text:
You prove how stupid you are by your non-answers and evasions.
Frank has said the issue is complex to decide unless you have degree or some kind of background to study all the surrounding laws and issues.
You're doing it again; you're not challenging what I said about the Constitution on privacy.
The proof is him thinking that his non-answers and evasions have any effect on our thinking.
accusing Frank of being stupid because he holds a difference of opinion than they do.
Again, evasion.
Repeating your stupidity is on the par!
When has Frank wanted ya'll to change your thinking? In what post? He hasn't. He just simply says that because you have an opinion, having that opinion doesn't change any laws.
It seems these guys consider asking them to keep an open mind is an insult.
He just simply says that because you have an opinion, having that opinion doesn't change any laws.
Court Reveals 'Secret Interpretation' Of The Patriot Act, Allowing NSA To Collect All Phone Call Data
from the the-secret-interpretation-of-why-the-4th-amendment-is-dead dept
The FISA Court (FISC) today released a heavily redacted version of its July ruling approving the renewal of the bulk metadata collection on all phone calls from US phone providers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This is part of the "secret interpretation" as to how the FISC interprets the Patriot Act's "business records" or "tangible things" section to mean that the government can order a telco to turn over pretty much all records -- even as the very author of the law says it was written specifically to not allow this interpretation.
Much of the ruling is pretty much what you'd expect, given the way defenders of this program have been insisting that this is all very legal. It argues that Smith v. Maryland show that there are no privacy protections in data given to your telco. It goes on at length defending the third party doctrine, arguing that because some third party holds your data, you have no expectation of privacy. As many have argued, this is a ridiculous and antiquated view of the third party doctrine, not at all consistent with modern technology, but the FISC repeats it without question. While some have pointed out that even if single points of metadata might not be privacy violating, collecting all of them creates a new problem, the court rejects that entirely.
From there, there's a big discussion of whether or not "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation." This is a big part of where the concern lies. How can the government defend the claim that all records are "relevant to an authorized investigation." Here, the court compares the order to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which lets the government get access to records as well. And then the word games begin. Basically, it argues that because one law requires "specific and articulable facts" and that the information must be "material," while the other (the PATRIOT Act) does not, then the government doesn't need specific and articulable facts. Rather it just needs "a statement of facts showing there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records are relevant to the investigation."
For non-content records production requests, such as the type sought here, Section 2703(c) provides a variety of mechanisms, including acquisition through a court order under Section 2703(d). Under this section, which is comparable to Section 215, the government must offer to the court "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." 2703(d) (emphasis added). Section 215, the comparable provision for foreign intelligence purposes, requires neither "specific and articulable facts" nor does it require that the information be "material." Rather, it merely requires a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant to the investigation. 50 U.S.C. That these two provisions apply to the production of the same type of records from the same type of providers is an indication that Congress intended this Court to apply a different, and in specific respects lower, standard to the government's Application under Section 215 than a court reviewing a request under Section 2703(d). Indeed, the Act version of FISA's business records provision required "specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. §1862(b)(2)(B) as it read on October 25, 2001. In enacting Section 215, Congress removed the requirements for "specific and articulable facts" and that the records pertain to "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." Accordingly, now the government need not provide specific and articulable facts, demonstrate any connection to a particular suspect, nor show materiality when requesting business records under Section 215. To find otherwise would be to impose a higher burden -- one that Congress knew how to include in Section 215, but chose to dispense with.
Also, it argues that since Section 215 allows recipients of the order to challenge them and no telco ever has that this lends it to believe there are no problems with the law.
Second, Section 2703(d) permits the service provider to file a motion with a court to "quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause undue burden on such provider." Congress recognized that, even with the higher statutory standard for a production order under Section 2703(d), some requests authorized by a court would be "voluminous" and provided a means by which the provider could seek relief using a motion. Under Section 215, however, Congress provided a specific and complex statutory scheme for judicial review of an Order from this Court to ensure that providers could challenge both the legality of the required production and the nondisclosure provisions of that Order. 50 U.S.C. §1861(f). This adversarial process includes the selection of a judge from a pool of FISC judges to review the challenge to determine if it is frivolous and to rule on the merits, provides standards that the judge is to apply during such review, and provides for appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court. This procedure, as opposed to the motion process available under Section 2703(d) to challenge a production as unduly voluminous or burdensome, contemplates a substantial and engaging adversarial process to test the legality of this Court' Orders under Section 215. This enhanced process appears designed to ensure that there are additional safeguards in light of the lower threshold that the government is required to meet for production under Section 215 as opposed to Section 2703(d). To date, no holder of records who has received an Order to produce bulk telephony metadata has challenged the legality of such an Order. Indeed, no recipient of any Section 215 Order has challenged the legality of such an Order, despite the explicit statutory mechanism for doing so.
Basically, the court says "why of course there's an adversarial process" to protect users' privacy. It just depends on Verizon or AT&T taking up the fight on behalf of their users, and they haven't done so, so let's just assume everyone's okay with this. That's kind of crazy when you think about it. Admittedly, the public should be up in arms that Verizon and AT&T appear to have no interest in challenging these broad collections of data, but that hardly makes them constitutional.
From there we move onto the interpretation of how this massive data collection could possibly be seen as "relevant." First, it notes (as mentioned above) that the government doesn't need to prove that the data is actually relevant. Just that it has reasonable grounds to believe that they are relevant.
As an initial matter and as a point of clarification, the government's burden under Section 215 is not to prove that the records sought are, in fact, relevant to an authorized investigation. The explicit terms of the statute require "a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant.
Then it basically says that because the NSA can sniff out terrorists within a giant database, that makes the entire database relevant. Really.
This Court has previously examined the issue of relevance for bulk collections. See; [REDACTED] While those matters involved different collections from the one at issue here, the relevance standard was similar.... ("[R]elevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism...."). In both cases, there were facts demonstrating that information concerning known and unknown affiliates of international terrorist organizations was contained within the non-content metadata the government sought to obtain. As this Court noted in 2010, the "finding of relevance most crucially depended on the conclusion that bulk collection is necessary for NSA to employ tools that are likely to generate useful investigative leads to help identify and track terrorist operatives." [REDACTED] Indeed, in [REDACTED] this Court noted that bulk collections such as these are "necessary to identify the much smaller number of [international terrorist] communications.' [REDACTED] As a result, it is this showing of necessity that led the Court to find that "the entire mass of collected metadata is relevant to investigating [international terrorist groups] and affiliated persons." [REDACTED]
It then applies those previous, redacted-named rulings, to this case, repeating the DOJ's own filing saying "all of the metadata collected is thus relevant, because the success of this investigative tool depends on bulk collections."
That's ridiculous and tautological. You could argue that the "success" of a program designed to stop crimes "depends on" putting cameras inside everyone's home, but that doesn't make it any less a violation of privacy. It also hardly makes the collection of all such data "relevant."
The FISC continues to tap dance on the grave of the 4th Amendment:
The government depends on this bulk collection because if production of the information were to wait until the specific identifier connected to an international terrorist group were determined, most of the historical connections (the entire purpose of this authorization) would be lost. The analysis of past connections is only possible "if the Government has collected and archived a broad set of metadata that contains within it the subset of communications that can later be identified as terrorist-related." Because the subset of terrorist communications is ultimately contained within the whole of the metadata produced, but can only be found after the production is aggregated and then queried using identifiers determined to be associated with identified international terrorist organizations, the whole production is relevant to the ongoing investigation out of necessity.
Once again, that makes no sense. First off, just because you can put together all this aggregate data and use it to find criminals and terrorists doesn't automatically make it legal. Once again, I'm sure that having cameras in everyone's homes would allow similar capturing of illegal behavior. But that doesn't make it legal. Second, the argument that without this metadata collection the information would be "lost" is clearly untrue. As was just revealed a few weeks ago, AT&T has employees embedded with the DEA who are willing, ready and able to do deep dive searches on decades worth of phone records (even beyond AT&T). The data isn't lost. They're available via AT&T employees who are working right alongside government employees.
Incredibly, the FISC then claims that the mere claim that terrorists use the phone system is enough to show that all phone records are relevant.
The government must demonstrate "facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation." The fact that international terrorist operatives are using telephone communications, and that it is necessary to obtain the bulk collection of a telephone company's metadata to determine those connections between known and unknown international terrorist operatives as part of authorized investigations, is sufficient to meet the low statutory hurdle set out in Section 215 to obtain a production of records.
Except, almost nothing there makes sense. It's not true that it is necessary to obtain bulk collection of the metadata to find those connections. And just because terrorists live in houses, we don't say that it's okay for law enforcement to search every house. Take this same argument and apply it to anything else and the 4th Amendment goes away entirely.
In short, this shows the serious problems with these efforts being non-adversarial. The FISC more or less buys the government's argument at every single turn, even though there are multiple arguments for why the government's position is either not true or, at the very least, misleading.
There was no real constitutional issues complex or otherwise that people had a right to peacefully protest the country involvement in World War One even those the courts turn their backs and did allowed citizens to be sentence to twenty years in prison for doing so.


