text:
Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors
by Richard StallmanSomething strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law. Under the US Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users—those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software—not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them "for their own benefit," the US government is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh new penalties.
How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of United States copyright law: the US Constitution.
Copyright in the US Constitution
When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed—and rejected. The founders of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):
[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in Fox Film v. Doyal, the court said,
The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not required by the Constitution, only permitted as an option—and why it is supposed to last for "limited times." If copyright were a natural right, something that authors have because they deserve it, nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more than everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse of time from its construction.
The "copyright bargain"
The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of a deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call this concept the "copyright bargain." It is like a government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayers' money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our money.
But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public? Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every issue of copyright policy is part of this question. If we misunderstand the nature of the question, we will tend to decide the issues badly.
The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors. In practice, authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the publishers, not the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of the benefits, though authors may get a small portion. Thus it is usually the publishers that lobby to increase copyright powers. To better reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this article refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of copyright powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as "readers," even though using them does not always mean reading, because "the users" is remote and abstract.
The first error: "striking a balance"
The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a means toward that end. Readers' interests and publishers' interests are thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.
It is often said that US copyright law is meant to "strike a balance" between the interests of publishers and readers. Those who cite this interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic position stated in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to be equivalent to the copyright bargain.
But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are different conceptually, and different in their implications. The balance concept assumes that the readers' and publishers' interests differ in importance only quantitatively, in how much weight we should give them, and in what actions they apply to. The term "stakeholders" is often used to frame the issue in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative distinction between the readers' and publishers' interests which is at the root of the government's participation in the copyright bargain.
The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the great protection for the public in the copyright bargain—the idea that copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers, never in the name of the publishers—is discarded by the "balance" interpretation. Since the interest of the publishers is regarded as an end in itself, it can justify copyright privileges; in other words, the "balance" concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of someone other than the public.
As a practical matter, the consequence of the "balance" concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from additional privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved, sufficient to "outweigh" this benefit, we are led to conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they request.
Since the idea of "striking a balance" between publishers and readers denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it.
Balancing against what?
When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf of the public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible deal—best for the public, not for the other party in the agreement.
For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the public's money. Government agencies use competitive bidding to push the price down.
As a practical matter, the price cannot be zero, because contractors will not bid that low. Although not entitled to special consideration, they have the usual rights of citizens in a free society, including the right to refuse disadvantageous contracts; even the lowest bid will be high enough for some contractor to make money. So there is indeed a balance, of a kind. But it is not a deliberate balancing of two interests each with claim to special consideration. It is a balance between a public goal and market forces. The government tries to obtain for the taxpaying motorists the best deal they can get in the context of a free society and a free market.
In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of our money. Freedom is more precious than money, so government's responsibility to spend our freedom wisely and frugally is even greater than its responsibility to spend our money thus. Governments must never put the publishers' interests on a par with the public's freedom.
Not "balance" but "trade-off"
The idea of balancing the readers' interests against the publishers' is the wrong way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two interests to be weighed: two interests of the readers. Readers have an interest in their own freedom in using published works; depending on circumstances, they may also have an interest in encouraging publication through some kind of incentive system.
The word "balance," in discussions of copyright, has come to stand as shorthand for the idea of "striking a balance" between the readers and the publishers. Therefore, to use the word "balance" in regard to the readers' two interests would be confusing.[1] We need another term.
In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a "trade-off." Therefore, rather than speaking of "striking the right balance" between parties, we should speak of "finding the right trade-off between spending our freedom and keeping it."
The second error: maximizing one output
The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of maximizing—not just increasing—the number of published works. The erroneous concept of "striking a balance" elevated the publishers to parity with the readers; this second error places them far above the readers.
When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity in stock or the most expensive model. Instead we conserve funds for other purchases, by buying only what we need of any particular good, and choosing a model of sufficient rather than highest quality. The principle of diminishing returns suggests that spending all our money on one particular good is likely to be an inefficient allocation of resources; we generally choose to keep some money for another use.
Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase. The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we trade additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in literary activity. Well before the increment becomes zero, we may well say it is not worth its incremental price; we would then settle on a bargain whose overall result is to increase the amount of publication, but not to the utmost possible extent.
Accepting the goal of maximizing publication rejects all these wiser, more advantageous bargains in advance—it dictates that the public must cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for just a little more publication.
The rhetoric of maximization
In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that public copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For instance, the publishers call people who copy "pirates," a smear term designed to equate sharing information with your neighbor with attacking a ship. (This smear term was formerly used by authors to describe publishers who found lawful ways to publish unauthorized editions; its modern use by the publishers is almost the reverse.) This rhetoric directly rejects the constitutional basis for copyright, but presents itself as representing the unquestioned tradition of the American legal system.
The "pirate" rhetoric is typically accepted because it so pervades the media that few people realize how radical it is. It is effective because if copying by the public is fundamentally illegitimate, we can never object to the publishers' demand that we surrender our freedom to do so. In other words, when the public is challenged to show why publishers should not receive some additional power, the most important reason of all—"We want to copy"—is disqualified in advance.
This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except using side issues. Hence, opposition to stronger copyright powers today almost exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom to distribute copies as a legitimate public value.
As a practical matter, the goal of maximization enables publishers to argue that "A certain practice is reducing our sales—or we think it might—so we presume it diminishes publication by some unknown amount, and therefore it should be prohibited." We are led to the outrageous conclusion that the public good is measured by publishers' sales: What's good for General Media is good for the USA.
The third error: maximizing publishers' power
Once the publishers have obtained assent to the policy goal of maximizing publication output at any cost, their next step is to infer that this requires giving them the maximum possible powers—making copyright cover every imaginable use of a work, or applying some other legal tool such as "shrink wrap" licenses to equivalent effect. This goal, which entails the abolition of "fair use" and the "right of first sale," is being pressed at every available level of government, from states of the US to international bodies.
This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the creation of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the plots of some of his plays from works others had published a few decades before, so if today's copyright law had been in effect, his plays would have been illegal.
Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless of cost to the public, maximizing publishers' power is the wrong way to get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.
The results of the three errors
The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader powers for longer periods of time. The conceptual basis of copyright, as it emerges distorted from the series of errors, rarely offers a basis for saying no. Legislators give lip service to the idea that copyright serves the public, while in fact giving publishers whatever they ask for.
For example, here is what Senator Hatch said when introducing S. 483, a 1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20 years:
I believe we are now at such a point with respect to the question of whether the current term of copyright adequately protects the interests of authors and the related question of whether the term of protection continues to provide a sufficient incentive for the creation of new works of authorship.
This bill extended the copyright on already published works written since the 1920s. This change was a giveaway to publishers with no possible benefit to the public, since there is no way to retroactively increase now the number of books published back then. Yet it cost the public a freedom that is meaningful today—the freedom to redistribute books from that era. Note the use of the propaganda term, "protect," which embodies the second of the three errors.
The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written. For works made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the present 75 years. Theoretically this would increase the incentive to write new works; but any publisher that claims to need this extra incentive should be required substantiate the claim with projected balance sheets for 75 years in the future.
Needless to say, Congress did not question the publishers' arguments: a law extending copyright was enacted in 1998. It was officially called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named after one of its sponsors who died earlier that year. We usually call it the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, since we presume its real motive was to prevent the copyright on the appearance of Mickey Mouse from expiring. Bono's widow, who served the rest of his term, made this statement:
Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.
The Supreme Court later heard a case that sought to overturn the law on the grounds that the retroactive extension fails to serve the Constitution's goal of promoting progress. The court responded by abdicating its responsibility to judge the question; on copyright, the Constitution requires only lip service.
Another law, passed in 1997, made it a felony to make sufficiently many copies of any published work, even if you give them away to friends just to be nice. Previously this was not a crime in the US at all.
An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was designed to bring back what was then called "copy protection"—now known as DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)—which users already detested, by making it a crime to defeat the restrictions, or even publish information about how to defeat them. This law ought to be called the "Domination by Media Corporations Act" because it effectively offers publishers the chance to write their own copyright law. It says they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use of a work, and these restrictions take the force of law provided the work contains some sort of encryption or license manager to enforce them.
One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement a recent treaty to increase copyright powers. The treaty was promulgated by the World Intellectual Property Organization, an organization dominated by copyright- and patent-holding interests, with the aid of pressure from the Clinton administration; since the treaty only increases copyright power, whether it serves the public interest in any country is doubtful. In any case, the bill went far beyond what the treaty required.
Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered fair use. How did the publishers respond? Former representative Pat Schroeder, now a lobbyist for the Association of American Publishers, said that the publishers "could not live with what [the libraries were] asking for." Since the libraries were asking only to preserve part of the status quo, one might respond by wondering how the publishers had survived until the present day.
Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed this bill, showed how far the US Constitution's view of copyright has been disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal penalties, were needed urgently because the "movie industry is worried," as well as the "music industry" and other "industries." I asked him, "But is this in the public interest?" His response was telling: "Why are you talking about the public interest? These creative people don't have to give up their rights for the public interest!" The "industry" has been identified with the "creative people" it hires, copyright has been treated as its entitlement, and the Constitution has been turned upside down.
The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As enacted, it says that fair use remains nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or hardware that you could practice it with. Effectively, fair use is prohibited.
Based on this law, the movie industry has imposed censorship on free software for reading and playing DVDs, and even on the information about how to read them. In April 2001, Professor Edward Felten of Princeton University was intimidated by lawsuit threats from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) into withdrawing a scientific paper stating what he had learned about a proposed encryption system for restricting access to recorded music.
We are also beginning to see e-books that take away many of readers' traditional freedoms—for instance, the freedom to lend a book to your friend, to sell it to a used book store, to borrow it from a library, to buy it without giving your name to a corporate data bank, even the freedom to read it twice. Encrypted e-books generally restrict all these activities—you can read them only with special secret software designed to restrict you.
I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I hope you will reject them too. If an e-book doesn't give you the same freedoms as a traditional paper book, don't accept it!
Anyone independently releasing software that can read restricted e-books risks prosecution. A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was arrested in 2001 while visiting the US to speak at a conference, because he had written such a program in Russia, where it was lawful to do so. Now Russia is preparing a law to prohibit it too, and the European Union recently adopted one.
Mass-market e-books have been a commercial failure so far, but not because readers chose to defend their freedom; they were unattractive for other reasons, such as that computer display screens are not easy surfaces to read from. We can't rely on this happy accident to protect us in the long term; the next attempt to promote e-books will use "electronic paper"—book-like objects into which an encrypted, restricted e-book can be downloaded. If this paper-like surface proves more appealing than today's display screens, we will have to defend our freedom in order to keep it. Meanwhile, e-books are making inroads in niches: NYU and other dental schools require students to buy their textbooks in the form of restricted e-books.
The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA)[2], which would require all computers (and other digital recording and playback devices) to have government-mandated copy-restriction systems. That is their ultimate goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit any equipment that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible for the public to "tamper with" (i.e., modify for their own purposes). Since free software is software that users can modify, we face here for the first time a proposed law that explicitly prohibits free software for a certain job. Prohibition of other jobs will surely follow. If the FCC adopts this rule, existing free software such as GNU Radio would be censored.
To block these bills and rules requires political action.[3]
Finding the right bargain
What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public interest above all. The government's duty when selling the public's freedom is to sell only what it must, and sell it as dearly as possible. At the very least, we should pare back the extent of copyright as much as possible while maintaining a comparable level of publication.
Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it?
One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and observe the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really necessary to achieve the public's purposes. We must judge this by actual observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because they have every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if their powers are reduced in any way.
Copyright policy includes several independent dimensions, which can be adjusted separately. After we find the necessary minimum for one policy dimension, it may still be possible to reduce other dimensions of copyright while maintaining the desired publication level.
One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now typically on the order of a century. Reducing the monopoly on copying to ten years, starting from the date when a work is published, would be a good first step. Another aspect of copyright, which covers the making of derivative works, could continue for a longer period.
Why count from the date of publication? Because copyright on unpublished works does not directly limit readers' freedom; whether we are free to copy a work is moot when we do not have copies. So giving authors a longer time to get a work published does no harm. Authors (who generally do own the copyright prior to publication) will rarely choose to delay publication just to push back the end of the copyright term.
Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the overall viability of publishing today. In most media and genres, successful works are very profitable in just a few years, and even successful works are usually out of print well before ten. Even for reference works, whose useful life may be many decades, ten-year copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued regularly, and many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a ten-year-old public domain version.
Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down, we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term, a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying that anything beyond five years was intolerable.
But we don't have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works. Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial to the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions for specific uses and media. It would be foolish to pay for every highway project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects in the most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to "pay" for all kinds of art with the greatest price in freedom that we find necessary for any one kind.
So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many such works to be published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could have a twenty-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them. In my own field, computer programming, three years should suffice, because product cycles are even shorter than that.
Another dimension of copyright policy is the extent of fair use: some ways of reproducing all or part of a published work that are legally permitted even though it is copyrighted. The natural first step in reducing this dimension of copyright power is to permit occasional private small-quantity noncommercial copying and distribution among individuals. This would eliminate the intrusion of the copyright police into people's private lives, but would probably have little effect on the sales of published works. (It may be necessary to take other legal steps to ensure that shrink-wrap licenses cannot be used to substitute for copyright in restricting such copying.) The experience of Napster shows that we should also permit noncommercial verbatim redistribution to the general public—when so many of the public want to copy and share, and find it so useful, only draconian measures will stop them, and the public deserves to get what it wants.
For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment, noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for the readers. Computer programs, being used for functional purposes (to get jobs done), call for additional freedoms beyond that, including the freedom to publish an improved version. See "Free Software Definition," in this book, for an explanation of the freedoms that software users should have. But it may be an acceptable compromise for these freedoms to be universally available only after a delay of two or three years from the program's publication.
Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public's wish to use digital technology to copy. Publishers will no doubt find these proposals "unbalanced"; they may threaten to take their marbles and go home, but they won't really do it, because the game will remain profitable and it will be the only game in town.
As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements. It would be necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply restrictions on copying that go beyond those of copyright. Such limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated contracts can require are a standard part of the US legal system.
A personal note
I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I've become concerned with copyright issues because there's no avoiding them in the world of computer networks, such as the Internet. As a user of computers and networks for 30 years, I value the freedoms that we have lost, and the ones we may lose next. As an author, I can reject the romantic mystique of the author as semidivine creator, often cited by publishers to justify increased copyright powers for authors—powers which these authors will then sign away to publishers.
Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can check, and proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask you to accept one thing on my word alone: that authors like me don't deserve special power over you. If you wish to reward me further for the software or books I have written, I would gratefully accept a check—but please don't surrender your freedom in my name.
- See Julian Sanchez's article "The Trouble with 'Balance' Metaphors" for an examination of "how the analogy between sound judgment and balancing weights may constrain our thinking in unhealthy ways."
- Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA, for which a good mnemonic is "Consume, But Don't Try Programming Anything," but it really stands for the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act."
- If you would like to help, I recommend the Web sites DefectiveByDesign.org, publicknowledge.org and www.eff.org.
This essay is published in Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.


