew. I've exhausted myself on this topic. Now, please chime in with your thoughts!
P.S. Thanks, Gail, for raising the level of discourse in this joint! I appreciate any feedback like this that others might have.


text:
Records 1-1 (of 1 Records) |
Query Trace: SERPINA5[original query]>>SERPINA5[Gene] |
COVID-19-Related Coagulopathy-Is Transferrin a Missing Link? McLaughlin Katie-May, et al. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 2020 7 0. (8) |
Disclaimer: Articles listed in the Public Health
Knowledge Base are selected by the CDC Office of Public Health
Genomics to provide current awareness of the literature and news.
Inclusion in the update does not necessarily represent the views of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor does it imply
endorsement of the article's methods or findings. CDC and DHHS assume
no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the items presented. The
selection, omission, or content of items does not imply any
endorsement or other position taken by CDC or DHHS. Opinion, findings
and conclusions expressed by the original authors of items included in
the update, or persons quoted therein, are strictly their own and are
in no way meant to represent the opinion or views of CDC or DHHS.
References to publications, news sources, and non-CDC Websites are
provided solely for informational purposes and do not imply
endorsement by CDC or DHHS.
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 28, 2024
- Content source:


text:
RAL Metallic 3004 Purple Red Paint Spray Paint - 1K/2K Pack Aerosol Cans
1 Pack (1K) Discounts | Price |
0 - 9 - 400ml | £17.99 |
10 - 49 - 400ml | £16.99 |
50 - 99 - 400ml | £15.99 |
100 - 199 - 400ml | £14.99 |
200 - 499 - 400ml | £13.99 |
500 - 999 - 400ml | £12.99 |
1000 + - 400ml | £11.99 |
Manufacturer: One Stop Aerosols
Product Code: RAL Metallic 3004 Purple Red Paint
Availability: In Stock
Price: £ 14.99 – £ 180 ( GBP)
Condition: New
RGB Colour Code: 107,28,35
Hexadecimal Colour Code: #6B1C23
We recommend aerosol primer be used on surfaces before the topcoat paint is applied for the best results.
Product Description
The most affordable supplier of custom filled RAL Metallic 3004 Purple Red Paint paint canisters in the UK from the RAL Classic Colour Chart.
All paints are custom mixed inhouse & sealed into high-quality 400ml aerosol rattle cans in your hardness choice. (1K & 2K also known as 1 Pack & 2 Packs), gloss level & paint type, which includes cellulose, Acrylic Enamel & synthetic enamel. Bulk paint discount prices are available per can, or buy touch up & repair pots.
Directions For Use
- Ensure the surface to be painted is clean and dry.
- Mask adjacent area with tape.
- Shake can for two minutes before commencing painting.
- Test product first on another small area to check colour.
- Hold the spray head at a distance of 20 to 30 cm away from the surface to be painted.
- Spraying with an even stroke from right to left and release the spray head at the end of each stroke.
- After use, the invert can clear the spray head by spraying until clear gas only is emitted.
- If spray head should clog, remove and clean with cellulose thinners.
- Never point the spray head towards a person.
All our paints are perfect for model painting, cladding repairs, metals, aluminium, plastics, PVC windows and doors.
Optional Additives
Odour Elimination
Ideal for adding to your paint to remove the smelly part of recoating in areas where the smell isn't acceptable. Our elimination additive will make your colour smell pleasant and pleasing; ideal for home projects, around the elderly and in almost any situation requiring more pleasant odours. But please beware that all breathing equipment and health and safety should be taken into account.
UV Protection
By adding our UV protection to your paint, you can add years to the life of your paint. Our UV protector cuts out the harmful elements of the suns rays, thus extending your paint's life from bleaching.
Safety Data Sheets
- RAL Metallic 3004 Purple Red Paint 1K Paint Data Sheet
- RAL Metallic 3004 Purple Red Paint 2K Paint Data Sheet
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the drying times for aerosols?
1K Aerosol paint takes around 30 minutes to cure completely.
The time it takes for a 2K aerosol to touch dry in 40 minutes. To dry out thoroughly is 24-48 hours depending on the conditions the paint is used in, for example, it will take longer to fully cure if applied outside in colder or damper conditions as opposed to a hot summers day.
What sort of coverage can I expect?
You can expect to be able to coat roughly 2 square meters in a single coat using a 400ml aerosols.
How many coats do you recommend?
For best results, we recommend 2-4 coats depending on the colour chosen, existing colour to be re top coated and surface material to be sprayed.
Do I have to use a primer before applying a topcoat?
We highly recommend the use of a primer for almost all your painting plans, we stock and supply the correct primers necessary for the surface material, example glass primers, fibreglass primers and plastic primers. When choosing a primer, it is essential to select the proper primer for the surface material you plan to apply the topcoat.
Related RAL Classic Metallic Paints
The colour RAL Metallic 3004 Purple Red Paint displayed on this page is for guidance only. The colour shown depends on your monitor settings such as brightness, contrast and resolution. The finished paint colour you receive, therefore, may not be as exact as depicted on a screen. Some colours may vary upto 20% compared whats displayed on screen due to this reason.
If you have any questions about our RAL Metallic 3004 Purple Red Paint aerosol paint, please please contact us.