text:
When you and your significant other decide to move in together, things will change. Here's another thing to consider adding to your moving day list: updating your insurance.
Take a break from taping those boxes and read this quick checklist to make sure you're on the same page with your insurance needs.
- Earn discounts for combining policies: If you share your abode, your cars and your expenses, you have the option to combine auto insurance policies and receive a multi-car discount. This means all cars in the household are listed under one policy and both drivers are "Named Insureds" on that policy.
Also, you may be eligible for additional multi-policy discounts. These can help you save when you purchase ERIE renters, homeowners or life insurance policies.
- Keep your belongings safe: Whether you're renting, buying or building, make sure the contents of your home are covered through a renters, homeowners or condominium insurance policy. Don't forget to protect yourself and your partner. Erie Insurance offers Identity Recovery Coverage so your financial identities are protected, too.
- Protect your future: Life insurance can protect not only what you have now, but also what you might have in the future, like the desire to provide children with a college education. Talk to an Erie Insurance agent about whether a term, whole life or universal policy is right for you.
Your new home is about so much more than four walls and one address – it's about a life you're building together. Talk to an ERIE Insurance agent today for your complimentary insurance assessment.
Discounts subject to eligibility criteria and rates and rules in effect at the time of purchase. Life multi-policy discount not available in conjunction with auto policies already taking advantage of ERIE Rate Lock®. Erie Insurance Exchange, Erie Insurance Co., Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Co., Flagship City Insurance Co. and Erie Family Life Insurance Co. (Erie, PA) or Erie Insurance Co. of New York (Rochester, NY). Go to erieinsurance.com for company licensure and product details. Equal opportunity insurer.
Click Here To Submit A News Tip Or Story

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Singer Alpha Blondy was in Israel this week for the Zion Reggae Festival. Arutz Sheva met Blondy in Tel Aviv where talked about his deep connection with the land. "My family and I, we are so excited to be in Israel. It's a high spiritual level," he said.
Blondy was born in the Ivory Coast as Seydou Koné to a Muslim mother and Christian father. Among his popular songs are Jerusalem and Masada, in which he sings in Hebrew. He has also composed such songs as Apartheid Is Nazism, Black Men Tears and other tracks that deal with various religions and world conflict.
"There is no rational explanation that I can give you for why I love Israel," Blondy commented. "Why did I come to Israel the first time [in the 1980s]? Why did my song 'Jerusalem' become the biggest hit of my career? There is an enormous energy behind Israel on a spiritual level."
Blondy said that he is not aware of any organizations that called for him to cancel his performance. "I've been boycotted all my life. They know my spiritual stance."
As far as anti-Jewish sentiments, Blondy referred to it as an "yin and yang." He elaborated, "if people love you, it's because those that don't love you give the balance. You cannot be loved by everybody."
He also had strong words to say in opposition to terrorist attacks. "I may not agree with a brother or even like him, but I do not have the right to cover up my hatred with the name of G-d," he said. "I cannot envision in my brain how can a human being can take a bomb and put it on someone's body and put him in a bus or in plane in the name of Allah. If you have your problem with some people or with yourself, that's a personal hatred. But please do not use G-d as an alibi. G-d is not your property."
To emphasize his point, he began singing an impromptu song in French about his feelings on terrorism which can be seen in the Arutz Sheva video.
Alpha Blondy also spoke at the Jerusalem Music Conference at a special panel discussion on politics in the music world.
For an article regarding the conference click here.
For coverage of this year's Zion Reggae Festival click here.
For coverage of last year's Zion Reggae Festival including a video with Ziggy Marley click here.
For more music download the latest Israel Beat Jewish Music Podacst by clicking here.
Photos by Shlomo Taitz.


text:
Beijing Sightseeing and Trans Mongolian Train - Beijing, Great Wall and Trans-Mongolian Train
|Overview • Detailed Itinerary • FAQ's • Testimonials
There currently are not any testimonials for this particular trip. If you have any questions or are a previous ElderTreks traveler and wish to subit a testimonial, please do not hesitate to contact an ElderTreks representative.
1-800-741-7956 North America • 0808-234-1714 United Kingdom • 416-588-5000 Worldwide