text:
Special Offers For You HOT!
More hot offersBest Deals Of The Week
- 00
- 00
- 00
- 00
Latest products
Featured products
More to love RECOMENDED
What's New in Tool Land?
Latest offers, promos, product releases and industry news
Get Exclusive Savings
Join over half a million tools lovers
By signing up you agree to receive emails from EQUIPO® with news, special offers, promotions and other information. You can unsubscribe at any time.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The flimsy |
I have wanted to make Sew Fresh Quilts Lorna's Dog Gone Cute dog blocks since they first came out, wanted to join in the QAL, but just could not squish it in. For John? You bet I could squish in a final project for 2016!
The stars do align on a regular basis: I won a bundle of "Kringle Krossing" by Shelly Comiskey for Henry Glass Fabrics last week. I did not bring any Christmas fabric to Florida except for the few pieces to make Myrrh the Christmas cow. Luckily I had enough of the Santa fat quarter left that John especially liked for Holly's face and then I used Henry Glass prints for her blaze, muzzle and background. Just love that background fabric especially! The dark green for her ears is triangle scraps, and small rectangles (one of which is pieced to make the 6.5" required strip) all from John's quilt I made last year for his 75th birthday. I'm into connections, symbols, double entendres, deeper meanings, in case you haven't noticed.
And woo hoo!! I'm also into meeting good friends for breakfast that evolved into visiting two quilt shops! Quilt Lovers' Hangout is fabulous! As is the Go-Go Diner for breakfast, in case you may find yourself in North Fort Myers sometime... |
I managed to get the cushion quilted this morning and photographed for today's several Finish Friday parties.
Flat Holly |
Holly has an ear tattoo, not a number ID but her name, FMQ-ed with Sulky Blendables in 30-weight. |
Actually this one shows it pretty well. |
The back:
Envelope back with that beautiful Holly (LOL just realized it this second) on white fabric, and a label. |
Quilt Stats:
Pattern: Dog Gone Cute by Sew Fresh Quilts
Size: 18.25" square
Fabric: scraps and leftovers, except for the Henry Glass Fabrics "Kringle Krossing"
Batting: Pellon Nature's Touch 100% cotton
Quilted: on my Bernina
Threads: pieced with Gütermann; quilted with Sulky Metallic 142-7027 and Sulky Blendables 30-wt 733-4022
In case you haven't stocked up enough on fabric deals, remember the Craftsy one still on until midnight Dec. 31! That is an affiliate link!
Many quilt shops both bricks and mortar type as well as online type are having end of year sales. It's a great time to pick up backings or treat yourself.
Linking up with
Crazy Mom Quilts
Confessions of a Fabric Addict
TGIFF at Arabesque Scissors