text:
'The Watchers' Have Had Their Eyes On Us For Years
Shane Harris, an author and journalist who covers intelligence, surveillance and cybersecurity for a number of publications, says that the revelations about the NSA from Edward Snowden are nothing new, and that such programs have a significant recent history in the United States.
Related Topics
Other segments from the episode on June 19, 2013
June 19, 2013
Guest: Shane Harris
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. As shocked as you may have been to learn about the secret National Security Agency programs leaked by Edward Snowden earlier this month, you may also be surprised to learn about some of the surveillance programs that were their forerunners.
My guest, Shane Harris, wrote about those programs and their architects in his book "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State." He just joined the staff of Foreign Policy magazine, where he's covering intelligence, surveillance and cybersecurity. He'd been writing about the newly revealed NSA programs for the Washingtonian magazine.
Both of those leaked programs were created to help track terrorists and their co-conspirators. The secret program, known as PRISM, allows the NSA to tap directly into the central servers of nine Internet companies - including Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook - enabling the agency to collect material such as email messages, file transfers, audio and video files, and search histories. The other leaked program collects metadata from phone companies. Metadata isn't the content of calls; it's phone numbers and numbers called by those numbers.
Shane Harris, welcome to FRESH AIR. You know a lot about the history leading up to where we are now. Before we get into some of that history, I'm wondering if, knowing what you know, you were surprised or not when Edward Snowden revealed these secret surveillance programs.
SHANE HARRIS: I wasn't terribly surprised. It's always interesting to get more details, and as a reporter you're always looking for things like code names and for what the legal authorities are underpinning something. But I wasn't surprised. I mean, fundamentally, what he's describing as this vast surveillance architecture that is chiefly run by the National Security Agency, is what I wrote about in my book.
And it's something that, you know, did not start just after 9/11, either. There is a decades-long history to this, up to the rise of surveillance in America. You know, what was sort of - I guess, stunning to me was just the breadth of it. I mean, I knew that this was broad, and this was a very sort of - you know, pervasive surveillance architecture. But whenever you still get individual details like the court order that Snowden leaked, ordering Verizon to hand over records of every phone call on the network, that still is sort of stunning, but it's not surprising.
GROSS: One of the things you write about in your book is how the dawn of the digital era - you know, digital phone calls, cellphones - was a real crisis for the American surveillance system. Compare for us what surveillance did in the old phone era, as opposed to what it can and can't do now technologically, with digital phones.
HARRIS: So there used to be a time that if an FBI agent, say, wanted to conduct a wiretap, he would literally go down to the phone-switching station and take a pair of alligator clips and clip on to a lug nut with a copper wire attached to it that ran to a phone line, and that's where wiretapping came from. You would literally tap the wire.
And there was a great certainty in that analog system that you knew that the number that you were, as they say, going up on, was connected to a certain phone at a certain place, and you probably had a pretty good idea whether or not it was a U.S. citizen attached to the other end of that phone.
What happened in the digital transformation was that all of that analog technology and all of the certainty of those wires running through the ground became this vast system of ones and zeros and digital infrastructure in which everyone's communications were all mixed up together, and it was very difficult, technologically speaking, to know with certainty that the number that you were going in to tap was connected at the place that you thought it was.
So around about the early to mid-1990s, as this transition happens, the FBI and the National Security Agency start to fear that they're going to be essentially put out of the wiretapping business because the telephone system was not built at that time to let these agencies go in and quickly tap into the infrastructure and listen to the phone call and get the information that they wanted.
So they had to go to these companies and eventually had to enact - Congress had to enact the law that said you have to build this digital technology, which we all agree is great and holds great potential for commerce and communications. We're not trying to stymie that, but you've got to build it in such a way that we can get into it if we need to with a lawful order, with a court - with a warrant.
And then what happened is that as all these communications proliferate, the NSA also looks at this and says, OK, well, wait a second. Now that we can - if we can master the universe of how to go into this infrastructure, we can effectively have access to communications all around the planet.
It used to be in the early days of the NSA that the way that they actually obtained signals intelligence, as they call it, was by either boring into undersea cables or building these massive satellite dishes that had to snatch radio frequencies and transmissions as they went through the air. Now they're realizing if we can get into this digital network, and as they used to say in the late '90s, they would say to some policy documents, live on the network, they would effectively be able to monitor global communications.
And what's more, because all of this communication was transiting through lines inside the United States, and the United States was sort of the central switching station for the global communications grid, NSA could effectively tap global communications inside the United States without ever having to leave home.
They were aware of this in the mid- to late 1990s, but the law at the time really forbid a lot of that kind of intelligence gathering in the U.S. 9/11 changed all that. The laws were changed. There was a real cultural shift in the agency towards doing that kind of work in the United States.
Let's back up a little bit before we get to 9/11. Let's go back to the mid-'90s, when the FBI and the Justice Department wanted to make sure that telephone companies built their networks in a way that they could be tapped. So what were the phone networks required legally to do?
At the time, they were required, whenever an agent, a law enforcement agent, showed up with a warrant to essentially serve the warrant but to give the information that they were looking for, so let the agent go in or have a representative from the phone company go in and do the wiretap. The law changed such that in the future, whenever the companies built and installed these digital network systems for communications, they too had to be built in a way that law enforcement could execute a warrant quickly and easily.