text:
October 27, 2009, Louisville, Ky. – Woodford Reserve announces the latest extension of its acclaimed Master's Collection which will be released on November 1. Called 'Seasoned Oak Finish,' it is the fourth in the series of limited edition bottlings and continues Woodford Reserve's tradition of crafting rare whiskeys that extend the category in bold new directions.
Barrels play a key role in producing bourbon, with approximately 70 percent of the spirit's flavor and aroma and all of its color provided by the oak barrel. Woodford Reserve's new offering, Seasoned Oak Finish, features bourbon finish-aged in unique barrels crafted with wood that has been seasoned longer than any previously used in the industry.
"Of all the distillers in our industry, we are the only bourbon company that crafts its own barrels, giving us unique knowledge and control of the process," said Woodford Reserve Master Distiller Chris Morris. "As the rough oak staves are exposed to seasonal weather changes and subsequently dried, this natural cycle develops a new range of flavors in the wood."
This seasoning progression changes the wood by reducing tannins and ultimately creates a new range of flavor compounds. The staves for most bourbon barrels are seasoned for three to five months; however, Seasoned Oak Finish combines fully-matured Woodford Reserve with barrels crafted from wood that has been exposed to the outdoors for three to five years — the longest seasoning known in the bourbon industry.
"By 'finish aging' Woodford Reserve in barrels that have been crafted from oak and seasoned for several years, we created a bourbon unlike any other in the industry. It's the most robust bourbon we have ever made," said Wayne Rose, brand director for Woodford Reserve. "This special Master's Collection release emboldens Woodford Reserve with 'extra-aged' oak character resulting in a new and complex flavor profile."
Seasoned Oak Finish is the fourth in the Woodford Reserve Master's Collection series following the Four Grain, Sonoma-Cutrer Finish and Sweet Mash products. Released periodically at the master distiller's discretion, the Master's Collection whiskeys are extremely limited in quantity and bottled only once in a proprietary package inspired by the copper pot stills of The Woodford Reserve Distillery.
The inspiration for the Master's Collection is rooted in the rich history and tradition of what is today known as The Woodford Reserve Distillery. In the mid-1800s distillery owner Oscar Pepper and Master Distiller James Crow studied and recommended use of key processes like sour mashing and charred barrel maturation at the historic Woodford County distillery. These practices are still maintained in the bourbon industry and, today, the distillery receives more than 80,000 visitors annually and is the only one in America to triple-distill bourbon in copper pot stills.
Woodford Reserve Seasoned Oak Finish will be sold in 44 U.S. markets, and a limited quantity will be available in Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, New Zealand and Australia. Each bottle is individually hand-numbered and presented at 100.4 proof. Available in major metro markets, only 1,337 cases are available with a suggested retail price of $89.99 for a 750ml bottle.
-# # #-
Woodford Reserve is one of the fine spirits produced and marketed by Brown-Forman
Corporation, a producer and marketer of fine quality beverage alcohol brands, including Jack Daniel's, Southern Comfort, Finlandia, Fetzer, Korbel, Tequila Herradura, Sonoma-Cutrer, Chambord, Tuaca, and Bonterra. Please enjoy your bourbon responsibly. For more information on Woodford Reserve, visit www.woodfordreserve.com.
Woodford Reserve Distiller's Select Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey, 45.2% Alc. by Vol., The Woodford Reserve Distillery, Versailles, KY ©2009.
Tasting Notes for Woodford Reserve Seasoned Oak Finish
Color: Rich mahogany.
Aroma: Deep, complex and subtly sweet; hints of cinnamon, clove, rich caramel and pipe tobacco, with a nutty oak character.
Taste: Full-flavored and robust oak with layers of anise, dark berries and cherry fruit, warming cinnamon and clove spice notes, all with a caramel nut sauce.
Finish: Velvety and long with a hint of crisp dryness.


text:
Now showing items 1-1 of 1
Options listing and the volatility of the underlying asset: a study on the derivative market function
There is a lot of misunderstanding about derivative markets. Many people believes that they are a kind of casinos and have no utility to the investors. This work looks on the effects of options introduction in the Brazilian ...


text:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
How Green Became the Color of Money
"How is power really leveraged in Washington? Read Bob Packwood's diaries. The private record of this disgraced Oregon senator and top recipient of campaign contributions from the timber industry from 1985 to 1995 tells the story. Packwood told the chief lobbyist for the National Lumber Wholesalers Association that if the Lumber Wholesalers wanted him to gut the Endangered Species Act, a hefty contribution was needed." Politics and plunder...AKA, government business as usual. Amazing how many people think these agencies are actually working towards the public good.
- Login to post comments
That's why we can't see those "shocking" photos of Bin Laden, they're too "Gorey" !
I knew the green laws were coming back in 1991 under the CFC law. Now, it's the HCFC law. Tomorrow, it will be the blends of refrigerant, which are declared safe. A stroke of a pen is all they are using against us. Strike the Root and it'll all go away for prosperity. Let it live, and eventually it'll consume the Federal Government. With the States surrendering to the Feds, it'll all fall down like a house of cards.
Everyone is already burning moonshine in their gas tanks, which was outlawed and thousands of bootleggers killed. Ah, Oh, Ok, it was outlawed then, but it's Ok now. Besides, we have a bigger war to fight: The War on Drugs ! God bless what ?
- Login to post comments


text:
On November 28th, Graham turned six. Six?? It seems that just in the last six months or so, he has shot up and started looking like a bona fide boy. His build is exactly like that of my brothers who are 6'4″ and 6'1″ and slim. He looks less like the baby he was and more like the boy he will become. I'm not sure I'm ready for that. (See his right ear? How it sticks out just a bit? My brother Michael has been saying, since he was a baby, that girls will go crazy over that ear.)
Life with Graham has felt different in the time that he has become a big boy. He is more defiant – something he has never ever been. He is still incredibly compliant and eager to please, but we are getting more attitude. Considering he is still just about the happiest person I have met, that he still has never had a melt-down that lasted longer than 10 seconds, and that in the past 10 days he has lived through stomach flu, an ear infection severe enough to puncture an eardrum (without ever telling us his ear hurt), and a pneumonia diagnosis with a smile on his face all the while, I think we are due a little attitude.
We have so much to be thankful for and so much to be proud of. Graham is thriving in kindergarten. Randy and I could not have dared hope for the success he is having. Because he often struggles with things that other kids seem to grasp effortlessly, we kind of thought that school – the reading, writing, math – would be hard for him. In fact, according to his teacher, his resource room teacher, and his report card (!), he is right on track, even for the typical kids in the class. And he is excelling in some areas. True to his nature, those areas are "works well on a team" and "respectful and kind to others". He is starting to read and to do addition and subtraction. It is incredible to see him do so well. And perhaps most importantly, he is loving school. He loves the kids, he loves going to the library and checking out books and he loves loves loves Mr. Roberts, the P.E. teacher.
To have him do so well in school and yet still be the child who can drive me to distraction by not understanding the difference between his birthday party day and his actual birthday day, or who cannot comprehend that is is not night time even though it is dark, is a continual source of frustration for me. I tend to hear the same question over and over again, or respond to a question only to have him say the exact opposite. Every conversation I have with him, every request I make of him, I can feel myself gathering my patience, steeling myself, because so much of what I say he doesn't get. He hears me – his hearing is fine – he just doesn't process what I say in the same way that a typically developing child would. Often I feel that he still needs so much from me and that sometimes makes me want to bang my head against the wall.
And there in, once again, lies the problem. Me. I feel like my patience is constantly at the breaking point and my tolerance for the noise level of these two oh-so-very-noisy boys is constantly low. Is this Graham's problem? Of course not. He is doing the very best he can, just as he always has. It is not his fault that he doesn't process language the way that, say, his brother does. If anything, he is trying extra hard, being a child who is so eager to please. I have spent so much time thinking about my reactions to him and even writing about them here on this blog, and I feel like I am doing worse with him rather than better. It is a terrible way to feel.
Of course, I know I am a good mother. I tell him regularly how wonderful he is. I tell him how proud I am at least ten times a day. I applaud his efforts in school and cheer him on when he tells a mean kid, "I don't like that!". I kiss and hug him and hold him and I read to him and feed him healthy snacks. I beam with pride when he tells the grocery check-out person to be careful with the eggs because they are fragile, and then praises her with a heartfelt, "Good job!" once they are in the bag. I feel so very fortunate to have such a nice and delightful child filled with kindness, someone who adults beam at as he yells hello to them and introduces himself as Graham Cracker. I take him places and I try very hard to bite my tongue when he loses yet another jacket or says something that makes absolutely no sense. But I get in bed each night and feel guilty about how I have not really stuck to my guns and tried to be patient. And I have yelled – a thing I promised myself, in my days before kids – that I would never do.
It's not that I want a mother of the year award. I certainly don't want a different child. I think what I really want is to raise a child who is kind, self-confident, and generous. A child who gives back to the world, forms bonds and friendships with all different people, and I can definitely see that Graham, already at age six, is that kind of person. This past spring, I attended an amazing birthday party where the birthday girl asked each of us to submit our favorite poem. Her sister's choice is the one you will see below. I cry every time I read it. I want to be that mother. The one who inspires a poem as beautiful and moving as this one.
The Lanyard
by Billy Collins
The other day I was ricocheting slowly
off the blue walls of this room,
moving as if underwater from typewriter to piano
when I found myself in the L section of the dictionary
where my eyes fell upon the word lanyard.
No cookie nibbled by a French novelist
could send one into the past more suddenly-
a past where I sat at a workbench at a camp
by a deep Adirondack lake
learning how to braid long thin plastic strips
into a lanyard, a gift for my mother.
I had never seen anyone use a lanyard
or wear one, if that's what you did with them,
but that did not keep me from crossing
strand over strand again and again
until I had made a box
red and white lanyard for my mother.
She gave me life and milk from her breasts,
and I gave her a lanyard.
She nursed me in many a sick room,
lifted spoons of medicine to my lips,
laid cold face-cloths on my forehead,
and then led me out into the airy light
and taught me to walk and swim,
and I, in turn, presented her with a lanyard.
Here are thousands of meals, she said,
and here is clothing and a good education.
And here is your lanyard, I replied,
which I made with a little help from a counselor.
Here is a breathing body and a beating heart,
strong legs, bones and teeth,
and two clear eyes to read the world, she whispered,
and here, I said, is the lanyard I made at camp.
And here, I wish to say to her now,
is a smaller gift – not the worn truth
that you can never repay your mother,
but the rueful admission that when she took
the two-tone lanyard from my hand,
I was as sure as a boy could be
that this useless, worthless thing I wove
out of boredom would be enough to make us even.