text:
BOUCLE in Walnut
Beautiful decorative pillow featuring exclusive Designer fabric.
- Knife edge finishing
- Insert: Lofty 20% down | 80% Feather Insert
- Zipper closure for easy care
- Made in Canada for Layers & Layers
- Spot Clean Only
Custom made to order. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.
We do have all the colour samples in our showroom. ( Rue Boucle | Walnut )


text:
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI
Associated Press
Before Election Day, anxiety mounted over potential chaos at the polls.
Election officials warned about poll watchers who had been steeped in conspiracy theories falsely claiming that then-President Donald Trump did not actually lose the 2020 election. Democrats and voting rights groups worried about the effects of new election laws, in some Republican-controlled states, that President Joe Biden decried as "Jim Crow 2.0." Law enforcement agencies were monitoring possible threats at the polls.
Yet Election Day, and the weeks of early voting before it, went fairly smoothly. There were some reports of unruly poll watchers disrupting voting, but they were scattered. Groups of armed vigilantes began watching over a handful of ballot drop boxes in Arizona until a judge ordered them to stay far away to ensure they would not intimidate voters. And while it might take months to figure out their full impact, GOP-backed voting laws enacted after the 2020 election did not appear to cause major disruptions the way they did during the March primary in Texas.
"The entire ecosystem in a lot of ways has become more resilient in the aftermath of 2020," said Amber McReynolds, a former Denver elections director who advises a number of voting rights organizations. "There's been a lot of effort on ensuring things went well."
Even though some voting experts' worst fears didn't materialize, some voters still experienced the types of routine foul-ups that happen on a small scale in every election. Many of those fell disproportionately on Black and Hispanic voters.
"Things went better than expected," said Amir Badat of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. "But we have to say that with a caveat: Our expectations are low."
Badat said his organization recorded long lines at various polling places from South Carolina to Texas.
There were particular problems in Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston. Shortages of paper ballots and at least one polling location opening late led to long lines and triggered an investigation of the predominantly Democratic county by the state's Republican authorities.
The investigation is partly a reflection of how certain voting snafus on Election Day are increasingly falling on Republican voters, who have been discouraged from using mailed ballots or using early in-person voting by Trump and his allies. But it's a very different problem from what Texas had during its March primary.
Then, a controversial new voting law that increased the requirements on mail ballots led to about 13% of all such ballots being rejected, much higher compared with other elections. It was an ominous sign for a wave of new laws, passed after Trump's loss to Biden and false claims about mail voting, but there have been no problems of that scale reported for the general election.
Texas changed the design of its mail ballots, which solved many of the problems voters had putting identifying information in the proper place. Other states that added regulations on voting didn't appear to have widespread problems, though voting rights groups and analysts say it will take weeks of combing through data to find out the laws' impacts.
The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law is compiling data to determine whether new voting laws in states such as Georgia contributed to a drop in turnout among Black and Hispanic voters.
Preliminary figures show turnout was lower this year than in the last midterm election four years ago in Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Texas — four states that passed significant voting restrictions since the 2020 election — although there could be a number of reasons why.
"It's difficult to judge, empirically, the kind of effect these laws have on turnout because so many factors go into turnout," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. "You also have plenty of exaggeration on the Democratic side that any kind of change in voting laws are going to cause some major effect on the election, which has been proven not to be the case."
In Georgia, for example, Republicans made it more complicated to apply for mailed ballots after the 2020 election — among other things, requiring voters to include their driver's license number or some other form of identification rather than a signature. That may be one reason why early in-person voting soared in popularity in the state this year, and turnout there dipped only slightly from 2018.
Jason Snead, executive director of the conservative Honest Elections Project, which advocates for tighter voting laws, said the fairly robust turnout in the midterm elections shows that fears of the new voting regulations were overblown.
"We are on the back end of an election that was supposed to be the end of democracy, and it very much was not," Snead said.
Poll watchers were a significant concern of voting rights groups and election officials heading into Election Day. The representatives of the two major political parties are a key part of any secure election process, credentialed observers who can object to perceived violations of rules.
But this year, groups aligned with conspiracy theorists who challenged Biden's 2020 victory recruited poll watchers heavily, and some states reported that aggressive volunteers caused disruptions during the primary. But there were fewer issues in November.
In North Carolina, where several counties had reported problems with poll watchers in the May primary, the state elections board reported 21 incidents of misbehavior at the polls in the general election, most during the early, in-person voting period and by members of campaigns rather than poll watchers. The observers were responsible for eight of the incidents.
Voting experts were pleasantly surprised there weren't more problems with poll watchers, marking the second general election in a row when a feared threat of aggressive Republican observers did not materialize.
"This seems to be an increase over 2020. Is it a small increase? Yes," said Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida. "It's still a dry run for 2024, and we can't quite let down our guard."
One of the main organizers of the poll watcher effort was Cleta Mitchell, a veteran Republican election lawyer who joined Trump on a Jan. 2, 2020, call to Georgia's top election official when the president asked that the state "find" enough votes to declare him the winner. Mitchell then launched an organization to train volunteers who wanted to keep an eye on election officials, which was seen as the driver of the poll watcher surge.
Mitchell said the relatively quiet election is vindication that groups like hers were simply concerned with election integrity rather than causing disruptions.
"Every training conducted by those of us doing such training included instruction about behavior, and that they must be 'Peaceful, Lawful, Honest,'" Mitchell wrote in the conservative online publication The Federalist. "Yet, without evidence, the closer we got to Election Day, the more hysterical the headlines became, warning of violence at the polls resulting from too many observers watching the process. It didn't happen."
Voting rights groups say they're relieved their fears didn't materialize, but they say threats to democracy remain on the horizon for 2024 — especially with Trump announcing that he's running again. Wendy Weiser, a voting and elections expert at the Brennan Center, agreed that things overall went smoother than expected.
"By and large, sabotage didn't happen," Weiser said. "I don't think that means we're in the clear."


text:
Support MCG and become a Patron to see this content...
Signing up to May Contain Girl & Pony Magazine is now handled by Patreon. Patreon handles all of our Credit Card & Paypal payments 100% securely. To sign up you need a free Patreon account if you don't already have one, simply click the red Patreon button below and it will direct you to our Patreon page where you can create your free account. Once created you can choose a payment Tier, all payment Tiers can be viewed here on our Patreon page. Once payment is made your chosen Tier content will now be unlocked. To access your content simply return here to maycontaingirl.com and link your account by hitting the 'Log in with Patreon' button on our Log in page.
IMPORTANT: We only post preview content on our Patreon, all unlocked content is hosted here at maycontaingirl.com.
All MCG member packages are monthly subscriptions. Thanks Team MCG
To view this content, you must be a member of May Contain Girl Patreon at $26 or more
Unlock with Patreon
Already a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to access this content.


text:
Last week I got an email from a friend of the family asking if I would volunteer my time to photograph Alex's 18th birthday party at a local club on Sunday evening. They had lined up a whole bunch of comedians to help Alex celebrate. I really wanted to help the family out, but had my own daughter in the hospital at the time. It was going to be a last minute decision. As it turned out, my daughter was released from the hospital on Friday night, and when she heard about this, she said "Dad, you have to do this!"
Even though I have photographed 4 Olympic Games, the honor of capturing this important moment for the family was just as special. This brave young man will not be with us much longer and I wanted to do what I could to preserve this memory for the family.
I arrived at Charley's, which is a really cool night club in Los Gatos, CA, about 30 minutes before the event started. My goal was to get some photos of Alex and his family and friends. But Alex was not feeling very well and was not up to having his picture taken. I took some other photos around the venue until he had a chance to rest. The television crew showed up and did an interview with Alex. So I took this opportunity to photograph him being interviewed.
Here is Alex talking to the reporter from KTVU.
One of the items on Alex's bucket list was to get a tattoo. Here is a photo of him showing off his tattoo to the television camera.
As I mentioned, we first heard about Alex from Frank Somerville's Facebook page. If you have not seen Frank's page, you should check it out here. What we love most about Frank's page is that his writing is positive, insightful, and he always has great things to say. Something refreshing on the Internet. After spending time with Frank last night, I quickly realized that he is as genuine and kind-hearted in person as he is on TV and online. Being avid readers of his posts, my wife and daughter were thrilled to hear that Frank was there. He and I even surprised them with a selfie. Here is a photo of Alex Matlosz-Cox and Frank Somerville.
And here is a photo of Bobbie (Alex's amazing mom), Alex and Frank.
At 6pm the comedy show started.
(For those of you photographers wondering what equipment I used, all shots were taken with the Canon 1DX. I mostly used the Canon 70-200mm, 24-70mm lenses, and the 16-35mm lens for the wide shots. I used the Canon 600 EX-RT flash with a diffuser and turned it down by at least one stop to maintain the cool lighting in the room, but add a touch of light to the subjects.)
The family received hundreds of cards with people asking to meet Alex, And he wanted a way to meet as many of those people as possible. So they put together this party as a perfect way for so many people to see Alex at one time. All of this event was done for free, with the club owner giving the space, the food being brought by attendees, and the comedians volunteering their time to make this event happen. Awesome!
And everyone had a great time.
As well as capturing photos of Alex and the comedians, I wanted to get some wide shots showing all the people who came to support Alex and his mom.
I moved around the room trying to capture photos from all angles.
This is one of my favorite shots from the evening. I worked myself to the front of the stage. I got down low to stay out of people's way and shot this image of Alex and his girlfriend watching the show from the back of the club.
While up at the front of the room, I turned the camera back around to get people reactions.
It was great to see so many people there to support Alex and his mother.
I can't repeat any of the jokes, but trust me, these guys were funny!
At the end of the show, they concluded the comedy and wished Alex a happy birthday.
Even though Alex did not want any attention on him, the crowd spontaneously started singing happy birthday.
I walked over to him to see if I could get a photo of him reacting to this moment (not sure if he was OK with having his photo taken) and he turned and gave me this. I got chills from this moment.
And before I left the party, Alex stood up and let me take this last photo with him and his mom.
All I can tell you is...all of this puts our daily lives in perspective. I was driving over to the party thinking of all the things I have to do, and then realized that I am lucky to have the time to accomplish these tasks. This young man has very little time left with us, but is doing everything in his power to leave his mark in this world.
Alex, I hope that you prove the experts wrong and keep adding to your bucket list!
If you would like to see a video clip of the event from the Fox 2 news broadcast, click here. Towards the very end of the video, you will see where he turned and gave me the hand gesture.