So there was this sort of problem that was happening before this transition happened where, you know, you would take, you know, for instance a phone-switching station where ordinarily an FBI agent would show up, execute the warrant, everybody's happy. As this transition to digital was happening, there were literally so few digital ports at which you could plug in the equipment to do a wiretap that there was a backlog of requests happening from the government.
So these phone systems were turning digital, but they weren't quickly evolving to have the tapping technology built into them, as well. So the phone companies are building these modern systems, but they're still relying on this sort of antiquated way of tapping information. So they basically had to install and build in an architecture that allows for digital surveillance at a high volume and to do that for any number of orders that the government might have to issue on that day.
So essentially what you have now is a phone system that can be easily tapped and quickly tapped the way it could back when it was analog, but there was this transition period where it was not at all clear that the companies were willing to pay for the technology upgrades and the changes to their systems that they would have to do in order to make this stuff tappable.
And there was a real debate about not just who was going to foot the bill for that but about whether this would give the government even more intrusive access into communications because you can just swallow up so many more kinds of digital communication at once, rather than tapping one phone line at a time.
So this was really part of the context and the texture of that debate, and the compromise that they ultimately reached was that, OK, we the telephone companies will build this stuff in a way that you can tap it, but you've always got to come to us with a warrant and spell out exactly what it is that you're looking for. You can't just go into the system and plug in and fish around until you find something. You have to be able to specifically say what it is that you want to search.
GROSS: So let's jump ahead from the mid-'90s to the late '90s, just as an example of what was being done and how in this example it failed. And I'm thinking of Able Danger, which you write about in your book. And what was the goal of this program?
HARRIS: So Able Danger was a program run by the Army out of a small group located in suburban Virginia on an Army base. And the idea here was that this very innovative band of sort of techno-geek/soldiers got this notion that they could use the burgeoning power of the Internet and of then very primitive by our standards today data mining and search technology to go out on the Web looking for clues about terrorism.
And what they wanted to do was go out and sort of search for key words about things like, you know, bin Laden and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, which were pretty much off the radar for most people back then but were known to people in the intelligence community, and see what they could find in this sort of big, vast public record. We would know this today as Googling.
HARRIS: They were effectively Googling about terrorism. But at the time, the technologies that they were using, which you would recognize today as something on your phone or on your computer, were really cutting-edge, you know, searching technologies. And the Internet at the time was, you know, probably even more of sort of a Wild West than maybe it is today, but people in the intelligence community did not necessarily regard the Internet as a source for authoritative information.
So this group got the idea that if they could go out and sort of, you know, mine the available data, what could they see. And it turns out that they found a lot of connections. You know, and you know this today. You could spend 30 minutes Googling someone and probably come up with a lot of information about them, and it might look pretty persuasive and rather compelling.
Well, the analysts who were running this program Able Danger took all of that information and brought it in and put it in a government database so that they could then, at their leisure, sort of go through and pick it apart and look at it and see what was in it. Well, just in the course of going out and searching for a name like bin Laden or even something as broad as terrorism, you're going to hit on, as they did, Web pages and chat rooms that also contain the names just in passing of U.S. persons or of even prominent Americans.
All that data then got ingested into the system, and when the Army lawyers found out about this, they said, well, wait a second. Why are you going out and conducting searches that are pulling in the names of Americans, including even some American politicians? And why are those names ending up in a government database?
And these techie guys tried to explain no, no, it's not - we're not spying on them, it's we're looking for this other information, and this is just sort of incidental collection. Well, the Army lawyers didn't see it this way. They looked at this, and this is pre-9/11, remember, and said you are effectively conducted a domestic intelligence operation on U.S. persons. You have got to shut this down and destroy everything that you have collected.
And this was really a pity to the people who were doing Able Danger because they believed that they were actually coming up with useful information that importantly showed a network of terrorists, possibly connected to al-Qaida, that were operating inside the United States.
When that information came out years later, it looked like this small group of Army analysts had possibly figured out that there was a plot in the offing and that they may have even had the first strands of the 9/11 plot in this government database that was destroyed because the privacy regulations and the rules at the time were so strict that even the incidental collection of an American effectively meant that you had to shut the entire system down.
GROSS: So they had to delete everything that they'd collected.
HARRIS: Everything. In fact in my book I interviewed the person who was the lead analyst on this, and he described having - the day that he had to do it, having to sit at his computer and literally hovering with his cursor over these, you know, Microsoft files that they had created in their computer and just hitting delete, delete, delete, delete, and everything was gone.
And they truly believed that they were on to something there and that had they been allowed to continue investigating it, they might have found information that they could have then passed off to the FBI that said hey, we're coming up with these weird hits. We don't exactly know what they mean, but it looks like there's some sort of network that is taking root in the U.S., we should go investigate this. And that just never happened.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Shane Harris, and he writes about intelligence, surveillance and cybersecurity for Foreign Policy magazine, where he's a senior writer. He's also the author of the book "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State." Let's take a short break, then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Shane Harris, and he writes about intelligence, surveillance and cybersecurity for Foreign Policy magazine, where he's a senior writer. Let's jump ahead to after 9/11. Under the Bush administration, John Poindexter, who had become something of a household name because of his participation in the Iran-Contra scandal, he created a program called TIA, Total Information Awareness. He wanted to gather and analyze data in a way that had never been done before. What was his goal?