text:
Blake Lively was too busy getting married to be at New York Fashion Week. And though she reps Gucci now she didn't show up for the Gucci show in Milan either. She used to however be front row for a fee. The Hollywood Reporter published an article yesterday about celebrity presence at the runway presentations and how much they're being paid. $50k was supposedly Blake's rate. Rihanna goes for $100K. Except for Chanel. When it comes to Chanel it's almost the other way around. If anything you pay them for an invitation. If you're good enough.
This is my favourite part:
"High-end deals (to bring celebrities to the front row) usually are exclusive; if a star goes to just one show (like Jennifer Lawrence, seated next to Harvey Weinstein, at Dior in July), bank on them having been paid in kind or as part of an ad contract requiring their attendance. Still, some actresses come on their own steam just for the PR hit and chance to play dress-up (though those dresses will be messengered back the next morning, no keepsies allowed)."
Ashley Greene?
Here's Blake on set of Gossip Girl today in New York. Interesting to see, going forward, if she'll be accepting the front row invitations anymore, or if that's not on-brand now that she's married and bakes in her white house with the white fence with Martha Stewart. Mrs Reynolds was very particular about not wanting to give the appearance that she sold her wedding photos - click here for a refresher - intent instead on portraying an image of wholesome perfection around her wedding and marriage. So... I guess we can't talk about whether or not a lot of her wedding services came in for free specifically because they would be featured on Martha Stewart Weddings? At least that's what I've heard. Kanye West's girlfriend did that too, right?
Blake was in New Orleans last weekend on a girls' trip with Amber Tamblyn and Alexis Bledel. They were spotted at Stein's deli on Magazine Street and America Ferrera may have been there too but Blake is standing in front of her in the photo I saw (not posted) and I can't be sure if that's her. I love that they all still hang out.


text:
Welcome to the world of Sennheiser Business Communication!
Our mission is to be your strong partner for audio solutions with the goal of optimizing your working and learning environments.
With our market-leading products for touchless audio and digital wireless technology, as well as our traditional solutions, we are your perfect partner. Through our network of global partnerships, we offer you the freedom and flexibility to design your own ecosystem without restrictions.
Discover our solutions for yourself or contact us now and become part of the Sennheiser family.
We offer the optimal solution for every type of communication occasion – from important lectures and presentations, touchless audio meetings with 100% freedom to unlimited, barrier-free information transfer. Select your application or go directly to your preferred solution or product to get more details.


text:
- Title
- 'Girls get going' : Using Game Sense to promote sport partication amongst adolescent girls in rural and regional contexts
- Creator
- Mooney, Amanda; Casey, Meghan
- Date
- 2014
- Type
- Text; Book chapter
- Identifier
- http://researchonline.federation.edu.au/vital/access/HandleResolver/1959.17/100643
- Identifier
- vital:10577
- Identifier
- http://library.federation.edu.au/record=b2615252
- Identifier
- Abstract
- Albert Einstein once defined the term 'insanity' as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Whilst we are not advocating that attempts to address issues surrounging girls' physical activity (PA) participation are in vain or that all attempts have been similare in nature, we do acknowledge that these concerns, and research conceived to address these issues, are not particularly new. In fact, many authors have discussed the reported decline in PA participation by adolescent girls (and the reasons for this) both within Australian contexts (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011; Garrett 2004; Slater and Tiggemann 2010; Wright, Macdonald and Groom 2003) and internationally (Flintoff and Scraton 2001; O'Donovan and Kirk 2008). More recently, similar trends have been highlighted in research conducted in Australian rural and regional contexts (Barnett et al. 2002; Casey, Eime, Payne and Harvey 2009).
- Publisher
- Routledge, imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
- Relation
- Contemporary developments in games teaching Chapter 7 p. 103-117
- Rights
- Copyright © 2014 Richard Light, John Quay, Stephen Harvey, and Amanda Mooney. (The right of the editors to be indentified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.)
- Rights
- This metadata is freely available under a CCO license
- Subject
- Games teaching; Physical education; Team sport coaching; Youth sport; Positive pedagogy; Game sense; Adolescent girls; Rural and regional contexts
- Reviewed
- Hits: 3057
- Visitors: 2985
- Downloads: 1


text:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Item #: AD3974
All Products
(22 Total)
View by Size:
Getting , please wait.
|The movie that put the "power" in power tools. An idyllic summer afternoon drive becomes a nightmare for a group of young people pursued by a chainsaw-wielding maniac. Made with tongue firmly in cheek, this is nevertheless a mesmerizing saga of gore, flesh, mayhem, and violence.
|Directed by:
|Tobe Hooper
|Tobe Hooper, Bryanston Pictures
|Marilyn Burns, Allen Danzinger, Paul A. Partain, William Vail, Teri McMinn, Edwin Neal, Jim Siedow, Gunnar Hansen, John Dugan, Jerry Lorenz