text:
Ariza Privacy
- Your trust is one of our most important assets. This Policy thereby aims to give you an understanding of how SLIDE collects, uses, shares, and protects your personal data.
- We may amend or review this Policy at any time, such as in response to changes in legislation and regulations. We remain committed to safeguarding your information and being transparent about our data protection practices.
- This Policy is to be read together with the Terms and Conditions at https://slide.sg/terms/ and applies to all SLIDE services provided by iAPPS under such Terms and Conditions.
Collection of Personal Data
- Personal data refers to data about an individual who can be identified from either that particular data, or from that data and other information, which we have or are likely to have access to.
- Commonly collected personal data of our customers typically include, amongst other things, names, addresses, telephone (landline and mobile) numbers, e-mail addresses, NRIC/FIN, dates of birth, bank and credit card details.
- Wherever possible, we only collect personal data directly from you. Your data (including personal data where you are an individual) may be collected through the use of the Site and/or the App, or through marketing events such as road shows or any other means, for the purpose of planning and administering the SLIDE services.
- In addition to personal data provided to us, certain information related to you that are not considered personal data may also be collected. We collect this information to improve our Site, App and other online services.
- Such non-personal data may include information such as your IP address, the internet browser you use, details of your interaction with our Site and/or the App, and other types of non-personal data.
- We may also receive personal information about you from other sources if you have given permission for that information to be shared. This may include information from commercially available sources, such as public databases and data aggregators, and information from third parties which we believe you have authorized to provide your personal details on your behalf.
- Use of Cookies: We and some of our business partners (including iApps Pte Ltd) may use data collection devices such as "cookies" on certain pages of the Site and on our App to personalise your online experience, help analyze our Site and the App flow and measure promotional effectiveness. "Cookies" are small files placed on your hard drive that assist us in providing our services. We may offer features that are only available through the use of a "cookie". We also use cookies to reduce the number of times you need to enter your password. Cookies may also help us provide to you information targeted in accordance to your interests. Most browsers automatically accept cookies but you can modify your browser to decline cookies (if your browser permits you to do so), although in such a case you may not be able to access certain features on our Site and/or the App or some interactive features offered on our Site and/or the App may be restricted or rendered inoperable.
Using Your Personal Data
- We may use your data for the following reasons:
➢ Managing your SLIDE Account
➢ Processing your registration for SLIDE services
➢ Verifying your identity
➢ Allowing access to SLIDE services
➢ Conducting market research, survey and/or analysis
➢ Processing credit transactions for the depositing of funds in your SLIDE Wallet through our Site and/or the App
➢ Improving your experience on our Site and the App
➢ Making the Site and the App easier to use and tailoring the Site and the App to your interests and needs
➢ Fulfilling a legal or regulatory requirement, including providing assistance to law enforcement, judicial and other government agencies
➢ Responding to your queries and/or feedback
➢ Informing you of service and security issues
➢ Preventing and detecting fraud or other crimes
➢ Conducting internal audits
➢ Ensuring the safety and security of our properties and systems
➢ Conducting anti-money laundering checks, and checks against terrorism financing and related risks
➢ Informing you of updates and/or developments to SLIDE services
➢ Informing you of any changes to our Terms & Conditions which may affect you
Sharing your Personal Data
- As a general rule, we do not share your personal information with anyone. However, we may share your personal information with trusted third parties:
➢ iAPPS Pte Ltd, and any iAPPS Subsidiary
➢Any third payment aggregators that SLIDE may appoint from time to time to perform remittance transactions.
➢ Google Cloud Platform, which we use to perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to facilitate user registration
➢ Business partners and merchants we work with to provide services you have registered for,
➢ Financial institutions for purposes related to SLIDE services, including the marketing and selling of banking products related to SLIDE
➢ Law enforcement and government authorities where they have followed due legal process to request us to disclose the information
➢ Research institutions for market analysis purposes
➢ Third parties who wish to send you information about their products and services, but only if you have given us your consent to do so
➢ Third party providers of services, such as data processing or web analytics tool providers such as Google.
- We may share your personal data for:
➢ Reasons provided under the clause above
➢ Verification of your identity;
➢ Processing credit transactions for the depositing of funds in your eWallet through our Site and/or the App;
➢ Enforcement of applicable terms of use of the Site and/or the App;
➢ Conducting investigations into possible breaches of applicable laws;
➢ Complying with a court order or other legal or regulatory requirements in the jurisdictions we operate.
- In situations where a third party under contract with us collects personal data about you, we will require the third party to exercise reasonable care in protecting your information.
- For your convenience, we may also display to you personal data you had previously supplied us or other agencies. We will retain your personal data only as necessary for the effective delivery of services to you.
- The Site and/or the App may contain links to sites whose data protection and privacy practices may differ from ours. We are not responsible for the content and privacy practices of these other websites and encourage you to consult the privacy notices and/or policies of those sites.
Protecting your Data
- We have implemented stringent measures to secure and protect your information. These include:
➢ Safeguards to prevent security breaches in our network and database systems
➢ Limits on access to data in our systems, the systems of financial institutions linked to SLIDE, and the systems of our business partners and merchants.
➢ Strict verification processes to prevent unauthorised access to data
Respecting your contact preferences
- SLIDE is committed to complying with the Do Not Call ("DNC") provisions. We have always been mindful of engaging our users in a more targeted and relevant way.
- We may send marketing messages to your Singapore telephone number if:
➢ you have given your consent, OR
➢ you have not registered with the national DNC Registry, OR
➢ the sending of such messages is permissible under applicable laws and regulations.
- Our marketing messages aim to update you about exclusive offers, rewards programme and special deals from our preferred partners and advertisers.
- If you wish to stop receiving the marketing messages, you can contact us via email and your request will be processed within 30 calendar days.
- Please note that after opting out, you may still continue to receive non-marketing messages, such as product updates and service notices as permitted under applicable local laws and regulations.
- Please feel free to email us at [email protected]