HARRIS: So his goal was to create a system that could access all of the digital information anywhere in real time, everything from phone calls and emails, text messages, rental car reservations, credit card transactions, prescription records, you name it. If it leaves an electronic signature, it was fair game.
And the idea behind TIA was that it would go out and look through this huge, this universe of data and look for patterns of activity or patterns of transactions that analysts had predetermined were associated with terrorist attacks. So it would go out looking for things like, hypothetically, somebody buying one-way plane tickets, staying at a hotel in a certain city who had also bought, you know, photographic surveillance equipment and who maybe had some sort of connection through his phone records to an overseas number in Pakistan. And it might say that looks like somebody who might be an agent who is here doing surveillance of a target. It also might not be. It might be completely innocuous, and in all chances it probably would be, but his idea was that he would build this system that would say look, we have this vast universe of data. Any movement that you make today leaves a digital signature, a digital trail.
Investigators after a terrorist attack has occurred go back and use all of those digital signatures and trails to figure out who these people were and how they did the plot. Why can't we look at it before the event occurs and try to predict with some degree of certainty where we should then be focusing our attention and which people we should be more closely monitoring? But to do that, you had to collect all of the information available everywhere.
GROSS: Why was this program shut down?
HARRIS: For a number of reasons. One was that what he was proposing at the time, and this is before we realized what had been going on in secret at the NSA, sounded Orwellian. I mean, it sounded just almost absurd. The idea that you would want to go out and give the government access to truly every single person's record and let them root through it really seemed like just a step too far even, you know, in the, you know, one or two years after 9/11, when the country was still very much on edge, and we were, you know, fighting a war in Afghanistan.
It just seemed like it was just excessive. The name creeped people out. It was called Total Information Awareness. It had this logo of the pyramid from the great seal of the United States with this floating eye on it that was casting this beam over the globe. It looked very menacing. And it did not help at all that the guy running it was John Poindexter, who was best known as the key architect of the Iran-Contra affair.
It just had all of these negatives going against it, and John Poindexter, for as brilliant of a technologist as he is, was never really much of a public relations manager or a politician. And it was also a very public effort, and people looked at this - there was no secrecy to it. It was all out in the open. And people looked at this and said this is exactly the kind of surveillance excess that we've been warning about since 9/11. This is the government going way too far and being way too intrusive into people's private lives, and they shouldn't be allowed to collect this kind of information. So shut the program down.
GROSS: So the program shut down, but then it kind of lives underground?
HARRIS: Correct. So behind closed doors, the people who were in charge of TIA and others in the intelligence committees in Congress struck a deal that TIA would be as they say defunded from the Defense budget but that all the money for it would be moved over to the classified side of the budget, the black budget as it's often called.
And it was disbanded in name, and all of the various components of the research program were separated, were given new cover names, and almost all of them were then shifted over to the management and control of the National Security Agency, which unbeknownst to everyone in America, most people in America at the time, had been running its own total information awareness program and so was very interested in what Poindexter was doing.
Their officials had met with Poindexter. They'd even experimented with some of his technologies. So TIA is shut down publicly, and privacy advocates really declared a great victory for this, but unbeknownst to them, the work just continued in secret at the NSA and became part of this larger, vast surveillance apparatus that we're learning more about now.
GROSS: At the time, Michael Hayden was the head of the NSA, and I think the program that you're referring to that the NSA was already running that was similar to TIA was called Stellar Wind. So what was Stellar Wind doing, and how was that changed when TIA was kind of folded into it?
HARRIS: So Stellar Wind is a cover name that's given to a variety of different intelligence collection programs that President Bush authorized under his own authority after 9/11. And what this was doing is they were looking, they were intercepting phone calls inside the United States that they had reason to believe were connected to terrorism.
What's often referred to as the warrantless wiretapping program falls under this umbrella. They were also looking at email communications. They were also looking at things like metadata, some of the things that we're talking about now. It was very similar to TIA in the concept that if you could get access to this vast universe of information that there was a lot that you could find about potential plots and potential bad actors and terrorists.
One of the key differences, though, and I should emphasize that TIA was never actually a real working program, it was always research, it was never operational, but what happened under Stellar Wind was very different in that it did not have a really robust set of privacy controls.
And what we mean by that is that there wasn't as much caution taken to insuring that the communications of innocent people were not swept up in this vast sort of vacuuming up of information. There was a lot of collecting that was done without warrants. There was a lot of listening to phone calls and reading of emails that was done without oversight of a court.
And in that sense it was different from TIA in that what Poindexter wanted to do was sort of re-imagine privacy controls. He wanted to have this very strict architecture whereby all of the data was anonymous and that only the computer would know who the real people underneath it were and that you would have to go get a court order to see who those identifying pieces of information.
So it almost - you know, Stellar Wind, I like to think of it, was sort of like TIA but let off the leash.
GROSS: So is that program still operational?
HARRIS: Effectively it is in the sense that the NSA is doing many of the same kinds of intelligence collection and analysis that they were doing under Stellar Wind, except now it's all covered by law. I mean the term Stellar Wind is no longer used, but all of these sort of, you know, these programs that are all about collecting the data and storing it and analyzing it, that's very much what Edward Snowden has been describing and what we've been talking about now the past couple of weeks. It's just that now it is all much more clearly legal than it was after 9/11 and in the few years after the attacks.