text:
Thursday, May 9, 2013
bike to work day 2013
this guy recognized me from my organizing with SF bike party.
intersection of market and van ness
through the foggy (non-purple) haze, you can see SF's very own new bicycle counter.
this guy just wanted to be number 1000, but he was really one of the cheerleaders near the bike counter.
from standing near the bike counter, public bikes' dan and i both noticed that the counter seemed not to be very good at counting when groups of riders passed by the counter. it also doesn't count them if they are NOT in the bike lane. the sensor is just near the bike counter.
baby steps but BIG baby steps for SF's very own bicycle counter! happy bike to work day everyone.
11 comments:
That's pretty neat. We have BTWD as well but its not nearly that sophisticated.ReplyDeleteReplies
one day...one day it will be! at least we can hope it will.Delete
- AnonymousMay 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Thanks for sharing. Love the happy (bicycling)faces and the bike-counter ... very encouraging.ReplyDelete
My best regards
thanks for the comment L!Delete
a bike counter? shut up, sf! so cool. :)ReplyDeleteReplies
come back and ride past it yourself! be counted!! woot. hehe.Delete
We had Bike to Work Week in April here in Phoenix due to the heat. Very successful but we also had some questions about undercounting, especially on the light rail. A country-wide bike count will soon be undertaken. A consultant has been hired and bike count committee is in the process of making recommendations as to what procedures to use.ReplyDeleteReplies
oh yeah? interesting! i'll have to read about that and then see what's going on with the counter here in sf.Delete
I have also found lot of cyclist friends in my commute to the office today! It was awesome!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 29, 2013 at 6:32 PM
I bike to work almost every day, too. You guys might want to check this out http://www.s3performance.com.au/shop/apparel/road-bike-gear/kevlar-jeans/120303, as these are really good pants for biking. They make decent office attire to boot (perfectly matches with my polo shirts).ReplyDelete
That's an awesome looking bike, nice to get around town with a bike. Makes you feel so free. I've not rode a bike with those kind of handlebars before, mine are straight but it's a similar set up. Really cool looking guys.ReplyDelete


text:
Show SummaryAdam opens the show with a metaphor about cherries, and how it relates to Dr. Drew's passion. The guys also joke about bota bags, and talk about how everyone they know is hooked on Mangria. The guys then discuss how culture has shifted since the 70s, and why 'butt funneling' has become a trend. Later they jump to the phones to chat with fans about the legalization of marijuana, fertility clinics, and why it's never easy to break up with someone. As the show wraps up, Adam and Dr. Drew talk to a guy who's dating a woman with kids and doesn't want to traumatize them.
LinksBe sure to visit http://DrDrew.com and follow him on Twitter @DrDrew.
Show CreditsProducer: Mike Lynch Producer: Mike Dawson Audio/Voice Over/Post-Production: Mike Dawson Newsgirl: Alison Rosen Sound Effects: Bryan Bishop Associate Producer: Gary Smith Technical Director: Chris Laxamana Show Summary: Matt Fondiler
Image Gallery


text:
by Judith Curry
To date, I've kept Climate Etc. a "tree ring free zone," since the issues surrounding the hockey stick are a black hole for conflict and pretty much a tar baby, IMO. Further, paleoproxies are outside the arena of my personal research expertise, and I find my eyes glaze over when I start reading about bristlecones, etc. However, two things this week have changed my mind, and I have decided to take on one aspect of this issue: the infamous "hide the decline."
The first thing that contributed to my mind change was this post at Bishop Hill entitled "Will Sir John condemn hide the decline?", related to Sir John Beddington's statement: It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence.
The second thing was this youtube clip of physicist Richard Muller (Director of the Berkeley Earth Project), where he discusses "hide the decline" and vehemently refers to this as "dishonest," and says "you are not allowed to do this," and further states that he intends not to read further papers by these authors (note "hide the decline" appears around minute 31 into the clip). While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate, including a controversial paper that supported McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis.
The question I am asking myself is what is my role as a scientist in challenging misuses of science (as per Beddington's challenge)? Why or why not should I personally get involved in this? Is hiding the decline dishonest and/or bad science?
Explanations, interpretations, and misrepresentations of "hide the decline"
Realclimate describes the issue as follows:
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Steve McIntyre has quite a different intepretation. With regards to Briffa 1998:
Despite relatively little centennial variability, Briffa's reconstruction had a noticeable decline in the late 20th century, despite warmer temperatures. In these early articles [e.g. Briffa 1998], the decline was not hidden.
For most analysts, the seemingly unavoidable question at this point would be – if tree rings didn't respond to late 20th century warmth, how would one know that they didn't do the same thing in response to possible medieval warmth – a question that remains unaddressed years later.
Briffa et al 1998a (Nature 391): During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.
With regards to the IPCC TAR:
In a post-mortem a few weeks later, Coordinating Lead Author Folland wrote that, although a proxy diagram was "a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary", the Briffa reconstruction "dilutes the message rather significantly", adding that this was "probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present". Mann wrote that "everyone in the room" agreed that the Briffa series was a "potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show". Briffa recognized there was "pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more '", but expressed many caveats, in particular that the proxies were not responding the way that they were supposed to and that that the recent warmth was "probably matched" 1000 years ago.
Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have to give it fodder! (Mann Sep 22, 0938018124.txt)
And on and on, McIntyre provides substantial documentation for his analysis.
With this context, the media has continued to completely misrepresent the situation, being inconsistent with either the RC or McIntyre analyses. Tim Lambert provides a summary of recent inaccurate media statements, here is a common example:
4 February 2011, Investor's Business Daily: The ClimateGate scandal was a direct result of scientists — and we use the term loosely — at Britain's Climate Research Unit and others, such as Michael Mann, conspiring to manipulate data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.
The obvious inaccuracy of such statements and their easy refutation distracts from addressing the substantive issues raised by McIntyre.
Bad science and/or dishonesty?
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre's insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors' interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don't dilute the message) that resulted in the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
McIntyre's analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don't.
Can anyone defend "hide the decline"? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.
State of the paleoreconstruction science
This raises the issue as to whether there is any value at all in the tree ring analyses for this application, and whether these paleoreconstructions can tell us anything. Apart from the issue of the proxies not matching the observations from the current period of warming (which is also the period of best historical data), there is the further issue as to whether these hemispheric or global temperature analyses make any sense at all because of the sampling issue. I am personally having a difficult time in seeing how this stuff has any credibility at the level of "likely" confidence levels reported in the TAR and AR4.
I am really hoping that the AR5 will do a better job of providing a useful analysis and assessment of the paleodata for the last millennium. However I am not too optimistic. There was another Workshop in Lisbon this past year (Sept 2010), on the Medieval Warm Period. The abstracts for the presentations are found here. No surprises, many of the usual people doing the usual things.
I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change. I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years. I'm more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick. I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).
I don't want to throw the baby away with the bath water here. But this whole issue is a big problem for the science and has been an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate science. I suspect that many denizens will be on board with my assessment and are very familiar with McIntyre's analysis. I would be particularly interested in hearing from any defenders of these global paleotemperature analyses by Mann et al.
If there is a problem, lets get to the bottom of it and fix it.