text:
Quarterly Recap - 2nd Quarter 2013
U.S. equity and fixed income markets ended lower in June after the Federal Reserve policymakers signaled the central bank would begin reducing the amount of its monthly purchases "later this year" and end the stimulus program by mid-2014. Volatility mounted as investors grew concerned whether or not stimulus withdrawal was premature given still excessive unemployment, while Fed officials pledged to taper stimulus only if economic conditions warrant it. The benchmark S&P 500 lost 1.5% last month (-1.3% including dividends), ending a run of seven monthly gains, the longest winning streak since September 2009. Even so, the S&P 500 extended its year-to-date (YTD) gain to nearly 14% with a 2.9% return for the second quarter. Around $4.2 trillion has been erased from global equities since May 22nd when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke first warned that the central bank would trim stimulus. 1. Morningstar Direct (all performance percentages are total return based, which include reinvested dividend, interest) This information is compiled by Cetera Financial Group. No independent analysis has been performed and the material should not be construed as investment advice. Investment decisions should not be based on this material since the information contained here is a singular update, and prudent investment decisions require the analysis of a much broader collection of facts and context. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy. |


text:
Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
I've made my first novel, Ventus, available as a free download, as well as excerpts from two of the Virga books. I am looking forward to putting up a number of short stories in the near future.
To celebrate the August, 2007 publication of Queen of Candesce, I decided to re-release my first novel as an eBook. You can download it from this page. Ventus was first published by Tor Books in 2000, and and you can still buy it; to everyone who would just like to sample my work, I hope you enjoy this version.
I've released this book under a Creative Commons license, which means you can read it and distribute it freely, but not make derivative works or sell it.
I've made large tracts of these two Virga books available. If you want to find out what the Virga universe is all about, you can check it out here:
In spring 2005, the Directorate of Land Strategic Concepts of National Defense Canada (that is to say, the army) hired me to write a dramatized future military scenario. The book-length work, Crisis in Zefra, was set in a mythical African city-state, about 20 years in the future, and concerned a group of Canadian peacekeepers who are trying to ready the city for its first democratic vote while fighting an insurgency. The project ran to 27,000 words and was published by the army as a bound paperback book.
If you'd like to read Crisis in Zefra, you can download it in PDF form.
Canada's juried SF/Fantasy award has some strong contenders this year - plus me
The short list for the 2010 Sunburst Award has been announced, and once again I'm on it! Here's what they have to say about The Sunless Countries:
Immediately captivating, this is equal parts great world-building and strong characterization. Wonderfully original settings and visual detail light up this richly imagined world. Leal, her friends and her enemies are vividly drawn and sympathetic. Particularly impressive is Schroeder's ability to make this, the fourth book in the Virga series, as accessible to readers as the first.
The complete list of shortlisted works:
The short-listed works in the young adult category for the 2010 Sunburst Award are:
I'm a member of the Association of Professional Futurists with my own consultancy, and am also currently Chair of the Canadian node of the Millennium Project, a private/public foresight consultancy active in 50 nations. As well, I am an award-winning author with ten published novels translated into as many languages. I write, give talks, and conduct workshops on numerous topics related to the future, including:
For a complete bio, go here. To contact me, email karl at kschroeder dot com
I use Science Fiction to communicate the results of actual futures studies. Some of my recent research relates to how we'll govern ourselves in the future. I've worked with a few clients on this and published some results.
Here are two examples--and you can read the first for free:
The Canadian army commissioned me to write Crisis in Urlia, a fictionalized study of the future of military command-and-control. You can download a PDF of the book here:
For the "optimistic Science Fiction" anthology Hieroglyph, I wrote "Degrees of Freedom," set in Haida Gwaii. "Degrees of Freedom" is about an attempt to develop new governing systems by Canadian First Nations people.
I'm continuing to research this exciting area and would be happy to share my findings.
"Science fiction at its best."
--Kim Stanley Robinson
"Lean and hugely engaging ... and highly recommended."
--Open Letters Monthly, an Arts and Literature Review
(Sun of Suns and Queen of Candesce are combined in Cities of the Air)
"An adventure-filled tale of sword
fights and naval battles... the real fun of this coming-of-age tale includes a
pirate treasure hunt and grand scale naval invasions set in the cold, far
reaches of space. "
—Kirkus Reviews (listed in top 10 SF novels for 2006)
"With Queen of Candesce, [Schroeder] has achieved a clockwork balance of deftly paced adventure and humour, set against an intriguing and unique vision of humanity's far future.
--The Globe and Mail
"[Pirate Sun] is fun in the same league as the best SF ever has had to offer, fully as exciting and full of cool science as work from the golden age of SF, but with characterization and plot layering equal to the scrutiny of critical appraisers."
"...A rollicking good read... fun, bookish, and full of insane air battles"
"A grand flying-pirate-ship-chases-and-escapes-and-meetings-with-monsters adventure, and it ends not with a debate or a seminar but with a gigantic zero-gee battle around Candesce, a climactic unmasking and showdown, just desserts, and other satisfying stuff."


text:
Search and Browse Data/Statistics Collection
A trusted source for a variety of data and statistics on the US. This website lists statistical information on a wide range of topics from many government agencies in US. You may need to do further research to find out which agency has the information you are looking for.
Data Access: All Users
Type: Data Visualization, Microdata, Open Data, Statistics
Country: US
URL: https://www.usa.gov/statistics All Users
More Info/PermalinkDataBank is an analysis and visualization tool that contains collections of time series data on a variety of topics. You can create your own queries; generate tables, charts, and maps; and easily save, embed, and share them.
Data Access: All Users
Type: Data Visualization, Open Data, Statistics
Country: Canada, International, US
URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx All Users
More Info/Permalink


text:
Luke Howard
Australian Music Prize-nominated composer Luke Howard has been described as "absolutely heavenly" (Mary Anne Hobbs, BBC Radio 6) and his music as "an ambient masterclass" (Musos' Guide), but no words can fully capture the potency of Howard's enthralling compositions.
A pianist since childhood, Howard has scored films and performed with artists as diverse as Lior and Jeff Mills, capturing audiences with contemporary classical arrangements that curl and twist around the boundaries of a particular emotion. Though wordless, Howard's songs perform a function unique to music as a medium – that of evoking without describing, bringing listeners to a feeling which defies articulating.
Now signed to UK label Mercury KX (Lambert, Olafur Arnalds, Solomon Grey), 2017 has Howard working across several projects: arranging the keyboard works of photographer William Eggleston, a pioneer of colour photography; a European tour culminating with a sold-out performance at the Hamburg Elbphilharmonie; and a new record.
Howard is one of Australia's foremost practitioners of contemporary classical music. Having already accomplished so much and with more on the horizon, he is set to captivate audiences worldwide.