GROSS: Shane Harris will be back in the second half of the show. He's the author of "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State," and is a senior writer for Foreign Policy magazine. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross back with Shane Harris. We're talking about the two leaked surveillance programs, and the surveillance and legal history leading up to them. Harris is the author of "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State." He just became a senior writer for Foreign Policy magazine, where he covers intelligence, surveillance and cyber security.
Foreign intelligence surveillance is regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - FISA - which was signed into law in 1978. The act created a court - the FISA court - which approves surveillance search warrants.
So in 2008, the FISA Act - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - was amended. Will you explain how it was amended?
HARRIS: Right. The important change was that it now allows the government to essentially go to the FISA court asking for broad authority to monitor a whole set of electronic information. It used to be that you went to the FISA court and said we have this particular individual or this phone number that we want to monitor. Now they can go to the court and they can say we want to gather up information on the following list of emails or people in the following region. The key requirement here is that it cannot directly target. If you're doing a broad surveillance, it cannot target - is the terminology - a U.S. person. So you can go out looking for foreign information and you don't need particularized warrants to do that.
In the process of doing that, it's almost inevitable, however, that you will collect data on American citizens and legal residents, and then you have to filter all of that out from the foreign data.
GROSS: So in 2008, the government's access to information was broadened?
HARRIS: That's right. Effectively, they could now go to the court and say we want to collect on this whole range of information as long as it's about foreigners - whereas before they would have had to go to court to get authority to monitor an individual U.S. person or an individual phone number. So it really did broaden this authority, and to a certain degree I think it probably lessened court oversight because the court now approves these authorities that last for a period of at least a year. And as the authority is granted, then the government can keep sort of adding new targets onto the list if they want to. So it's almost like they're approving the methods or the program of surveillance more than they are the individual particular surveillance that's being done.
GROSS: What was the debate like in Congress over the 2008 FISA Amendment Act?
HARRIS: It was significant. I mean there was a lot, it broke down largely on partisan lines - with I think, with Republicans favoring changing the law and Democrats largely being opposed to it because they saw it as the Bush administration wanting to enshrine and protect in law the kinds of things that it was doing possibly outside the law, and it really got really quite heated. And a lot of the context for this was if we don't change this law, we are going to tie the intelligence community's hands behind its back. They won't be able to, for instance, monitor purely foreign communications as they just happen to move across infrastructure that's based in the United States. And the U.S. is sort of the central terminal for a lot of foreign information; it just moves over our cables. So there was a real sense of urgency towards changing that law and the debate got very, very heated and highly partisan.
GROSS: And is it easy for Congress to make that debate public - in other words to take their concerns to American citizens when the legislation has to do with classified programs that the people in Congress can't really discuss with the American public?
HARRIS: It's not easy. You know, so Senators Wyden and Udall have been saying for more than a year now that there is a provision in the Patriot Act that's being interpreted in a way that most Americans might find shocking - that it's allowing the kind of surveillance and collection that the Patriot Act was not designed to allow. We now believe that that is the metadata collection that we've been talking about. So it's very difficult because, you know, they are - you know, there are members of Congress, in many cases their staff don't know about these programs or very few of them do. If they want to read about them they have to go into a closed room and taken hour or two to read up on this stuff. Many of them, I'm sure, are voting for legislation that they have not fully read and don't completely understand. So it is, it's extremely difficult to have a debate when they are bound, really, by their oath and by their law from talking about all the details that they may know.
GROSS: So when the government requires a warrant to get specific content from a phone call, it needs to get the warrant from the FISA court. So how does the court operate? Because from what I've read, just about all the requests are granted.
HARRIS: That's right. Nearly all of the requests are granted. What happens is that a representative from the government - usually from the Justice Department - goes before the court with essentially a form saying this is the information that we're seeking. If it pertains to a U.S. person, they want to record the phone call, has to say who the person is or at least give some, you know, indication that it's a U.S. person or that they know that, or they can go seeking more broad authority to collect foreign information, like many, many email addresses, for instance. The judge looks at that and the judges are all currently sitting trial judges. They do this assignment for a brief period - well, not a brief period - for a number of years, but they rotate in and out, looks at it, says does it comport with the law as it's written, and if so, they approve it, and the warrant is granted and the search is conducted.
GROSS: So who appoints the judges?
HARRIS: The chief justice of the Supreme Court appoints them. There are 11 members on the panel and each serve for seven years and they have day jobs. They are judges in other federal courts and they do this on a case - on a as-needed basis.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Shane Harris, and he writes about intelligence, surveillance and cyber security for Foreign Policy magazine, where he is a senior writer. He's also the author of the book "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State."
Let's take a short break, then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Shane Harris, and he covers intelligence, surveillance and cyber security for Foreign Policy magazine, where he's a senior writer. He's also the author of the book "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State."