text:
The Craft Construct feat allows a spellcaster to create all manner of permanent constructs in a process much like magic item creation. Each construct has a purchase price and a crafting cost, along with a list of requirements and the skills used to create them. Some require special materials in addition to the cost for basic crafting supplies, generally for the construct's body. Special material costs increase both the purchase price and the crafting cost of the construct. The DC to craft a construct is 5 + the default caster level of the construct, just like for a magic item. Like when crafting magic items, a creator with a sufficiently high skill bonus may ignore these requirements. Each missing requirement increases the Craft DC by 5. Regardless, the creator must meet all item creation feats and minimum caster level requirements. Crafting a construct takes 1 day per 1,000 gp in the item's base price, excluding any special material costs. This process is identical to the process for crafting a magic item, including the rules for accelerating creation and handling interruptions.
Animated Objects
Not all constructs are built with the Craft Construct feat. Spells like animate objects allow a caster to temporarily animate an existing object. These constructs are in many ways weaker than manufactured constructs, as they are susceptible to dispelling and antimagic.
A caster can use the animate objects spell to instantly create a temporary construct. A permanency spell cast upon an Animated Object makes the construct permanent; however, it can still be dispelled or suppressed by antimagic. Craft Construct creates permanent animated objects not susceptible to dispelling and antimagic. The CR of a potential Animated Object depends on its size and abilities (see Animated Object.)
Animated Object
CL 11th; Price as determined by CR
Craft Construct, animate objects, permanency; Skill Spellcraft or appropriate Craft skill; Cost 1/2 price
Alternative Creation Rules
Source Pathfinder 43: Haunting of Harrowstone
Magic-users can create permanent animated objects in one of two ways, either by using the animate objects spell in conjunction with permanency, or by making use of the Craft Construct feat. Using the Craft Construct feat requires the creator to construct or purchase the object he wishes to animate. He must then spend an amount of gold on reagents—to determine the amount, add the animated object's HD to its CP, and multiple the total by 1,000. The creator must be of a caster level equal to or higher than the animated object's Hit Dice.
Animated Object
CL varies (equal to the animated object's HD); Price varies (cost of object + [(animated object's HD + CP) × 1,000])
Craft Construct, animate objects, permanency; Skill optional (determined by object being created; crafting the object reduces its cost); Cost 1/2 price
New Animated Object Abilities
The following are new abilities that can be applied to animated objects, whether created by the animate objects spell or with the Craft Constructs feat. Adding to these abilities requires the expenditure of Construction Points (CP).
Augmented Critical (Ex, 1 CP): Increase the threat range for the animated object's melee attacks by 1 or the threat multiplier by 1. This cannot combine with itself or with the piercing attack or slashing attack object abilities.
Exceptional Reach (Ex, 1 CP): The object gains +5 feet of reach with one melee attack. Increase reach on all attacks for an additional +1 CP.
Improved Attack (Ex, 1 CP): All the animated object's melee or ranged attacks do damage as though it were one size category larger. A crafter must purchase Improved Attack separately for melee and ranged attacks.
Piercing Attack (Ex, 1 CP): Replace one melee attack with an attack that does the same amount of piercing damage and has a ×3 multiplier. Replace all melee attacks for an additional +1 CP. Object abilities that specify slam attacks do not work on piercing attacks.
Ranged Attack (Ex, 2 CP): Replace one slam attack with a ranged attack. It does the same amount of damage, and has a range of 20 feet. Replace all attacks for an additional +2 CP. Object abilities that specify slam attacks do not work on ranged attacks.
Slashing Attack (Ex, 1 CP): Replace one slam attack with an attack that does slashing damage and has either a 19–20 threat range (for blade-like attacks) or a ×3 threat multiplier (for axe- or scythelike attacks). Replace all melee attacks for an additional +1 CP. Object abilities that specify slam attacks do not work on slashing attacks.
Trip (Ex, 2 CP): The object gains the trip special ability with one of its slam attacks.
Building New Constructs
Constructs typically have no Intelligence score, an average Wisdom score, and a Charisma of 1. Their dexterity is usually poor to average, though exceptionally nimble constructs do exist. Nearly all constructs of size Medium or larger have high Strength scores; constructs never have a Constitution score.
The monster creation rules serve as your best guide for designing a new construct. New constructs should stick fairly close to the those presented on Table: Monster Statistics by CR. As they are usually mindless combat brutes, most use the "high attack" column, with damage falling in between the High and Low average damage columns. Note that all the construct's saving throws are likely to be poor, and they have no favored saves. Lacking a Constitution score, a construct's hit points also tend to be low in comparison to creatures with similar CRs. Consider giving any construct that doesn't have either damage reduction or hardness a higher AC to compensate.
Table: Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2 Constructs
Pricing a New Construct
This section provides guidelines for those seeking to calculate the costs of crafting their own constructs. As a rough guideline, a construct's price is equal to its challenge rating squared, then multiplied by 500 gp. Constructs with a fractional CR rating base their price on that fraction of 500 gp. For example, a CR 1/2 construct has a price of 250 gp. The cost of magical supplies for the Craft Construct feat is half this price, with the construct taking 1 day to create per 1,000 gp of the construct's base price. Some constructs, particularly golems, have additional raw material costs that must be paid in full, regardless of whether the creator possesses the Craft Construct feat. Raw materials typically cost somewhere between 5% and 10% of the construct's base price.
Constructs with multiple special abilities cost more to create. The first special ability is included in the construct's base cost. The next two special abilities increase the calculated price by +1/2 CR per ability. Thereafter, any additional special abilities add +1 CR per ability. Examples of special abilities include having a higher DR value than a typical construct of its CR (above DR 5 for CRs 1–8, above DR 10 for CR 9+), monster statistics that exceed those recommended for the construct's CR, the standard golem immunity to magic, DR or hardness that can't be overcome by all adamantine weapons, ability to be fully healed by a single spell, and most special attacks and special qualities.
Particularly powerful special abilities, such as an iron golem's exceptionally high attack bonus, count as two lesser abilities. Animated objects are a special case—their base price is not increased by any abilities paid for with Construction Points, since these abilities are already factored into an Animated Object's CR. In addition, golems and homunculi created with extra Hit Dice, the advanced template, or shield guardian abilities should all be priced as described in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary, rather than by adjusting pricing for their new CR.
Abilities that weaken or potentially place a construct at a disadvantage rarely reduce the construct's price. An exception is the berserk ability. Constructs that have a chance of going berserk receive –1 CR adjustment to their calculated price if control can be reestablished (like a flesh golem) or –2 CR adjustment for permanent loss of control (like a clay golem). The following is an example of the calculated costs for creating a stone golem (CR 11). A stone golem's special abilities are golem immunity to magic, full healing from transmute mud to rock, a high to-hit bonus (+22 vs. the +19 typical for CR 11), and the ability to slow its foes. Further, since its spell vulnerabilities are not tied to common spells or effects, its immunity to magic cost is doubled, giving the stone golem a total of 5 special abilities. The first special ability doesn't affect the cost, the next two increase the cost by +1/2 CR each, and the final two each increase the cost by +1 CR individually, making its effective CR for pricing equal to 14. This produces a calculated price of 98,000 gp, rounded up to an even 100,000 gp.
When designing a new construct, keep in mind that the above pricing formula only serves as a guideline. As with magic items, construct pricing remains more art than science, and like magic items, compare new constructs to existing ones for guidance. If you're not sure, err on the side of a higher price.
Repairing Constructs
Even with the best of care, most constructs will eventually become damaged. Unless a construct suffers some sort of structural damage that radically alters its physical form, the construct continues to function at its full efficiency, and only falls apart once reduced to 0 hit points. Ideally, however, a construct should see some repair before it reaches that point. The make whole or rapid repair spells provide the easiest way to keep a construct in good condition. Both spells repair damaged constructs, even magic-immune ones like golems. Failing that, a crafter can repair a construct with the Craft Construct feat. When repairing a construct, its master spends 100 gp per Hit Die of the construct, and then makes a skill check as if he were crafting the construct with a DC of 5 less than the DC for crafting that construct. With a success, the construct regains 1d6 hit points per Hit Die of the construct. Completing a repair takes 1 day per 1,000 gp spent on the repair (minimum of 1 day). Repair in this way can only be performed while the construct is inanimate or nonfunctioning. At any time, a construct's creator can deactivate a construct under his control with a touch and a standard action.
A construct that has been completely destroyed cannot be repaired, though at the GM's option some of the materials may be usable in the construction of a new construct.
Additionally, some constructs have special means of repair, usually involving spells related to the golem's nature (such as the use of acid damage to heal a clay golem.)
Construct Modifications
Standard constructs can be modified to enhance their base abilities, alter their appearance or function, or perform a variety of tasks beyond the intentions of their basic designs. Performing a modification provides a construct's creator with a simple way to create a unique construct. A modification can only be performed while the construct is inanimate or nonfunctioning. Performing modifications on one's own construct requires the Craft Construct feat, and the creator must pay any additional crafting requirements and/or costs associated with the modification. Completing a modification requires 1 day per 1,000 gp of the modification's base price (minimum 1 day).
Basic Modifications
These modifications are used to alter a construct's basic properties: Armor Class, Hit Dice, and weaponry.
Armor Modification: This modification adds an enhancement bonus to the construct's natural armor bonus or adds a magic armor property. The cost for magical enhancements equals the cost for creating magic armor.
Hit Dice Modification: Hit Dice represent the overall strength and power of a construct. They affect a number of subsequent abilities, including hit points, saving throws, and base attacks. Determine the effects of a Hit Dice modification using the rules for adding creature Hit Dice on pages 290–291 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary. Because a construct's size is limited, a Hit Dice modification cannot increase its size. Therefore Hit Dice modification can never increase the base construct's Hit Dice beyond 50% of its total HD. Some constructs have a defined cost for increasing Hit Dice. To calculate the cost per Hit Die of other constructs, divide the construct's construction cost by its existing Hit Dice.