text:
Skip to product information
Product Details
- Brand: Amazing Spiderman
- Character: Howling Manwolf
- Series:
- Manufacture: Toybiz
- Released: 2006
- Condition: Sealed
- Photo: Original
Note(s): Please be mindful that this particular item is Vintage/Old and was purchased second hand. Please see photos for the exact condition of the item. This particular item MAY or MAY NOT be subject to damage such as:
- Paint Ware
- Slight Discoloration
- Minor Chips/Smudges
- Slight Odor (Not Smoke Related)
- Slight Stickiness
- Slight Dust
Product Description
Safety Warning Product sold by Bitz & Buttons may contain sharp points, small parts, choking hazards, and other elements not suitable for children under 5 years old. |


text:
A right sanitizing service provider offers trained technicians equipped with world-class equipment to thoroughly disinfect your home or office area. Sanitization not only cleans the dirt but also removes 99.99 percent of germs, bacteria, and viruses. The amount of microorganisms present in space is reduced to a safe level, avoiding contamination and harmful effects of unseen pathogens. Through sanitization services, you can provide a hygienic and safe environment for your customers, employees, loved ones, and yourself.
The need to sanitize spaces are ever more essential due to the recent pandemic situation and rising Covid-19 cases across India. If your premises had shut down during the lockdown, your employees and customers would want to ensure that your premise is safe before returning and being comfortable working and visiting the space. Viruses can be transmitted rapidly through air and surface contamination, and complete sanitization of both is required to treat your office space or home.


text:
Civil Engineering
Look around you. The work of civil engineers is everywhere. The roads and bridges we travel on, sure. The buildings we live, work and play in, too. But also systems that bring us clean water and take away waste. Strategies that help us recover from disasters. Energy innovations to power the future. Technologies for green buildings. New materials and sensors for smart infrastructure systems. Projects to alleviate poverty. In other words, civil engineers design the systems, technologies and structures that ready our modern world for a growing, aging human population and make life better in our communities.
Civil engineers are problem solvers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and global leaders. They will invent the technologies of the future and create solutions to challenges we haven't even imagined yet. A civil engineering education also provides a foundation to move into leadership positions in the public, private or nonprofit sectors, or pursue careers beyond engineering, like law, medicine, business and healthcare.
Environmental Engineering
If you've thought about how we control pollution in the air and water or how we clean up contaminated waste sites or how we assess exposure and human risk, you're already thinking like an environmental engineer. From clean drinking water and air quality monitoring to pollution controls and sustainable development, environmental engineers are designing new ways to make life better for people around the globe while respecting our world's natural resources.
Environmental engineers use core engineering skills and a deep understanding of the physical, chemical and biological principles of the local, regional and global environment to help change the world.
The pulse of today's world beats with technological revolution, population dynamics, environmental concerns, urban development and more. As a result, civil and environmental engineers must be creative problem solvers to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The programs in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Georgia Tech are based on engineering fundamentals and real-world experience to ensure our students are ready to address complex, multidisciplinary problems to improve the lives of people on a global scale.


text:
With Increase "Death Is Inevitable" LP
Two years since their release of "Signs of the Time" and miles of maturity later, With Increase is set to unleash their debut full-length LP, Death Is Inevitable on February 25, 2014 via Blood & Ink Records. With its brutal yet melodic guitars and menacing, guttural vocals, Death Is Inevitable is about life, pain, consequences of mistakes and the prejudices of this world. Following in the footsteps of fellow spirit-filled hardcore bands like Strongarm and Focal Point, With Increase also takes influence from metallic-bent acts such as Turmoil and Poison the Well, forging a sound that is captivating everyone who hears and sees them. This record is a must for true hardcore fans.
For fans of: Focal Point, Turning Point, Killing the Dream


text:
A toothache is your body's way of telling you something has gone wrong in your mouth. There is no convenient time or place to get a toothache, but we always strive to see our toothache patients as soon as possible. But chances are you won't be at our office when a toothache strikes, so here are a few things NOT to do between when you notice the discomfort and when you see the dentist.
Ignore the Toothache & Hope It Gets Better
Spoiler alert: it won't just get better on its own. It's possible that if you use home toothache remedies you can reduce your discomfort, but that doesn't mean that you've fixed the underlying problem that caused the toothache in the first place. If there is a singular truth to oral health it is this: nothing ever gets better by putting off seeing the dentist.
Take Anti-Inflammatory Painkillers the Wrong Way
Yes, there is a right and wrong way to take painkillers when you have a toothache! The best option is to take ibuprofen (Advil) consistently and don't stop when the pain starts getting better. Taking the indicated dose regularly until you see the dentist will prevent swelling from coming back and causing more discomfort. We should note that not everyone can take ibuprofen or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) due to health concerns. Chances are you know if you can't take NSAIDs, but please ask your primary care doctor if you aren't sure.
Downplay Signs of a More Serious Situation
There are a few symptoms that may accompany a toothache that are serious and may require a visit to urgent care or the ER. These include a fever, severe swelling, eyes swelling shut, trouble breathing or swallowing. All of these are signs of a serious infection or injury that could be life-threatening in extreme and rare situations. Please don't take a chance: if you have these symptoms, go to the hospital first and call us after.
Wait to Call the Dentist
Even if it's a Sunday night or a national holiday, don't hesitate to call us. If you don't get someone on the phone right away, you can leave a message about what's going on and your phone number, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible. The sooner we know about your situation, the sooner we can help!


text:
Part 3 of our guidance on how to lead a group from a blank slate to a choice on where to focus on future.
Groups of managers and executives often have to determine what future course of action to take. If you're leading the discussion as a leader or facilitator, there are a couple of simple tools brainstorming and multiple votes that can help a team come to agreement.
This Cast Answers These Questions
- How can I help a group figure out how to choose a plan?
- What tools can I use to go from ideas to action when facilitating?
- How can I help a group make planning decisions?
Other Parts of This Series
Download/Buy Documents
Title | Availability |
Simple Facilitation - Choosing a Plan Shownotes | Purchase this item |