So Ed Snowden, who leaked the two surveillance programs that everybody's talking about now, leaked it in his capacity as working as a private contractor for a private intelligence company. He had worked for the CIA earlier in his career. But right - when he downloaded all this information and put it on a thumb drive or something, so that he could leak it, he was a private - working for a private contractor. That seems to be a game changer in some ways, you know, the number of people who are working in the intelligence system in the United States who are working for private companies, as opposed to for the government. Are private contractors vetted any differently than, for instance, somebody who was given top-secret information - access to top-secret information and is working for the NSA?
HARRIS: Well, they're not supposed to be. I mean if you have access to a particular piece of information, the higher up the chain of secrecy that it goes, theoretically you are vetting should have been just as rigorous as if you were a government employee as opposed to a contractor, which is what Ed Snowden was.
What I'm surprised by is how it is that any employee at his level - whether it was a contractor or not - would have access to some of the information that he had access to. You know, the NSA is, prides itself on being probably one of the most secure agencies in government. This is the agency that after all specializes in cryptology, you know, they are cod makers and they are code breakers. So how is it that these incredibly sensitive documents, particularly the court order related to metadata, was just accessible to anyone to remove with a thumb drive, regardless of whether they were a contractor or not? But it does raise this question about what are the contractors themselves doing on the front end to vet the kind of people that they're bringing into this system.
It's also worth noting too that the process of getting a security clearance has its own issues and its own problems. A lot of the background checks are actually outsourced to other contractors. That said, you know, it is impossible to screen out entirely for anyone who is going to take it upon himself for whatever reasons, political or financial or whatever they may be, to violate his secrecy code. You know, in Snowden's case he's saying he felt very moved philosophically and politically to do this. It's difficult to screen that kind of person out in the security clearance process, particularly when, you know, these agencies just need so many thousands of people to keep the system running.
GROSS: I read that Snowden had a sticker - has a sticker - on his laptop that says: I Support Online Rights. Electronic Frontier Foundation. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a foundation that has been very active in freedom of speech on the Internet, protecting that and trying to prevent any kind of invasion of privacy on the Internet. But, you know, somebody who I was reading made the point, and I think this is an interesting point, and I'd love to hear your reaction to it, that a lot of the people who are very technically savvy about the Internet kind of came of age with the ethic that like information is free and the Internet is open, you know, which is, you know, a beautiful ideal but that kind of idea goes really counter to the whole idea of the kind of secrecy and secretly getting access to information that spy agencies do - that is what they do.
HARRIS: I think that's right. I mean there really is an almost cultural collision - a clash that's going on here where you have these organizations that are built on compartmentalization and secrecy and deceit to a certain degree needing the expertise of people like Ed Snowden, who grew up in the digital age, who grew up using computers and the Internet as if they were regular household items. That's the workforce that the NSA has to pull from. The value systems may not be compatible, however. You know, it strikes me that, you know, there are a lot of people, though, who probably work for the NSA who may be do feel the way that Snowden did, who believe in this idea of freedom of information. I've known many people who've worked for these agencies who would consider themselves civil libertarians and to have a very strong view of privacy. But you know, you make a commitment when you go to work for one of these agencies to keep the secrets and to almost sort of push your own beliefs to the side. You know, in his case I think he felt like his own beliefs overwhelmed his commitment to secrecy.
But I think you're likely to see this kind of thing happen again. The NSA cannot afford to say, you know, we won't hire anybody under the age of 35. Or we won't hire anybody who has expressed an interest in digital privacy rights. I mean to that point, actually, Keith Alexander, who is the director of the NSA, about a year or so ago actually went out to Las Vegas to one of the more famous hacker conferences, he shed his uniform, he put on a pair of jeans and a T-shirt, and he gave the keynote address to this audience of self-professed computer hackers who are the kinds of people that NSA might on another given day regard as threats, and said we need your expertise, we need you to come work for us, you know, we need to do more work securing the nation's cyber networks and preventing espionage from foreign governments, and you all know how to do that. So they seem to, you know, they're taking a risk perhaps by bringing in people who don't necessarily see the world of information the way they do and who have a more sort of liberal view of it, if you like. At the same time, they can't afford not to hire these people because those are the experts.
GROSS: And talking about how private contractors who are dealing with intelligence and who are working for the NSA has kind of changed the story. I want to ask you about Mike McConnell. He's the former head of the NSA and he's now one of the people at the top of Booz Allen, the private intelligence company that Ed Snowden worked for. And one of the things McConnell has been doing apparently is consulting to the UAE - the United Arab Emirates - and helping them use data mining and metadata. So I'd like for you to talk a little bit about how private contractors are learning so much about metadata from working with the NSA and then maybe taking that knowledge to other countries.
HARRIS: Well, McConnell - Mike O'Connell is a great example of this because he's somebody who, you know, he started his career in the military, he became the director of the NSA, and he was actually running the NSA at this time that it was having to deal with this explosion in digital technology. So McConnell will sort of getting a front row seat to the kinds of, you know, the information world, if you like, that we are dealing with today. And he was pretty ahead of his time on this and recognized that NSA had to evolve and get more technologically sophisticated. And he left government and went to work for Booz Allen, where he did very well and really took that expertise that he learned in that first time in government to build its private intelligence business using his contacts and his knowledge of the problems that the government deals with and the kind of intelligence challenges that these agencies have.