Weapon Modification: This modification enhances a construct's physical weaponry. This process includes adding actual weapons (such as blades or spiked chains) to the physical structure of the construct or enhancing existing weapons with additional magical properties. Structural changes alter the construct's damage only. A construct is automatically considered proficient with any weapon added to its structure as a weapon modification. The cost for adding a weapon is determined by the cost of the weapon or weapon enhancement added. The cost for magical enhancements to these weapons is the same as the cost for creating magic weapons as described on page 468 of the Core Rulebook. Performing a weapon modification also requires the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat.
Ability Score Modification: Using this modification, a crafter can permanently increase one of the construct's ability scores by +2 per modification. He cannot increase any abilities with a score of 0. The cost for permanently increasing an ability score is 5,000 gp.
Complex Modifications
These modifications represent more complex changes to the structure and function of the construct. The cost is equivalent to the minimum level to cast the spell × the spell level × 250 gp.
Bioconstruct Modification
Requirements: Craft Construct, regenerate
CR increase: +1
Cost: 22,750 gp
Merging the arts of transmutation and necromancy, powerful spellcasters work living organs into a golem, imbuing it with properties normally associated with beings that are alive. These organs are placed in canopic jars of specially prepared arcane fluids that are then sealed into the golem's body, though not necessarily in anatomically correct locations. Specific organs produce specific effects. Each organ is counted as a separate upgrade, and the costs of multiple bioconstruct organs are cumulative. Bioconstruct upgrades only work with golems, and cannot be placed into animated objects. All bioconstruct upgrades have the same weakness—they are susceptible to critical hits. An attacker that confirms a critical hit against a golem with a bioconstruct upgrade deals damage to the construct and also destroys one upgrade. The damaged upgrade ceases to function and the construct loses abilities associated with the upgrade. If a construct has more than one bioconstruct upgrade, only one is damaged. The GM randomly determines the damaged organ.
Construct Armor
Requirements: Craft Construct, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, animate objects, the construct modified must be the same size as the creator
CR increase: +1
Cost: 35,000 gp
This modification allows the construct to be worn like armor by its creator. So long as the creator wears it, the construct performs no independent actions, remaining under the control of the creator, and any attacks directed at the wearer first damage the construct. When a construct is destroyed while serving as armor, the wearer loses all the benefits, but regains all the hindrances until the armor is removed, which takes the same amount of time that removing breastplate armor does. If the construct is still active, the creator can order the removal of the armor with a swift action, at which point the construct leaves the creator's space and enters a space adjacent to the creator. Donning construct armor takes a full-round action if the construct is still active. The creator cannot don a construct with this modification if the construct has been destroyed. The construct's wearer retains his base attacks and saves. Construct armor counts as breastplate armor for purposes of determining AC, weight, Dexterity modifiers to AC, and chance of arcane spell failure.
Crafter's Eyes
Requirements: Craft Construct, scrying
CR increase: none
Cost: 8,000 gp
The crafter gives her construct crystalline eyes that permit her to use a scrying or greater scrying spell to see from the perspective of her creation. This modification requires the crafter also to prepare a special crystalline orb magically bonded to the eyes, which serves as her focus for the scrying or greater scrying spell. The cost of creating that focus is included in the cost of modifying the construct. Unlike normal scrying or greater scrying, there is no chance of failure for viewing creatures though the sensor; the creator simply sees what the construct sees for the duration of the spell. Spells cast through the sensor still have the normal chance of operating through the construct's eyes.
Construct Limb
Requirements: Craft Construct, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, animate objects, Small or Tiny construct
CR increase: none
Cost: 27,000 gp
This modification can be performed on a Small or Tiny construct, such as an iron cobra or a homunculus. The creator modifies the construct such that she can slip it over her arm and control its actions as part of her own. The construct limb retains any melee attacks that the construct has, and the creator can use special attacks as if she were the construct (using the construct's attack statistics and effects), but treat the creator as the creature making attacks for the purpose of determining attacks of opportunity and other actions that could be triggered by an attack made by the creator.
The limb also provides the wearer with limited protection in combat, roughly equivalent to that of a heavy steel shield. The wearer is considered proficient in this shield. The wearer retains the remainder of her abilities.
A construct limb counts as a heavy steel shield for purposes of determining AC, weight, Dexterity modifiers to AC, and chance of arcane spell failure.
Requirements: Craft Construct, variable (see below).
CR increase: none
Cost: variable (see below)
This subcategory of complex modification allows a construct's creator to carve a runic spell trigger into her creation. Choose one of the following runes. The cost of the rune and any prerequisites are detailed in the rune's description. Once per day, the first time the rune is triggered, its effect occurs. As an immediate action, the creator can attempt to delay the effect until the next time it is triggered. Doing so requires that the construct be within line of sight of the creator (or for the creator to be using scrying or greater scrying through the crafter's eyes construct modification) and that the caster make a Spellcraft check equal to 10 + the caster level of the rune's effect. A construct can have more than one rune-carved modification, and even multiple runes of the same type. If it has multiple applications of the same rune, the first one goes off when it is first triggered, the second one goes off when the trigger happens next, and so on. Multiple runes of different types go off when first triggered, even if the different runes share similar triggers. It is rumored that there are many more runes than these, but the following are some of the best known and most common runes used by construct crafters.
Rune of Agony
Aura Moderate necromancy; CL 9th
This modification is triggered the first time the modified construct takes damage. Creatures within a 20-foot-radius spread must succeed on a DC 17 Fortitude save or suffer from wracking pains that impose a –4 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks, and ability checks for 1 minute. On a successful saving throw, the creature takes the penalties imposed by the rune for 1 round.
symbol of pain; Cost 18,000 gp
Rune of Imprisonment
Aura Strong conjuration; CL 18th
This rune is triggered the first time the construct is hit with a touch or ranged touch attack spell. The caster of the triggering spells must succeed at a DC 22 Will save or be captured, both body and soul, within a gem embedded in the modified construct's body. The gem holds the caster until either the gem or the construct is destroyed. A gem can only hold one creature at a time; once it captures a creature, the rune does not trigger again until the gem is replaced.
While a creature is trapped within the gem, the gem is vulnerable to critical hits; if an attacker confirms a critical hit, the construct takes damage and the gem is destroyed, releasing the entrapped creature into a space adjacent to the construct. The broken gem must then be replaced before the rune of imprisonment can function again.
trap the soul, gem worth 20,000 gp to serve as the rune's focus; Cost 57,600 gp
Rune of Lightning
Aura faint evocation; CL 5th
This rune is triggered when the modified construct is hit by a melee attack. The rune releases a 5-foot-radius burst of electricity dealing 3d8 points of electrical damage to all creatures within the burst. A successful DC 12 Reflex saving throw halves the damage.
shocking grasp; Cost 2,000 gp
Rune of Shielding
Aura faint abjuration; CL 3rd
This rune is triggered the first time the modified construct is attacked with a melee attack, ranged attack, or magic missile. The construct gains a +4 shield bonus to its Armor Class for 3 minutes. This is a force effect and applies against incorporeal touch attacks.
shield; Cost 1,200 gp
Rune of Terror
Aura moderate necromancy; CL 7th
This rune is triggered the first time a creature moves adjacent to the modified construct. The rune creates 20-foot-radius spread of necromantic energy. Creatures in the area must succeed on a DC 20 Will saving throw or become panicked for 1d4 rounds. If the Will save succeeds, the creature is shaken for 1 round.
fear; Cost 11,200 gp
Shatter Stash
Requirements: Craft Construct, shatter, and variable (see below)
CR increase: none
Cost: variable (see below)
For this subcategory of complex modification, parts of the golem are made with hollowed sections carved from deliberately weaker materials, designed to shatter when struck by attackers. A confirmed critical deals critical damage to the construct and shatters the hollowed section, releasing whatever substance the creator placed inside. Once the shatter stash is damaged, this modification is destroyed (it cannot be repaired). A construct can only have one shatter stash at a time. After the modification is destroyed, the construct can be modified with shatter stash again at the normal cost.
The following are some of the more common shatter stashes, though others exist.
Corrosive Jet Stash
A 15-foot burst of corrosive liquid sprays out of the modified construct's stash. Creatures within the burst must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude saving throw or take 2d6 points of acid damage and be nauseated for 1d4 rounds. On a successful save, the afflicted creature takes no damage but is sickened for 1 round.
fireball; Cost 1,200 gp
Firebomb Stash
A 15-foot burst of fire explodes out of the modified construct's stash. Creatures within the burst must succeed on a DC 12 Reflex saving throw or take 2d6 points of fire damage. A successful save halves the damage.
fireball; Cost 1,200 gp
Frost Mist Stash
A 15-foot burst of frosty mist erupts out of the modified construct's stash. Any creatures within the burst must succeed on a DC 14 Fortitude saving throw or else take 1d6 points of damage and become entangled for 1 round. A successful save halves the damage and the target does not become entangled.
cone of cold; Cost 1,000 gp
Lightning Lash Stash
A 30-foot burst of electricity cracks out of the modified construct's stash. Those within the burst must succeed on a DC 15 Reflex saving throw or take 3d8 points of electrical damage. A successful save halves the damage.
lightning bolt; Cost 1,200 gp
Willsap Gas Stash
A 15-foot burst of toxic gas hisses out of this stash. Living creatures within this burst must succeed on a DC 13 Will saving throw or become confused for 1 round. This is a poison effect.
stinking cloud; Cost 2,000 gp
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ultimate Magic. © 2011, Paizo Publishing, LLC; Authors: Jason Bulmahn, Tim Hitchcock, Colin McComb, Rob McCreary, Jason Nelson, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Sean K Reynolds, Owen K.C. Stephens, and Russ Taylor.