text:
The Holy Apostle Timothy was from the Lycaonian city of Lystra in Asia Minor. Saint Timothy was converted to Christ in the year 52 by the holy Apostle Paul (June 29). When the Apostles Paul and Barnabas first visited the cities of Lycaonia, Saint Paul healed one crippled from birth. Many of the inhabitants of Lystra then believed in Christ, and among them was the future Saint Timothy, his mother Eunice and grandmother Loida (Lois) (Acts 14:6-12; 2 Tim. 1:5).
The seed of faith, planted in Saint Timothy's soul by the Apostle Paul, brought forth abundant fruit. He became Saint Paul's disciple, and later his constant companion and co-worker in the preaching of the Gospel. The Apostle Paul loved Saint Timothy and in his Epistles called him his beloved son, remembering his devotion and fidelity with gratitude.
He wrote to Timothy: "You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, and patience" (2 Tim. 3:10-11). The Apostle Paul appointed Saint Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus, where the saint remained for fifteen years. Finally, when Saint Paul was in prison and awaiting martyrdom, he summoned his faithful friend, Saint Timothy, for a last farewell (2 Tim. 4:9).
Saint Timothy ended his life as a martyr. The pagans of Ephesus celebrated a festival in honor of their idols, and used to carry them through the city, accompanied by impious ceremonies and songs. Saint Timothy, zealous for the glory of God, attempted to halt the procession and reason with the spiritually blind idol-worshipping people, by preaching the true faith in Christ.
The pagans angrily fell upon the holy apostle, they beat him, dragged him along the ground, and finally, they stoned him. Saint Timothy's martyrdom occurred in the year 93.
In the fourth century the holy relics of Saint Timothy were transferred to Constantinople and placed in the church of the Holy Apostles near the tombs of Saint Andrew (November 30) and Saint Luke (October 18). The Church honors Saint Timothy as one of the Apostles of the Seventy.
In Russian practice, the back of a priest's cross is often inscribed with Saint Paul's words to Saint Timothy: "Be an example to the believers in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim. 4:12).
~Website of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2001/01/22/100262-apostle-timothy-of-the-seventy.


text:
Lindsey Buckingham Says Fleetwood Mac 'Lost Their Perspective'
Lindsey Buckingham has finally spoken about his departure from Fleetwood Mac. Last night, he performed at a fundraiser for Mike Levin, a Democratic candidate for California's 49th Congressional District, where he made his first public comments about the band's decision to tour without him, which you can see below.
The video, found by Medium, begins with Buckingham saying, "It's been an interesting time on a lot of levels. For me, personally, probably some of you know that for the last three months I have sadly taken leave of my band of 43 years, Fleetwood Mac. This was not something that was really my doing or my choice. I think what you would say is that there were factions within the band that had lost their perspective."
After someone in the crowd shouted, "Fuck Stevie Nicks," Buckingham diplomatically raised his hand and refused to point a finger of blame. "Well, it doesn't really matter," he continued. "The point is that they'd lost their perspective, and what that did was to harm – and this is the only thing I'm really sad about; the rest of it becomes an opportunity – it harmed the 43-year legacy that we had worked so hard to build, and that legacy was really about rising above difficulties in order to fulfill one's higher truth and one's higher destiny."
He then pivoted into the reason why he was playing a political fundraiser, citing a similar loss of perspective in Washington with regard to checks and balances. The seat in the U.S. House of Representatives is up for grabs, with Republican Darrell Issa, who has held the seat since 2000, stepping down.
Buckingham, who left the band after 1987's Tango in the Night and rejoined 10 years later, has been replaced by Mike Campbell from Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and Neil Finn of Crowded House for their upcoming tour. Nicks said that the decision to move on without him was the result of him wanting to wait until next year to go on the road.
Fleetwood Mac's tour begins Oct. 3 at the BOK Center in Tulsa and will continue, over two legs with a six-week break in mid-December and January, through April 5 in Philadelphia. You can check out all the dates here.


text:
A modern and sustainable update to packing cubes using recycled fabric and webbing made from plastic bottles. Set of three packing cubes to keep you organized while traveling. Top grab handle on each packing cube for easy carrying convenience. Packing cubes nest together for easy storage when not in use. Large Cube: 15L 12H 3.5W. Medium Cube: 12.375L 5.5H 6W. Small Cube: 6.75L 11H 2.5W.
Pricing & Options
Customize your product based on the available color options and decorating methods. If you need more information, simply add this product to the Wish List and we will get back to you with answers.


text:
WE FOUND SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION FOR OUR PROCUREMENT, SUPPLY CHAIN AND RETAIL CANDIDATES. This is a good read.
Thanks to The Daily Muse where this article was originally published
"Why did you leave your last job?" The question can strike fear in even the most confident candidate. Whether your answer is simple or complex, being asked to talk about it puts you on the spot, and it can be tricky to balance the truth while still painting yourself in the best possible light to your hopefully-soon-to-be employer.
But, it doesn't have to be as painful as you might think.
Aside from wanting to know that you're not a flake, your interviewer is asking this question to find out why you're interested in the opening. So, there's an art to formulating your response that'll enable you sail through smoothly and come out ahead (even if the circumstances were a bit dicey!). Here's how to craft an expert answer.
Be Honest
This should go without saying, but you absolutely have to be up front about your reason for leaving, particularly if you were terminated—a prospective employer can (and in many cases, will) call your references or your last supervisor. And if you've been let go, don't panic: It doesn't mean you're out of the running. Your best bet is to chalk it up to a learning experience and showcase what you've gained from it. People are often able to overlook mistakes if you admit to them and prove that you've grown in the process.
Stay Positive
Even if you suffered under the wrath of a Devil Wears Prada-type of supervisor, do not rant about a previous boss or company during an interview. And if you think you were laid off unfairly, you still don't want to paint yourself as a victim. According to corporate recruiter Deborah Osbourn, its fine to say the job wasn't a good fit, but be prepared to give some concrete reasons to back up that statement—for example, you want to work in a more team-oriented environment, or the position didn't make the best use of your skill set.
Keep it Short
Once you've answered the question, there's no need to keep elaborating. The longer you continue talking, the more likely you are to start opening up about things that aren't necessary. Yes, your back-stabbing co-workers, the CEO's anger management problem, and the company's "creative" reporting practices are all good reasons to leave, but they're not appropriate to share during an interview.
And if you're leaving on good terms and are simply looking for a new challenge, that's all you need to say on the matter. If the interviewer wants more information, she'll ask you to expand.
Focus on the New Job
The best way to conclude your response is to spin it back to what's most important—why you are interested in the job you're interviewing for. "The person interviewing you wants to know that you want that job and will be interested in it for a while," says Osbourn. "You would be surprised how many people are unable to clearly express their interest in the job."
Highlight job duties for the new position that spark your interest ("in my last role, I didn't have much opportunity to collaborate with other departments, so I'm excited about working on cross-functional teams here"). And definitely beware of citing any dislikes from previous jobs that are clearly defined in the job description for this role. Hated cold calling prospects? Be sure that's not listed as a requirement before spouting off!
Remember, every question you're asked is a chance to showcase your qualities, personality, and interest in the position. You've already passed the initial screen, and the interview is your time to shine. So when asked about your previous job, just keep your answer short, honest, and positive, and you'll be on to the next question in no time (and hopefully, the job!).