GROSS: After 9/11, of course, he's more in demand than ever. He's brought back to government in the second term of the Bush administration as the director of National Intelligence. By the time that he came back, the sort of partnerships between these intelligence contractors and the government had been tighter than ever. I mean it was definitely at that point the case that the intelligence workforce, you could almost not even separate it into contractor and government employee anymore, there were just so many from each sides working together, and the government had become almost entirely dependent on that outside workforce and the expertise that they brought in. And remember, you know, the real technological innovators and the people who really have grown up with this information, and you know, who have sort of, you know, the best ideas on how to build technology, frequently don't come from inside the government, they come from the private sector.
HARRIS: So McConnell in coming back to government the second time is really again getting a front row seat to how this information revolution that he had sort of been there for the beginning of it is now exploding. And now it's, you know, it's metadata everywhere. It's the NSA having to collect on all of these targets and do it inside the United States.
HARRIS: And he actually was - played a key role in helping to change the surveillance law to allow all of this kind of collection that we're talking about today to put it more firmly on a legal basis. So all that information that he absorbs about how the government does this kind of surveillance, how it collects this data, what it's useful for, what its limitations are, the kinds of problems you're going to run into with privacy law, he can take all of that now back to the private sector and go to a place like the UAE and say, look, I've effectively helped build these systems. You know, this is how we did it in the United States. This is how you can do it here. And Booz Allen can do that for you because, you know, in effect a lot of their people helped build it for the NSA or helped run it for the NSA as well.
So there's kind of this symbiotic relationship now where, you know, the knowledge and expertise that you gain in the public sector can then go right back out and feed the private sector. And in McConnell's, you know, case, you can come back into public sector and then rotate back out again. And I think that is sort of just the new reality of how the intelligence business is run in this country. I mean it's operational and it's secret but it's also a very big business.
GROSS: I'm wondering if you think that we might have the kind of intelligence blowback that we've had already with weapons. You know, like we've sold weapons to the Afghan resistance fighting the Soviets in the '80s after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. And then the weapons that we had sold them to get the Russians out were then turned against the United States after 9/11. Do you think the same might happen with intelligence, that like we - private contractors help companies - that private contractors help countries, countries that maybe now are our allies, set up, you know, metadata collecting surveillance systems and then they end up being used against us.
HARRIS: Sure. I mean there's also the possibility that they could be, you know, these systems could be bought and purchased by repressive regimes who don't have the same respect for free speech and privacy rights that we do and that these technologies that were built to monitor communications in America are then used to suppress political speech in other countries. And there's evidence that that's happening too.
And the surveillance business does not limit itself to only selling to the U.S. government. I mean it's a global business. And how these - the technology itself is agnostic. It's all about how it's used. So if we want to employ it in a way that we think is respectful of the First and Fourth Amendment and privacy rights and all that, there's no guarantee whatsoever that a government someplace else might do that the same.
And that expertise that you develop as an intelligence contractor working for the government, you could then certainly go and use that expertise to sell it someplace else and to build a system for another country that doesn't respect privacy the way we do. You know, another way that this also manifests too is in the creation of computer viruses.
I mean, you know, the United States is in the business of cyber warfare now. We are building worms and viruses and exploits that are meant to go out and spy on other countries and damage infrastructure. When those things and that expertise gets out into the wild too, that is something that can be sold on an open market as well. We don't have an exclusive domain over this knowledge and this technology.
GROSS: I think one of the questions a lot of Americans have is this. Even if the government now has the best of intentions in collecting this information and plans to use it only in instances where it thinks terrorism can be thwarted, if the government has this information, can't the leadership change its mind and start secretly using this information for illicit purposes and to spy on Americans, to spy on dissident Americans?
HARRIS: Yes, that is the great fear in all of this, is that the government is building a capability that even though it insists right is being used for lawful and narrow purposes, that in a different political environment or a different security environment, that that system could be relatively easily and quickly switched to target all kinds of other activity.
Now, you'll often hear this referred to in the intelligence community as mission creep. A system or a program that was set up for one purpose starts, you know, kind of growing tentacles and being used for other purposes as well. And I think the reason that that in this instance is actually a well founded concern is that the intelligence laws that we're talking about today that were put in place to govern this activity were set up in the late 1970s specifically because of abuses by the intelligence agencies, because they were spying on political dissidents, because in one instance they were tapping the phones of a Supreme Court justice. So these laws were put in place to prevent a certain kind of activity, and just because the programs are now being used only for counterterrorism doesn't mean that they couldn't be used for that other kind of bad activity if the circumstances change.
And that really has always been the reason we have these laws and the reason that why, when we hear about this vast collection of data, that there is reason to be concerned and to want more answers from the government about, well, specifically how are you using this and what assurances can you give us that you're not going to be using it for something like in the bad old days?
GROSS: Well, Shane Harris, I want to thank you so much for talking with us. I know you're writing a book on cyber war and cyber security. I look forward to reading that when it's completed.
HARRIS: Thanks for having me. It was my pleasure.
GROSS: Shane Harris is a senior writer for Foreign Policy magazine and is the author of "The Watchers: The Rise of America's Surveillance State." You can read an excerpt on our website, freshair.npr.org.
TERRY GROSS, HOST: The Museum of Modern Art has a new exhibit of major early works by the pop artist Claes Oldenburg. Our classical music critic Lloyd Schwartz went to see it and loved it.