text:
Pats welcome back former greats at camp
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) Bill Belichick looked at the defensive backfield talent standing on the sideline at Gillette Stadium on Friday night and wished it were 10 years ago.
On a day when former All-Pro cornerback Ty Law entered the Patriot Hall of Fame, many of his former teammates and big names from the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins in the four-year run from 2002-2005 showed up to honor him, including Rodney Harrison, Lawyer Milloy, Otis Smith, Troy Brown, and Tedy Bruschi. The defensive backfield was particularly well-represented in the mini-reunion.
''It was a good group here tonight. It really was,'' Belichick said after the team's open practice before a crowd of 22,866. ''It was awesome to see those guys. That's a pretty good secondary standing over there, with Ty and Otis at the corner, Rodney and Lawyer at safety, and then we got Troy Brown who could be our nickel back. That's an awesome group of guys.''
Belichick found moments to relive old times with many of the former Patriots.
The assembled talent, including Law, who wore No. 24 for the Pats, impressed the Pats' present No. 24, All-Pro Darrelle Revis.
''I don't even have words for it. I respect those guys so much,'' he said. ''Going and watching them, watching Ty, learning from Ty, seeing Rodney play as well, you got Troy Brown, he played in the nickel as well. It's great, man.''
The Patriots' last home practice until after their game against the Washington Redskins on Aug. 7 was the closest thing that an NFL training camp practice comes to a party.
Quarterback Tom Brady chatted with former teammates while backups Ryan Mallett and Jimmy Garoppolo took almost all of the snaps. Garoppolo, a second-round draft pick from Eastern Illinois, continued his struggles, at one point completing a long pass to Law, standing well out of bounds.
A few hours earlier, Patriot fans celebrated the career of Law, who became the 20th player and 22nd person to be inducted into the Patriot Hall of Fame. Law, who played 10 years for the Pats, paid tribute to a huge crowd of fans who turned out for the occasion.
''The only reason I'm standing here today is because of Patriot Nation . you fans,'' he said.
Law, an ultra-physical corner who played 15 years in the NFL and had 59 career interceptions, said he was impressed with the way Pats' fans stayed in his corner even after he left to join the Pats' hated rival, the New York Jets.
''When I was sleeping with the enemy, you still had those jerseys on,'' he said.
Law and Patriots owner Robert Kraft even donned specially-made Nike Air Force 1s to re-enact the dance they did on Feb. 5, 2002, in the celebration at Boston's City Hall Plaza after the Patriots won their first Super Bowl.
Law will also be honored during a halftime ceremony at the Patriots Thursday night game on Oct. 16 against the New York Jets.


text:
Date: 2/5/2019
Views: 978
Date: 3/22/2015
Views: 1449
Date: 4/28/2017
Views: 1190
Sucker Punch (2011) movie Wallpaper
A young girl (Baby Doll) is locked away in a mental asylum by her abusive stepfather where she will undergo a lobotomy in five days' time. Faced with unimaginable odds, she retreats to a fantastical world in her imagination where she and four other female inmates at the asylum, plot to escape the facility. The lines between reality and fantasy blur as Baby Doll and her four companions, as well as a mysterious guide, fight to retrieve the five items they need that will allow them to break free from their captors before it's too late