LLOYD SCHWARTZ, BYLINE: The sculptor Claes Oldenburg was born in Stockholm but grew up in Chicago, went to Yale and came to New York in 1956, where he became a key player in the pop art movement which was the major counter-reaction to the abstract expressionism that dominated the 1950s.
So much for art history. Although Oldenburg is a serious artist, probably no artist in history ever created works that were more fun. In a new show at the Museum of Modern Art - really two shows - practically everyone, including myself, was walking through the galleries with huge grins on our faces. Though some of the images are unsettling. In the first and scarier part of the exhibit, the objects are from Oldenburg's 1960 shows called "The Street," images inspired by his living on New York's Lower East Side. These are figures and objects, many of them suspended from the ceiling, made out of cardboard and burlap, nightmarish but also childlike, brown with black edges as if they were charred.
There's a wall tag for a piece called "Fire From a Window" that took me a while to find, because it's a small board sticking out from the edge of a wall high up above the gallery - like a flame leaping out of a building. The second and larger part of the exhibit is called "The Store," and these include some of Oldenburg's most iconic images from the early '60s. And here's where the smiles begin to widen.
The objects are mostly plaster applied to chicken wire, or canvas stuffed with foam rubber - all sorts of things you can find in stores. Pants and shirts. Furniture. A whole lingerie counter with a mirrored top. And most deliciously, there's food. Glorious food. Succulent slices of pie and cake. In an exhibition catalog entry in 1961, Oldenburg made a famous manifesto: I am for the art that a kid licks after peeling away the wrapper. I am for an art that is smoked like a cigarette, smells like a pair of shoes. I am for an art that flaps like a flag or helps blow noses like a handkerchief. I am for an art that is put on and taken off, like pants, which develops holes, like socks, which is eaten like a piece of pie.
At the MoMA show, there's a huge nine-foot-long wedge of cake called "Floor Cake" sitting on the floor next to a seven-foot-wide hamburger called "Floor Burger" that you have to walk around. I am for the art of underwear and the art of taxicabs, Oldenburg wrote. I am for the art of ice cream cones dropped on concrete.
Lying near the gigantic hamburger is the 11-foot-long "Floor Cone." I particularly love the small burlap and plaster "Baked Potato," with its pat of melting butter, and the "Banana Sundae," with its accompanying spoon painted with drips of enamel ice cream.
An actor, Hamlet says, holds a mirror up to nature. Just so, Oldenburg's art reflects the lives we live. I am for an art that takes its form from the lines of life, that twists and extends impossibly and accumulates and spits and drips and is sweet and stupid as life itself.
It's both high tragedy and low comedy that for most of us our lives are so ordinary, that everything in "The Store" is for sale, our daily commerce. But that's part of the joy and pain of this wonderful exhibit that makes us smile so hard at the idea that our ordinary lives are so completely surrounded by, and enmeshed in, potential works of art.
GROSS: Lloyd Schwartz teaches in the creative writing MFA program at the University of Massachusetts Boston and is the senior editor of classical music for the online journal New York Arts. He reviewed "Claes Oldenberg: The Street and The Store," which is at the Museum of Modern Art in New York through August 5. You can see photos of several of the works Lloyd referred to on our website, freshair.npr.org, where you can also download podcasts of our show.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.


text:
Such was the case recently with Alana Chernila. I belong to several book buying clubs. Her book, The Homemade Pantry: 101 Foods You Can Stop Buying & Start Making, just published April 3rd. My book club began promoting it a few weeks ago and it instantly caught my eye. I checked into Alana, pre-ordered the book, and began following her on Twitter. Later that day, she followed me back, with a sweet message saying I seemed like someone she'd love to cook with. And so, an alliance was formed and we've been chatting each other up since.
This book. THIS. BOOK. Friends, you're going to love it. Literally running the pantry gamut from soup to nuts, Alana expertly shows you how to craft in your kitchen many items you're currently buying. Most of the projects don't involve a great deal of time or a long list of ingredients, either, so you really are saving in so many ways. The book is packed with recipes she feeds her own family, so you can trust each one to deliver.
Not only is the book comprehensive in range, it's kitchen-friendly, too. The cover is meant to withstand repeated splatters and the pages (full of beautiful photography!) are meant to be dog-eared and turned to, again and again.
I purchased my own copy and was so deeply smitten with it that I didn't want to give it away! I wrote Alana, detailing my plight to her. Her publisher, Potter, then generously offered to give a copy to one lucky small measure reader. To be entered in the giveaway, simply leave a comment below, listing one pantry staple you've long wished to conquer. For me, it's several (it's so hard to choose!): sauerkraut, bread, and mayonnaise.
In your reply, please leave a means of contacting you, should you be the winner, via either a link to your blog or website, or by listing your email address in your comment. I'll run the giveaway through next Wednesday, April 25th, midnight EST. Canadians, feel free to enter, too!
In the meantime, check out Alana's blog, Eating From the Ground Up, as well as her food tutorial videos. She's a lovely lady, a creative cook, a nurturing mama, and a sweet soul. Thanks, serendipity, for hitching my wagon to hers!
UPDATE: The winner of The Homemade Pantry is lucky #208, Amy! Thank you so very much to everyone who commented. I'm inspired by what everyone wants to learn to do!